By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Help me out as I have been busy at work. Have Labour announced the end of right to buy and a new era of affordable council social rent property building or is it something else?
If they are going to ramp up house building to actually come close to meeting demand then great. That would lessen the need for ‘social’ housing. Colour me sceptical until it happens though.
I noticed there was nothing about votes for 16 yr olds though. That was a manifesto pledge.
They said before the election that they weren't going to be scrapping RTB. Appointing someone as Secretary of State for Housing who has personally contributed to depleting the social housing stock (and made a decent profit from doing so) was not an encouraging move.
1
King's speech and housing. on 21:29 - Jul 17 with 3418 views
Not a dicky bird in the election campaign or today about social care, and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury confirmed on Channel 4 News today that growth was the only game in town for areas not covered by the manifesto.
As regards growth, this from an IFS report in April is interesting.
"[W]e should be careful not to equate investment with ‘growth-enhancing’ spending: not all investment is productive and not all investment will enhance the supply side of the economy. In particular, much ‘green’ investment can be thought of as allowing us to produce the same amount of GDP in a less environmentally damaging way, rather than allowing us to produce more GDP. That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t do it, but it does mean that we should be sceptical about claims that it will pay for itself by providing a major boost to growth."
[Post edited 17 Jul 2024 21:30]
1
King's speech and housing. on 21:45 - Jul 17 with 3358 views
King's speech and housing. on 21:29 - Jul 17 by DJR
Not a dicky bird in the election campaign or today about social care, and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury confirmed on Channel 4 News today that growth was the only game in town for areas not covered by the manifesto.
As regards growth, this from an IFS report in April is interesting.
"[W]e should be careful not to equate investment with ‘growth-enhancing’ spending: not all investment is productive and not all investment will enhance the supply side of the economy. In particular, much ‘green’ investment can be thought of as allowing us to produce the same amount of GDP in a less environmentally damaging way, rather than allowing us to produce more GDP. That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t do it, but it does mean that we should be sceptical about claims that it will pay for itself by providing a major boost to growth."
King's speech and housing. on 21:05 - Jul 17 by baxterbasics
If they are going to ramp up house building to actually come close to meeting demand then great. That would lessen the need for ‘social’ housing. Colour me sceptical until it happens though.
I noticed there was nothing about votes for 16 yr olds though. That was a manifesto pledge.
Votes for 16 year olds will come later. This ks only applies to the next parliamentary session, they have put forward 38 bill in this KS, that's a lot. It would be nice to have votes for 16 year olds before the local elections, but they have higher priority stuff to get out of the way first. This will happen befre the next general election.
Since a commitment has been given not raise numerous tax levels anything that will cost mega bucks has to wait until there is economic growth. It isn’t clear exactly clear how this will be achieved.
Changing the source of energy does nothing to increase GDP. Deciding not to issue exploration licences to oil industry is likely to reduce GDP as oil/ gas field production declines.
The green argument has valid points but it should be remembered that a significant amount of oil is used for non-energy purposes.
An interesting aspect is the promise to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP. Of course, I am not saying it is the wrong thing to do but it suggests defence will be the first recipient of any increased spending from growth at the expense of other government departments.
I am assuming in all this that the government will not want now to cut spending elsewhere and allocate it to defence, which it could theoretically do.
[Post edited 18 Jul 2024 10:43]
0
King's speech and housing. on 10:47 - Jul 18 with 2868 views
King's speech and housing. on 10:42 - Jul 18 by DJR
An interesting aspect is the promise to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP. Of course, I am not saying it is the wrong thing to do but it suggests defence will be the first recipient of any increased spending from growth at the expense of other government departments.
I am assuming in all this that the government will not want now to cut spending elsewhere and allocate it to defence, which it could theoretically do.
[Post edited 18 Jul 2024 10:43]
They will no doubt hold back until the defence review is completed. It is equally important how money spent, not wasted.
If we increase production levels for ammunition etc for our own use, then donate it to Ukraine it will presumably all count.
King's speech and housing. on 10:47 - Jul 18 by Pinewoodblue
They will no doubt hold back until the defence review is completed. It is equally important how money spent, not wasted.
If we increase production levels for ammunition etc for our own use, then donate it to Ukraine it will presumably all count.
I'm sure this will count.
As it is, were the Government to change how defence spending is defined, we would almost be at 2.5% already according to this from a recent Full Fact article.
"In the most recently completed financial year (2023/24), the UK's defence budget was £54.2 billion, up from £52.8 billion in 2022/23. According to figures published by the government in April, this is expected to increase to £57.1 billion in 2024/25.
However this only represents Ministry of Defence (MOD) spending. When comparing the UK’s spending with other countries, a more common measure is ‘NATO-qualified defence expenditure’, which as we explain more below includes some other spending, such as on armed forces pensions.
In the government figures published in April, the UK’s NATO-qualified defence expenditure was forecast to be £64.6 billion. That’s expected to amount to 2.32% of GDP in 2024/25, up from 2.28% in 2023/24."
Finally, I suppose there is a risk that the defence review will say we will have to dramatically increase defence spending, which in turn could require more than 2.5% of GDP.
EDIT: I have just come across this from a recent House of Commons briefing note.
"The UK has pledged £12.5 billion in support to Ukraine since February 2022, of which £7.6 billion is for military assistance. Funding is being met from the Treasury Reserve and will not come from the Ministry of Defence’s (MOD) main departmental budget. Spending on Ukraine does, however, appear in MOD spending figures towards the end of the financial year as part of the MOD Supplementary Estimates. The new government has said that its support to Ukraine remains “steadfast”."
[Post edited 18 Jul 2024 11:13]
1
King's speech and housing. on 11:21 - Jul 18 with 2769 views
The sound of the political party that in theory represents the poorest in society choosing not to instantly take the simple decision to scrap the 2 child benefit cap that would instantly remove hundreds of thousands of kids outta poverty..
1
King's speech and housing. on 11:36 - Jul 18 with 2738 views
King's speech and housing. on 10:59 - Jul 18 by DJR
I'm sure this will count.
As it is, were the Government to change how defence spending is defined, we would almost be at 2.5% already according to this from a recent Full Fact article.
"In the most recently completed financial year (2023/24), the UK's defence budget was £54.2 billion, up from £52.8 billion in 2022/23. According to figures published by the government in April, this is expected to increase to £57.1 billion in 2024/25.
However this only represents Ministry of Defence (MOD) spending. When comparing the UK’s spending with other countries, a more common measure is ‘NATO-qualified defence expenditure’, which as we explain more below includes some other spending, such as on armed forces pensions.
In the government figures published in April, the UK’s NATO-qualified defence expenditure was forecast to be £64.6 billion. That’s expected to amount to 2.32% of GDP in 2024/25, up from 2.28% in 2023/24."
Finally, I suppose there is a risk that the defence review will say we will have to dramatically increase defence spending, which in turn could require more than 2.5% of GDP.
EDIT: I have just come across this from a recent House of Commons briefing note.
"The UK has pledged £12.5 billion in support to Ukraine since February 2022, of which £7.6 billion is for military assistance. Funding is being met from the Treasury Reserve and will not come from the Ministry of Defence’s (MOD) main departmental budget. Spending on Ukraine does, however, appear in MOD spending figures towards the end of the financial year as part of the MOD Supplementary Estimates. The new government has said that its support to Ukraine remains “steadfast”."
[Post edited 18 Jul 2024 11:13]
Judging by the statements already coming out from the European Political Leaders Summit at Blenheim Palace it is looking pretty clear that defence spending will stay steady, if not rise, under the current administration. Even to a pacifist like me it all sounds very resolute and necessary as a united front to ward off Russia, much more so than the Conservatives ever managed. I wonder if Putin will go quiet for a bit ?
King's speech and housing. on 11:21 - Jul 18 by leitrimblue
The sound of the political party that in theory represents the poorest in society choosing not to instantly take the simple decision to scrap the 2 child benefit cap that would instantly remove hundreds of thousands of kids outta poverty..
1
King's speech and housing. on 11:51 - Jul 18 with 2667 views
King's speech and housing. on 11:21 - Jul 18 by leitrimblue
The sound of the political party that in theory represents the poorest in society choosing not to instantly take the simple decision to scrap the 2 child benefit cap that would instantly remove hundreds of thousands of kids outta poverty..
To be fair it wasn’t exactly promised, until it could be afforded.
Personally I feel it is something we cannot afford not to do. If promises not to increase taxation were not seen as essential, to get elected, then I’m sure the autumn budget would see the necessary increase in expenditure.
King's speech and housing. on 11:51 - Jul 18 by Pinewoodblue
To be fair it wasn’t exactly promised, until it could be afforded.
Personally I feel it is something we cannot afford not to do. If promises not to increase taxation were not seen as essential, to get elected, then I’m sure the autumn budget would see the necessary increase in expenditure.
I don't think they really want to do this, not least because the right wing press will portray it as help for the feckless. Instead, I imagine they will pursue other options of addressing the issue, which I very much doubt will be as beneficial.
It does, however, have a bit of a head of steam behind it, so maybe they will be forced to backtrack but with such a majority maybe not.
[Post edited 18 Jul 2024 12:00]
0
King's speech and housing. on 12:06 - Jul 18 with 2571 views
Their aim is to override local planning decisions. You’re all going to get the centralised authoritarian Daddy knows best state you voted for.
In the spirit of reconciliation and happiness at the end of the Banter Era (RIP) and as a result of promotion I have cleared out my ignore list. Look forwards to reading your posts!
King's speech and housing. on 11:51 - Jul 18 by Pinewoodblue
To be fair it wasn’t exactly promised, until it could be afforded.
Personally I feel it is something we cannot afford not to do. If promises not to increase taxation were not seen as essential, to get elected, then I’m sure the autumn budget would see the necessary increase in expenditure.
I agree, as a country I would suggest we can't afford the future social cost of hundreds of thousands of kids growing up in poverty that could be ended instantly
[Post edited 18 Jul 2024 12:42]
1
King's speech and housing. on 12:11 - Jul 18 with 2537 views
King's speech and housing. on 11:58 - Jul 18 by DJR
I don't think they really want to do this, not least because the right wing press will portray it as help for the feckless. Instead, I imagine they will pursue other options of addressing the issue, which I very much doubt will be as beneficial.
It does, however, have a bit of a head of steam behind it, so maybe they will be forced to backtrack but with such a majority maybe not.
[Post edited 18 Jul 2024 12:00]
Exactly, Labour are refusing to lift hundreds of thousands of our kids outta poverty due to fear of upsetting some Daily Mail reading types..
With Reform waiting in the wings to 'represent' the working class.. Potentially dangerous times ahead..
0
King's speech and housing. on 12:14 - Jul 18 with 2509 views
King's speech and housing. on 10:12 - Jul 18 by GeoffSentence
end to no fault evictions and action on excessive ground rents for leaseholds was included
Yet another law that sounds great in theory, but in practice hinders the very people it's meant to be helping. This adds to the list of reasons why private landlords are pulling out the market altogether, which obviously lowers the availability of rental properties. Supply and demand > higher rents can be asked for.
1
King's speech and housing. on 12:30 - Jul 18 with 2463 views
I agree those wishing to get on the housing ladder whether buying or social housing should have a chance. I did when I bought my Council house back in the early 80's. Whether they should have been sold is another matter, or at least replacements should have been built. What I don't agree with is people who protest against house building are not all NIMBY's. The reason many are against house building in certain areas is because no attempt to put infrastructure to support these houses is forthcoming. Our local surgery has seen several new building projects take place and also been lumbered with two other areas patients. Trying to get an appointment is a nightmare. 45 minutes to get through to a receptionist and then a grilled as to what's wrong with you. Being requested to buy blood pressure monitors, having to travel miles to get a blood test although they have the facilities locally. Being asked to send photo's through to a doctor to assess as problem. How long before we get a Government self diagnosis booklet and we are request to do our own blood tests and then send results to whom it may concern ? Sorry, gone off track a bit. But there's obviously other problems associated with house building like roads, pollution, the fact that many animals are displaced, light pollution etc.
1
King's speech and housing. on 12:57 - Jul 18 with 2402 views
King's speech and housing. on 10:42 - Jul 18 by DJR
An interesting aspect is the promise to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP. Of course, I am not saying it is the wrong thing to do but it suggests defence will be the first recipient of any increased spending from growth at the expense of other government departments.
I am assuming in all this that the government will not want now to cut spending elsewhere and allocate it to defence, which it could theoretically do.
[Post edited 18 Jul 2024 10:43]
4 million children in poverty in this country and we spend 2.5% of GDP on "defence". It's obscene.
2
King's speech and housing. on 13:07 - Jul 18 with 2347 views
King's speech and housing. on 12:30 - Jul 18 by OldFart71
I agree those wishing to get on the housing ladder whether buying or social housing should have a chance. I did when I bought my Council house back in the early 80's. Whether they should have been sold is another matter, or at least replacements should have been built. What I don't agree with is people who protest against house building are not all NIMBY's. The reason many are against house building in certain areas is because no attempt to put infrastructure to support these houses is forthcoming. Our local surgery has seen several new building projects take place and also been lumbered with two other areas patients. Trying to get an appointment is a nightmare. 45 minutes to get through to a receptionist and then a grilled as to what's wrong with you. Being requested to buy blood pressure monitors, having to travel miles to get a blood test although they have the facilities locally. Being asked to send photo's through to a doctor to assess as problem. How long before we get a Government self diagnosis booklet and we are request to do our own blood tests and then send results to whom it may concern ? Sorry, gone off track a bit. But there's obviously other problems associated with house building like roads, pollution, the fact that many animals are displaced, light pollution etc.
How long before you are instructed to ask Alexa before ringing you GP.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
