| Loving Burnham's visions and promises 14:55 - Sep 29 with 21878 views | NthQldITFC |
To paraphrase: "I may have to pay a political price, but I'm going to do these things that our country needs."
Cue the usual, fossilised cynicism from both sides of the spectrum, but I have a good feeling about this bloke.
It won't be possible to achieve everything, but I'd rather someone took a political risk and gave it a bloody good go - there's no point pissing around with an eye on five years time, we need some fundamental change based on all of us, first of all, providing a solid, social base, and developing responsibly from there where possible. |  |
| |  |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 14:42 - Oct 1 with 1197 views | giant_stow |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 14:41 - Oct 1 by balcombeblue |
Err indeed. 1.3m people given the opportunity to own their own home. Over 1,00,000 people into social new homes. Net gain in homes of 400k. If only that had kept on going. |
Again, those people given an opportunity to own their own homes are now quite old. Today's young will never get anything like it.
(sorry, I know you're chatting about something else, but its another example of generational unfairness.) |  |
| |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 14:51 - Oct 1 with 1163 views | balcombeblue |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 14:28 - Oct 1 by Mullet |
So what came before is relevant then but not now? How interesting.
Again, your attempt to drag everything into semantics is a typical right wing playbook cop out. You tried it last time and defended some horrible views, you’re doing it now and just looking silly. |
You’ve made no arguments against the points I raised.
Calling it a right wing play doesn’t make the history disappear. I’ve not made a semantic argument at all. I’ve provided some thoughts on the policy of the time, why they were made and what happened after.
I’ve not defended horrible views on here or anywhere. Don’t attack me personally please. |  | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 14:54 - Oct 1 with 1154 views | balcombeblue |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 14:42 - Oct 1 by giant_stow |
Again, those people given an opportunity to own their own homes are now quite old. Today's young will never get anything like it.
(sorry, I know you're chatting about something else, but its another example of generational unfairness.) |
I completely agree on that. My grandparents were all in that situation and were able to build their own capital as a result. I think deployed properly it’s a great model.
We all know there isn’t really any such thing as fairness. But the opportunity to own capital for people who don’t is a great step of social mobility | | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 14:55 - Oct 1 with 1148 views | balcombeblue |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 13:37 - Oct 1 by DJR |
Interesting snippet from the Guardian.
Burnham claimed Brexit had led to more immigrants to the UK wanting to settle permanently.
Speaking to GB News, he said:
One thing that I want to convey here is Brexit has changed the nature of immigration to this country because in the past, when we were in the European Union … what we had was a more revolving door form of migration, where people would come here in their younger years. Many people did from Eastern Europe … They’d maybe spend you know a few years here in their mid to late 20s, and then go home and start a family, and that was a very common form of immigration.
Now, immigration is more likely to be a permanent settlement, where people are coming on a visa to work here. And then we saw obviously the Boris wave and the changes that came through in that in that period. So it’s changed the nature of immigration. |
I agree with immigration changing but not that Brexit is the cause in this specific case.
The same phenomenon happened in Germany with Merkel, that had nothing to do with Brexit.
Similarly in Sweden | | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 15:03 - Oct 1 with 1115 views | DJR |
Talk about the right to buy reminds me of this April Fools Day blog article, on the website of the Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for England and Wales, about long term prisoners being given the right to buy their own cell.
https://www.iclr.co.uk/blog/ar
"The revenue generated from the sale of the specially devised new form of real property interest, known as ‘cellhold’, could help offset the spiralling cost of prison maintenance. It has also been suggested that the scheme, which forms part of the government’s ‘Prison Estate Transformation Programme’ (PETP), could encourage ‘secure’ tenants to take better care of their homes and help them prepare for the realities of life at the bottom rung of the property ladder following their release.
With the prospect of selling on their cellhold interest to an incoming ‘tenant’, prisoners will have an incentive to maintain the property to a high standard. Decoration and home improvement could increase opportunities for ‘purposeful activity’ and contribute towards rehabilitation. It is hoped that the riots of recent years will soon become a thing of the past as inmates develop a sense of cell-pride and perhaps even acquire some of the civilised attributes of home owners on the outside, such as hosting coffee mornings and dinner parties."
Who says the legal profession doesn't have a sense of humour?
Rather worryingly, ChatGPT at the top of my search engine has a precis of this article that doesn't pick up on the fact that it is a joke. [Post edited 1 Oct 15:26]
|  | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 15:14 - Oct 1 with 1077 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 14:41 - Oct 1 by balcombeblue |
Err indeed. 1.3m people given the opportunity to own their own home. Over 1,00,000 people into social new homes. Net gain in homes of 400k. If only that had kept on going. |
Allowing various people to profit significantly but reducing the desperately needed social housing stock by nearly a million.
And now we have a desperate housing crisis |  |
| |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 15:18 - Oct 1 with 1065 views | Blueschev |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 15:14 - Oct 1 by redrickstuhaart |
Allowing various people to profit significantly but reducing the desperately needed social housing stock by nearly a million.
And now we have a desperate housing crisis |
40% of former social housing is now rented out privately. Ever get the feeling you've been cheated? |  | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 15:31 - Oct 1 with 1039 views | balcombeblue |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 15:14 - Oct 1 by redrickstuhaart |
Allowing various people to profit significantly but reducing the desperately needed social housing stock by nearly a million.
And now we have a desperate housing crisis |
eh? It increases it by 400,000? | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 15:35 - Oct 1 with 1019 views | DJR |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 13:08 - Oct 1 by Radlett_blue |
Most of your ills seems to be considered a result of "underfunding". That's possible, so let's have a huge hike in income tax & stop underfunding the NHS, defence, educations, justice, social housing etc etc etc. However, the people won;t vote for that, so our politicians muddle along, without grasping any nettles. |
It is really sad that the desire for lower taxes has dominated the debate these last 45 years.
This has not, to my knowledge, been the case in western European countries that accept the need for higher taxes and have much better services.
And the route we have gone down has led to the highest rates of tax for decades as well as very poor public services.
Sadly, putting Humpty back together is no easy task, and I am not convinced it will necessarily possible to do it. Hence, my scepticism about, say, renatioanlisation being a panacea. despite being a staunch supporter of the nationalised utilities, when they were nationalised. [Post edited 1 Oct 15:37]
| | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 15:40 - Oct 1 with 1003 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 15:31 - Oct 1 by balcombeblue |
eh? It increases it by 400,000? |
What? Building 500k and selling off 1.4m? Interesting maths. | |
| |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 15:45 - Oct 1 with 985 views | balcombeblue |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 15:35 - Oct 1 by DJR |
It is really sad that the desire for lower taxes has dominated the debate these last 45 years.
This has not, to my knowledge, been the case in western European countries that accept the need for higher taxes and have much better services.
And the route we have gone down has led to the highest rates of tax for decades as well as very poor public services.
Sadly, putting Humpty back together is no easy task, and I am not convinced it will necessarily possible to do it. Hence, my scepticism about, say, renatioanlisation being a panacea. despite being a staunch supporter of the nationalised utilities, when they were nationalised. [Post edited 1 Oct 15:37]
|
That is true of Germany and France say, where far higher social security payments are made for Pensions and Healthcare.
But, you can't make that argument without accepting that:
In both countries, wealthier earners have better access to care. In Germany you can opt out of paying altogether. It happens in the UK of course, but companies effectively subsidise private healthcare for many oof their workers.
On wealth inequality:
The Renting Factor: The driver behind this is property ownership. In the UK, Thatcher's "Right to Buy" policy and a cultural push for homeownership mean a huge portion of the working and middle class hold equity in real estate. In Germany, over half the population rents their home. Consequently, the bottom 50% of Germans own very little, while physical property assets remain highly concentrated among wealthy landlords and families. | | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 15:48 - Oct 1 with 972 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 15:45 - Oct 1 by balcombeblue |
That is true of Germany and France say, where far higher social security payments are made for Pensions and Healthcare.
But, you can't make that argument without accepting that:
In both countries, wealthier earners have better access to care. In Germany you can opt out of paying altogether. It happens in the UK of course, but companies effectively subsidise private healthcare for many oof their workers.
On wealth inequality:
The Renting Factor: The driver behind this is property ownership. In the UK, Thatcher's "Right to Buy" policy and a cultural push for homeownership mean a huge portion of the working and middle class hold equity in real estate. In Germany, over half the population rents their home. Consequently, the bottom 50% of Germans own very little, while physical property assets remain highly concentrated among wealthy landlords and families. |
They have better care because their systems are better funded.
Demographics means these things will cost more per worker now. But the conservatives and reform want to press tax down. That has depressed large parts of the public sector with massive knock on effects for education health justice etc etc which in turn act as a brake on the economy and require more tax increases. | |
| |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 15:48 - Oct 1 with 971 views | balcombeblue |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 15:40 - Oct 1 by redrickstuhaart |
What? Building 500k and selling off 1.4m? Interesting maths. |
It's very rare I will say this on here but you are fundamentally wrong. The demand for housing drops by the proportion of people who have bought their own homes. There are now 400,000 extra homes in supply providing space for over 1m people, while nearly 3m now don't need homes.
If this rate had continued post Thatcher, there would be no housing shortage. | | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 15:57 - Oct 1 with 954 views | Whos_blue |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 13:25 - Oct 1 by Ryorry |
"My own personal view"
You've inadvertantly hit the nail exactly on the head (and appear unable, unwilling or both, to understand broader pictures). |
Ryorry - The infamous board Marxist.
Classic! |  |
| "Look, I don't wanna be the same as everybody else. That's why I'm a Mod, see?" |
| |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 16:44 - Oct 1 with 887 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 15:48 - Oct 1 by balcombeblue |
It's very rare I will say this on here but you are fundamentally wrong. The demand for housing drops by the proportion of people who have bought their own homes. There are now 400,000 extra homes in supply providing space for over 1m people, while nearly 3m now don't need homes.
If this rate had continued post Thatcher, there would be no housing shortage. |
As usual you are shifting goalposts. If thatcher built 500k and sold 1.4m, the social housing stock was reduced by 9000k. That is just maths. Why not just say 'yeah, I misread a that or had a moment and got mixed up'. Rather than pretending it was all bout something different.
The argument you now make is something different but still highly debatable. Demographics and social change have significantly increased the need for housing.
Certainly if the rate of building had continued we would be in a much better position. But it didn't. And the stock was massively reduced by thatcher in favour of private sector building and ownership. Now people cant afford houses, and the need is not even close to being properly met in social housing.
Local authorities were not permitted to use the capital to replenish stock (which of course would cost more than was being received anyway) and what we now have is vastly more private landlords, and greater expense, taking profit from the public purse in housing and benefit payments in many situations. [Post edited 1 Oct 16:54]
| |
| |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 18:00 - Oct 1 with 814 views | mellowblue |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 16:44 - Oct 1 by redrickstuhaart |
As usual you are shifting goalposts. If thatcher built 500k and sold 1.4m, the social housing stock was reduced by 9000k. That is just maths. Why not just say 'yeah, I misread a that or had a moment and got mixed up'. Rather than pretending it was all bout something different.
The argument you now make is something different but still highly debatable. Demographics and social change have significantly increased the need for housing.
Certainly if the rate of building had continued we would be in a much better position. But it didn't. And the stock was massively reduced by thatcher in favour of private sector building and ownership. Now people cant afford houses, and the need is not even close to being properly met in social housing.
Local authorities were not permitted to use the capital to replenish stock (which of course would cost more than was being received anyway) and what we now have is vastly more private landlords, and greater expense, taking profit from the public purse in housing and benefit payments in many situations. [Post edited 1 Oct 16:54]
|
You are both correct but from different angles.
The total of housing has increased in that period.
If they had continued to build new social housing at that rate, it would not even be a discussion.
The total of social housing has decreased.
All true statements aren't they ? | | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 18:06 - Oct 1 with 803 views | WeWereZombies |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 14:41 - Oct 1 by balcombeblue |
Err indeed. 1.3m people given the opportunity to own their own home. Over 1,00,000 people into social new homes. Net gain in homes of 400k. If only that had kept on going. |
In any market there comes a point close to saturation and sales slow no matter how much produce is put before the buyer, it is very basic economics but it is also inescapable. So much of monetarism was unsustainable and that's how I ended up paying 15.75% on a mortgage towards the end of Thatcher's time in office. It was her acts of fiscal error that remained unsurpassed...until Liz Truss became Prime Minister. [Post edited 1 Oct 18:09]
|  |
| |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 21:05 - Oct 1 with 691 views | Clapham_Junction |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 12:58 - Oct 1 by balcombeblue |
But harsh to blame thatcher, given her government built more council homes than all subsequent governments put together!
Thatcher ~ 500,000
New Labour <10,000
2010-2024 ~8,000
2024-today ~ 2,000
Where is this preaching of selfishness that you refer to? No public records and in fact many speeches to the contrary.
The list of ills you list and the bottom and attributing them all to thatcher is quite extraordinary. She must have been quite the politician. My own personal view of conservatism is that individual autonomy leads to better outcomes on average than blaming the government for all ills. Accepting it’s not perfect of course. |
Some important context here:
Council house building averaged around 140,000 a year in the decade prior to RTB being introduced. It then declined sharply, dropping to around 30,000 a year by 1985 and under 2,000 a year by 1996. The two main issues were that it became largely pointless building housing if it might have to be sold shortly afterwards (and at well below market price) and RTB receipts initially largely going to the Treasury and unhelpful rules on how the remainder could be spent.
There was no equivalent increase in private sector housebuilding, which had averaged 170,000 per annum in the decade prior to RTB – it actually dropped to 160,000 in the decade after.
This has created numerous legacy issues, including an overall shortage of housing, a particular shortage of social housing (which combined with the abolition of rent controls have meant that the government's housing benefit bill is billions higher than it would otherwise be) and councils having the increased costs and hassle of dealing with leaseholders. A lot of former social housing is now rented out privately at far higher rates than the neighbouring council properties – I think in Tower Hamlets around 80% of RTB flats are now private rents, often in a worse state than the council equivalents but three times the cost.
It's one of the most disastrous domestic policies ever enacted by a British government IMO. |  | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 21:16 - Oct 1 with 676 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 09:11 - Oct 1 by giant_stow |
"For all the talk of fairness to those who paid in, where is the fairness to the young of today, who are funding state pensions for the retired, yet are unlikely to receive one when they retire, and if it does exist at a much higher age. The longer we maintain the current Ponzi scheme, the longer the young get shafted."
So bang on.
And I type as a turkey voting for Christmas here (no private pension, no prospect of a private pension, aged 52), but this is about fairness to the young who will never have the live the generations above did. |
Retirement plan is a grow room! |  |
| "They break our legs and tell us to be grateful when they offer us crutches." | | Poll: | What you watching. |
| |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 21:31 - Oct 1 with 641 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 12:58 - Oct 1 by balcombeblue |
But harsh to blame thatcher, given her government built more council homes than all subsequent governments put together!
Thatcher ~ 500,000
New Labour <10,000
2010-2024 ~8,000
2024-today ~ 2,000
Where is this preaching of selfishness that you refer to? No public records and in fact many speeches to the contrary.
The list of ills you list and the bottom and attributing them all to thatcher is quite extraordinary. She must have been quite the politician. My own personal view of conservatism is that individual autonomy leads to better outcomes on average than blaming the government for all ills. Accepting it’s not perfect of course. |
It’s perfectly reasonable to hold governments to account imo (aka blaming the government) when they get things wrong that fail the people they’re supposed to represent. That should apply to every government.
As for individual autonomy, how’s that worked out for the country over the last generation? Not very well I’d argue given a lot of the metrics. The reality is that the opportunities for individual autonomy are very limited. It’s a bit of a dream sold to people to make them accept less that will only become reality for the very few (only about a million people of working age are estimated to not need to work, and a lot of those will be inheritance jobs). We all live in a state massively impacted by the government (of any colour) and when they feck up we all pay the consequences. Those with money can ride it out, those without get stuffed. |  |
| |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 21:48 - Oct 1 with 623 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 21:31 - Oct 1 by Swansea_Blue |
It’s perfectly reasonable to hold governments to account imo (aka blaming the government) when they get things wrong that fail the people they’re supposed to represent. That should apply to every government.
As for individual autonomy, how’s that worked out for the country over the last generation? Not very well I’d argue given a lot of the metrics. The reality is that the opportunities for individual autonomy are very limited. It’s a bit of a dream sold to people to make them accept less that will only become reality for the very few (only about a million people of working age are estimated to not need to work, and a lot of those will be inheritance jobs). We all live in a state massively impacted by the government (of any colour) and when they feck up we all pay the consequences. Those with money can ride it out, those without get stuffed. |
Social house building cannot be claimed as a virtue when a million more were sold off than built... | |
| |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 23:30 - Oct 1 with 559 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 21:48 - Oct 1 by redrickstuhaart |
Social house building cannot be claimed as a virtue when a million more were sold off than built... |
Quite. And I wonder what it was about the RTB scheme that prevented councils retaining all the sales income that disincentivised further council house building? Hmm, what could it be?  | |
| |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 23:38 - Oct 1 with 553 views | Ryorry |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 13:34 - Oct 1 by balcombeblue |
Are yes, freedom to express personal views. Exactly what Marxists don’t like.
And the confusion of personal autonomy and selfishness as being independent. |
 Well it makes a change from being called "Tory Lite" on here I guess! A wind-up like that does reminds me of a former poster though.
As for "Are yes, freedom to express personal views" - either you've totally missed the point, or again you're being disingenuous. You're not stupid, so I think it's the latter, and you know perfectly well that my comment was in the context of yours being an example of Thatcherite thinking - nothing whatsoever to do with your freedom to express your views, ie the same right as we all have on here as long as within the ts & cs.
Your last sentence doesn't make any sense to me, no idea what you mean. |  |
| |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 08:02 - Oct 2 with 435 views | balcombeblue |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 23:38 - Oct 1 by Ryorry |
Well it makes a change from being called "Tory Lite" on here I guess! A wind-up like that does reminds me of a former poster though.
As for "Are yes, freedom to express personal views" - either you've totally missed the point, or again you're being disingenuous. You're not stupid, so I think it's the latter, and you know perfectly well that my comment was in the context of yours being an example of Thatcherite thinking - nothing whatsoever to do with your freedom to express your views, ie the same right as we all have on here as long as within the ts & cs.
Your last sentence doesn't make any sense to me, no idea what you mean. |
Fair enough! It was a terribly written sentence.
I suppose I meant that being a conservative is often seen as not caring about other people or society. I see it completely the other way. | | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 08:14 - Oct 2 with 427 views | DJR |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 15:45 - Oct 1 by balcombeblue |
That is true of Germany and France say, where far higher social security payments are made for Pensions and Healthcare.
But, you can't make that argument without accepting that:
In both countries, wealthier earners have better access to care. In Germany you can opt out of paying altogether. It happens in the UK of course, but companies effectively subsidise private healthcare for many oof their workers.
On wealth inequality:
The Renting Factor: The driver behind this is property ownership. In the UK, Thatcher's "Right to Buy" policy and a cultural push for homeownership mean a huge portion of the working and middle class hold equity in real estate. In Germany, over half the population rents their home. Consequently, the bottom 50% of Germans own very little, while physical property assets remain highly concentrated among wealthy landlords and families. |
No health system is perfect but France and Germany, as well as countries like Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the Netherland, come out higher than the UK in the various reports on the best healthcare systems in the world.
As regards your second paragraph, and leaving aside the fact that other western European countries with decent public services have similar or higher rates of home ownership than the UK, the fact that the German housing system is different to the UK doesn't necessarily mean it is a bad system, not least because of more regulation of the rental sector.
As it is, my wife's sister and her husband, who live in Germany do own their own but they have friends that do not and who seem content and comfortably well-off.
Finally, I've often thought that wealth tied up in the home is in some ways rather illusory because it can only be accessed on down-sizing or death, although I suppose it does have the advantage of funding care home fees when people get older.
And perhaps the main advantage of home ownership in recent decades in the UK, given the relaxation of rent controls and the like, is an absence of precariousness, subject of course to rising interest rates. [Post edited 2 Oct 8:15]
| | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
