The Political Junkie Thread- UK Edition! Election Aftermath P20+

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Ketara wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

I'm disagreeing again

I think you vastly overestimate the cost of running the Empire. During the 1920s, when the British empire was at its zenith, 40 people administered the Empire from the colonial office. 40 people looking after 500 million! And it still ran smoothly.

Yes. Extremely smoothly. If you consider the fact that there was no healthcare, no education system, no democracy, and indeed, most of the apparatus of a modern government.

India is a good example of this low cost. There were never more than 100,000 soldiers/police in the country, but the cost wasn't too high, because Imperial troops were supplanted by forces (usually policemen) from the local maharajas who paid their cost out of their own pocket.

And the best example is the dominions. Although technically part of the Empire, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa et al, would have paid their own security bills and pretty much everything else.

You're looking in the wrong place, and still wrong regardless I'm afraid.

Firstly, the primary defence cost of the Empire was the Royal Navy. When we were desperate for extra Dreadnoughts pre-WW1, and the Canadian Prime Minister (Borden I think?) offered to try and raise the money to pay for a few, the Canadians shot him down. We shouldered that burden alone more or less, although Australia built a few ships (but didn't want them sent abroad). Secondly, we were the ones who contributed the vast majority of the finance to two World Wars, and shouldered the repayments as well. The gold we sent over to America was stashed in Britain, not New Zealand. Now that's the defence of Empire, not Britain. If we weren't busy trying to saddle the world, we'd never have ended up in WW1 most likely.

Finally, you're overlooking the local administrative costs. The systems for local taxation were primitive and inefficient, and barely gathered in enough to pay for their own administration. The maintenance of ports/recoaling stations/fuel stations were only just about met by taxation on trade.

Other countries like Norway and Switzerland have their bad times, but they bounce back quicker than us due to stronger financial foundations.

Hardly comparable. They don't have economies based on the same things as us, they don't subsidise an armaments trade, they have a far smaller population, and they tack taxation a lot higher. You might as well be comparing us to Saudi Arabia for all the economic sense that relevance has.

As for the regions, I agree with you that equal opportunities spread across the country is pie in the sky, but it doesn't divert from the black hole effect that London has on the rest of us. The North of England has effectively been abandoned at times!

But what would you do? The low-mid tech industrial sector is bloated. There are few natural resources to exploit, with the main one, coal, being unprofitable. The financial sector isn't going to move from London.

It's gakky, but sometimes, the world is gakky. If there's nothing there, there's nothing there.

One final point, we're in a housing bubble s you know, and it will burst as you know. The depressing thing is, though, you can set your watch by when it's going to happen. Again!

Sure. Welcome to boom and bust. I repeat, the system of continuous growth has yet to be invented. If you have a solution, I'm sure the political class would like to know it.

Federalism would be my solution. More power to the regions and Home Rule for Scotland. That would tilt the economic in-balance away from London, in my view.

There are more people in Yorkshire than Scotland, but Yorkshire doesn't even have a fraction of the powers Scotland has.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Well, today is the release of the Labour party's manifesto. I've read it, and to save everybody else the bother of reading it, I'll summarise it:

Labour pledges to do things we said we would do the last time we were in government!

Also, good to see Jim Murphy getting slapped down in Scotland.

I await the Conservative manifesto this week with bated breath.

**Kilkrazy**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Ketara wrote:
I think that Blair saying that nobody should be given a say on anything because people might disagree with them is generally symptomatic of Labour's approach to government. It reeks of the 'We know what's best for you' approach that left wing governments often fall into, and highlights the fact that they don't seem to realise that they're not there to do what they think is best for the country. They're there to do what the majority of the public wants done. If most of Britain decides tomorrow we want to withdraw from NATO, scrap the NHS, and declare war on Tajikistan, that's what the government should be doing, however crazy it might seem.

But then again, perhaps I'm simply naive. All hail our upper middle class/lower upper class political overlords?

I agree - democracy always seems to be a major pain for Westminster when it doesn't suit the main parties.

On another note, though, Ketara, be honest. You and I both voted for Tony Blair, and we're regretting every minute of it until the day we day.

...
...

So did I but it is difficult to remember now the depth of revulsion for the Tory party that existed by the early to mid 90s, and the marvellous image Blair presented of change and hope.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Ketara wrote:
I think that Blair saying that nobody should be given a say on anything because people might disagree with them is generally symptomatic of Labour's approach to government. It reeks of the 'We know what's best for you' approach that left wing governments often fall into, and highlights the fact that they don't seem to realise that they're not there to do what they think is best for the country. They're there to do what the majority of the public wants done. If most of Britain decides tomorrow we want to withdraw from NATO, scrap the NHS, and declare war on Tajikistan, that's what the government should be doing, however crazy it might seem.

But then again, perhaps I'm simply naive. All hail our upper middle class/lower upper class political overlords?

I agree - democracy always seems to be a major pain for Westminster when it doesn't suit the main parties.

On another note, though, Ketara, be honest. You and I both voted for Tony Blair, and we're regretting every minute of it until the day we day.

...
...

That's true. Back then, even Tories didn't like the Tory party.

I think the main reason people hate Blair (leaving aside Iraq) is because they pinned a lot of hope on him, and he failed to deliver.

So did I but it is difficult to remember now the depth of revulsion for the Tory party that existed by the early to mid 90s, and the marvellous image Blair presented of change and hope.

**obsidianaura**

I see the Conservatives are offering an extension of right to buy to cover housing association properties.

I think that money should be ring fenced and used it to build more houses, like they should have done with the original council houses.

I don't think we would have had such a severe housing shortage if that had been done.

**Kilkrazy**

You are right. It was Thatcher's decision to allow council tenants to buy their houses at discount prices while also preventing councils from building more stock that helped lead us into the current situation of unaffordable house prices.

However, the policy will be very popular with inhabitants of housing association properties as they will now be able to cash in on the price boom. In other words it is a pretty obvious bribe.

**obsidianaura**

They have at least required council to sell 5% of their houses and build more on a one for one basis which is a start.

Also the money the housing associations get will go back into building more I suppose.

**Wolfstan**

Just out of interest, has anybody seen any of these 'hard working' people that the politicians keep going on about? They are obviously out there otherwise the buggers wouldn't keep on going on and on and on and on... about them!

Am I less of a person for just going to work and doing my job or should I put a bit more 'vim' in to my efforts?

If I don't will the tabloids start slating me and my ilk within their pages? Oh the shame!!!

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Kilkrazy wrote:
You are right. It was Thatcher's decision to allow council tenants to buy their houses at discount prices while also preventing councils from building more stock that helped lead us into the current situation of unaffordable house prices.

However, the policy will be very popular with inhabitants of housing association properties as they will now be able to cash in on the price boom. In other words it is a pretty obvious bribe.

Agreed. This is the most blatant political bribe I've seen in years. Very short-sighted, and will cause a stack of problems in the not too distant future.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

obsidianaura wrote:
They have at least required council to sell 5% of their houses and build more on a one for one basis which is a start.

Also the money the housing associations get will go back into building more I suppose.

The problem with policies like these though is they forget Barnett consequentials. If they provide more money for houses in England, then proportionally, more money has to be spent in Scotland as well.

An example is when the other day the Tories said they'd spend £8 billion more on the NHS in England, but with Barnett, that figure would rise to £10 billion as NI. Wales, and Scotland would also get more.

I can't trust any figures from the Tories.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wolfstan wrote:
Just out of interest, has anybody seen any of these 'hard working' people that the politicians keep going on about? They are obviously out there otherwise the buggers wouldn't keep on going on and on and on and on... about them!

Am I less of a person for just going to work and doing my job or should I put a bit more 'vim' in to my efforts? If I don't will the tabloids start slating me and my ilk within their pages? Oh the shame!!!

It's just the usual political guff. Remember Mondeo man?

**Ketara**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Agreed. This is the most blatant political bribe I've seen in years. Very short-sighted, and will cause a stack of problems in the not too distant future.

If the government committed to a proper house building project, it wouldn't be an issue. Therein, I think, lies the real problem.....

obsidianaura wrote:
They have at least required council to sell 5% of their houses and build more on a one for one basis which is a start.

Also the money the housing associations get will go back into building more I suppose.

**obsidianaura**

Ketara wrote:

If the government committed to a proper house building project, it wouldn't be an issue. Therein, I think, lies the real problem.....

I've always thought this. It is the main reason why houses are so expensive. Make more, lower the cost of housing. Solve one of the biggest problems for the non boomer generations.

I do really hate new builds though, am I the only one?

You see these new estates and they're all toy towns, all looking the same with their red brickwork and strange white powder on the walls (what is that about?!). There's no parking so the streets are lined with cars outside working hours. Why don't planners realise you need more than one space per household. Having one car parking space for a professional couple doesn't work. People need to drive to work! Oh and heaven forbid you have any friends or relatives that might want to visit!

Sorry to moan, but it is so irritating. It's all very well wanting to encourage people to use public transport but it's good enough for most people.

**Ketara**

obsidianaura wrote:

I've always thought this. It is the main reason why houses are so expensive. Make more, lower the cost of housing. Solve one of the biggest problems for the non boomer generations.

The problem is that it bites against two central Tory tenets. Firstly, it's big government. Taking the responsibility for mass acquisition and development of land requires considerable funding and organisation for minimal return. Secondly, it would affect the housing market in the short term, by dropping house price values, which immediately hits their core voter base (landowners) in the teeth.

There's a reason less houses have been built under the current administration than practically any other administration in living memory.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Ketara wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Agreed. This is the most blatant political bribe I've seen in years. Very short-sighted, and will cause a stack of problems in the not too distant future.

If the government committed to a proper house building project, it wouldn't be an issue. Therein, I think, lies the real problem.....

obsidianaura wrote:
They have at least required council to sell 5% of their houses and build more on a one for one basis which is a start.

Also the money the housing associations get will go back into building more I suppose.

At the moment, the Housing associations have turned into quango style profit chasing companies that twist as many rules as possible to build as few social houses as possible, and as many high value luxury flats as possible.

**obsidianaura**

Ketara wrote:

The problem is that it bites against two central Tory tenets. Firstly, it's big government. Taking the responsibility for mass acquisition and development of land requires considerable funding and organisation for minimal return. Secondly, it would affect the housing market in the short term, by dropping house price values, which immediately hits their core voter base (landowners) in the teeth.

There's a reason less houses have been built under the current administration than practically any other administration in living memory.

Probably doesn't help that quite a few of the Tories are rich and have money in land. Dropping land values wouldn't suit them

.

Their loaning money for deposits for first time buyers scheme I don't think is a good idea, it only pushes the price of houses up. A house is only as expensive as people can afford. Their house saving ISA, the one where you save for 4 years and then buy will probably push house prices up too, although probably in 2 years the price might fall as the demand is lower. Could probably make yourself some profit if you had any spare cash

As for increasing the amount of houses built they could do a few things that might help, maybe relax planning permission so its not as difficult to build, within reason. They should also require the property to be built within x amount of time or it expires. There's lots of property with planning permission ready to be built on but being sat on to make sure they get the largest profits.

**Ketara**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Thing is, though, Ketara, during the 1980s when the Conservatives last championed right to buy, they also promised to build more affordable homes. That came to nothing, and 30 years on, we're struggling with a chronic lack of affordable housing and a whole heap of problems.

Now they're promising right to buy again with the usual bull about building more affordable homes. I'll believe it when I see it.

obsidianaura wrote:

Probably doesn't help that quite a few of the Tories are rich and have money in land. Dropping land values wouldn't suit them .

Their granting extra money to buy houses scheme I don't think is a good idea, it only pushes the price of houses up. A house is only as expensive as people can afford.

Thing is, right to buy actually makes economic sense within a limited context. Unless you want the majority of the country either dependent upon state housing or forced into untenable private rent costs, right to buy is an excellent tool for allowing previously impoverished people to effectively acquire a house at cost, often in expensive areas, as well as encouraging them to invest in something of tangible value. It's a good tool for social mobility generally, which is why so many previously working class families have now effectively migrated to the middle classes.

The problem comes when the balance is not effectively renewed, and sufficient levels of new social housing created to replace that which is sold. Go too far one way, and there's too much housing, which hits savers, landlords, and the economy generally. Go too far the other, and you eventually end up in a classic Marxist version of capitalist society, where the vast majority of the income of the average working man gets swallowed up into paying the vastly inflated rents of their minority capitalist/corporate owners.

**obsidianaura**

Ketara wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Thing is, though, Ketara, during the 1980s when the Conservatives last championed right to buy, they also promised to build more affordable homes. That came to nothing, and 30 years on, we're struggling with a chronic lack of affordable housing and a whole heap of problems.

Now they're promising right to buy again with the usual bull about building more affordable homes. I'll believe it when I see it.

obsidianaura wrote:

Probably doesn't help that quite a few of the Tories are rich and have money in land. Dropping land values wouldn't suit them .

Their granting extra money to buy houses scheme I don't think is a good idea, it only pushes the price of houses up. A house is only as expensive as people can afford.

Thing is, right to buy actually makes economic sense within a limited context. Unless you want the majority of the country either dependent upon state housing or forced into untenable private rent costs, right to buy is an excellent tool for allowing previously impoverished people to effectively acquire a house at cost, often in expensive areas, as well as encouraging them to invest in something of tangible value. It's a good tool for social mobility generally, which is why so many previously working class families have now effectively migrated to the middle classes.

The problem comes when the balance is not effectively renewed, and sufficient levels of new social housing created to replace that which is sold. Go too far one way, and there's too much housing, which hits savers, landlords, and the economy generally. Go too far the other, and you eventually end up in a classic Marxist version of capitalist society, where the vast majority of the income of the average working man gets swallowed up into paying the vastly inflated rents of their minority capitalist/corporate owners.

I don't disagree on the right to buy, I think that's good so long as it replenishes the housing stock afterwards.

I mean the first time buyers deposit loan. Where they will loan 35% of your deposit.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

This will all end in tears.

Long term, only the buy to let mob will benefit from this, and we'll be back to square one.

Boom and bust again. And before Ketara makes the point that no economy in the world is perfect (which I agree with) let's have a stat attack

2 million people on council waiting lists

£6 billion: the cost to the treasury to implement this bribe

600,000: the number of houses Britain needs to build to keep up with demand. The Conservatives and Lib-Dems are promising half of this.

All in all, it adds up to a sorry tale of woe, and short term bribes to get Dave back into number 10!

**Wolfstan**

This sums it all up nicely: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/housing-associations-say-theyll-sue-if-the-tories-force-them-to-sell-off-homes-under-right-to-buy-10175492.html

Housing associations set to be crippled by Conservative plans to extend the right-to-buy policy will launch a legal challenge against the move, they have said.

The Tories announced today that they will force housing associations to sell off homes at a fraction of their value despite warnings that the policy could cause the not-for-profits to go bankrupt.

Tony Stacey, chair of a group of 100 housing associations and chief executive of South Yorkshire Housing Association, told trade publication Inside Housing when the policy was first mooted in March that he would “definitely” launch a challenge.

“I would definitely challenge it legally. This is so fundamentally critical to us. It would shoot up to the top of our risk map if it was confirmed. We are duty bound morally to fight it in any way we possibly can,” the Placeshapers chair told the publication.

Other housing association chief executives are quoted as saying they “would be surprised” if a legal challenge did not happen because the policy would risk the viability of the entire social housing sector.

Because housing associations are private not-for-profit businesses, forcing the sale of homes at below market value could potentially breach Article 1, Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which gives everyone the “right to the peaceful enjoyment of one’s possessions”.

Industry sources also say charity law would have to be changed to accommodate the move because charities, including many housing associations, are generally prohibited from selling off their assets at below market value.

Today’s move by the Conservatives was criticised by both the Chartered Institute of Housing and the National Housing Federation, which represent housing associations and the industry at large.

Ruth Davison, the Federation’s policy director, said: “We fully support the aspiration of homeownership but extending right-to-buy to housing associations is the wrong solution to our housing crisis.

“Following 40 years of successive governments’ failure to build the homes the country needs, soaring rents and house prices and the biggest baby boom since the 1950s, ensuring that there enough homes today and tomorrow must be our nation’s top priority.”

A spokesperson for the Federation said they would need to see the detail of the policy before they could say whether they would support a legal challenge.

CIH deputy chief executive Gavin Smart said he feared “the figures simply won’t stack up” for the extension.

“Right-to-buy has already had a huge impact on the supply of genuinely affordable homes, which is being cut at a time when more and more people are in need. The next government should be reviewing the way the policy currently works, not extending it,” he argued.

David Cameron officially announced the policy in a speech today, arguing that it could benefit 1.3 million families and turn Britain into a “property-owning democracy”.

“We are the party of working people, offering you security at every stage of your life,” he said.

John Healey, a former Labour housing minister, described the policy as a “cheap Thatcher tribute act” and said it would worsen Britain’s housing shortage.

It's so obviously a bribe it's laughable.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Wolfstan wrote:
This sums it all up nicely: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/housing-associations-say-theyll-sue-if-the-tories-force-them-to-sell-off-homes-under-right-to-buy-10175492.html

Housing associations set to be crippled by Conservative plans to extend the right-to-buy policy will launch a legal challenge against the move, they have said.

The Tories announced today that they will force housing associations to sell off homes at a fraction of their value despite warnings that the policy could cause the not-for-profits to go bankrupt.

Tony Stacey, chair of a group of 100 housing associations and chief executive of South Yorkshire Housing Association, told trade publication Inside Housing when the policy was first mooted in March that he would “definitely” launch a challenge.

“I would definitely challenge it legally. This is so fundamentally critical to us. It would shoot up to the top of our risk map if it was confirmed. We are duty bound morally to fight it in any way we possibly can,” the Placeshapers chair told the publication.

Other housing association chief executives are quoted as saying they “would be surprised” if a legal challenge did not happen because the policy would risk the viability of the entire social housing sector.

Because housing associations are private not-for-profit businesses, forcing the sale of homes at below market value could potentially breach Article 1, Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which gives everyone the “right to the peaceful enjoyment of one’s possessions”.

Industry sources also say charity law would have to be changed to accommodate the move because charities, including many housing associations, are generally prohibited from selling off their assets at below market value.

Today’s move by the Conservatives was criticised by both the Chartered Institute of Housing and the National Housing Federation, which represent housing associations and the industry at large.

Ruth Davison, the Federation’s policy director, said: “We fully support the aspiration of homeownership but extending right-to-buy to housing associations is the wrong solution to our housing crisis.

“Following 40 years of successive governments’ failure to build the homes the country needs, soaring rents and house prices and the biggest baby boom since the 1950s, ensuring that there enough homes today and tomorrow must be our nation’s top priority.”

A spokesperson for the Federation said they would need to see the detail of the policy before they could say whether they would support a legal challenge.

CIH deputy chief executive Gavin Smart said he feared “the figures simply won’t stack up” for the extension.

“Right-to-buy has already had a huge impact on the supply of genuinely affordable homes, which is being cut at a time when more and more people are in need. The next government should be reviewing the way the policy currently works, not extending it,” he argued.

David Cameron officially announced the policy in a speech today, arguing that it could benefit 1.3 million families and turn Britain into a “property-owning democracy”.

“We are the party of working people, offering you security at every stage of your life,” he said.

John Healey, a former Labour housing minister, described the policy as a “cheap Thatcher tribute act” and said it would worsen Britain’s housing shortage.

It's so obviously a bribe it's laughable.

Totally agree. In my view, it shows how morally bankrupt the Tories are. Whenever they are in office, if it's not nailed down, they'll sell it. The sale of Royal Mail was a complete shambles, and surprise surprise, the biggest beneficiaries were mates of the Tory party. George Osborne's best man made £40 million out of it. It is crony capitalism at its worst.

The buy to let mob will have a field day with this.

**Ketara**

I find it difficult to sympathise with the housing associations. Y'know, the companies that treat their social housing tenants like pariahs, and regularly try to squirm around to erect as little social housing as possible.

They might be not for profit, but everyone in them is committed ti stealing the largest slice of the pie possible in terms of salaries. The amounts their chief executives get are staggering.

**Kilkrazy**

During the past few decades the amount all chief executives get has become staggering, whether they work in private companies, PLCs or different kinds of charities or the NHS, schools, etc.

**reds8n**

Daily Mail gets to the core of what the electorate are really worried about.

**Steve steveson**

obsidianaura wrote:

You see these new estates and they're all toy towns, all looking the same with their red brickwork and strange white powder on the walls (what is that about?!). There's no parking so the streets are lined with cars outside working hours. Why don't planners realise you need more than one space per household. Having one car parking space for a professional couple doesn't work. People need to drive to work! Oh and heaven forbid you have any friends or relatives that might want to visit!

Sorry to moan, but it is so irritating. It's all very well wanting to encourage people to use public transport but it's good enough for most people.

The white powder on the walls is efflorescence. It is salts leaching out of the bricks. Apparently it can cause problems and should be treated, but most people in these houses don't care about the building they live in. According to my brother (who is a builder) the best way to remove it is a wash of cheap supermarket value coke. Apparently the good stuff does not work, you have to use the really cheap stuff.

Also, I understand that planners do know this, but it is councilors meddling for "green" reasons. They think that if you only build room for one car people will only buy one car... As if people can live like that. They tell you to use public transport, but thats not always possible. Where I live we have just lost our local bus, which was hardly used because it ran 5 times a day, cost £5 to get anywhere and too forever.

Ketara wrote:

Thing is, right to buy actually makes economic sense within a limited context. Unless you want the majority of the country either dependent upon state housing or forced into untenable private rent costs, right to buy is an excellent tool for allowing previously impoverished people to effectively acquire a house at cost, often in expensive areas, as well as encouraging them to invest in something of tangible value. It's a good tool for social mobility generally, which is why so many previously working class families have now effectively migrated to the middle classes.

There is another issue with it. The houses will be sold at a discount, to those who already have a secure place to live at a reasonable rent. People like my friends (I am lucky enough to have been able to buy a small house thanks to a small inheritance that gave me enough boost to our deposit fund) who cannot afford to buy a house due to high house prices and high rent stopping them being able to save the £30k+ needed to buy a house in any reasonable time span, but are too well paid to get social housing. Thanks to the currently horrifically distorted housing market it will lead to a bizarre situation where low and high income people will own houses and those in the middle will be even less secure. It is a bribe to voters who are not traditionally tory voters.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Kilkrazy wrote:
During the past few decades the amount all chief executives get has become staggering, whether they work in private companies, PLCs or different kinds of charities or the NHS, schools, etc.

It remains a mystery to me why jail time wasn't handed out to those bankers that wrecked the economy in 2008.

Edit: scratch that. I think we all know why bankers weren't jailed. Westminster is a corrupt racket.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ketara wrote:
I find it difficult to sympathise with the housing associations. Y'know, the companies that treat their social housing tenants like pariahs, and regularly try to squirm around to erect as little social housing as possible.

They might be not for profit, but everyone in them is committed ti stealing the largest slice of the pie possible in terms of salaries. The amounts their chief executives get are staggering.

I agree with most of this, but letting millionaire landlords snap up even more property is not the answer.

A lot of them built their 'empires' on tax payer funded housing benefits. These parasites got rich at our expense.

That's the scandal that needs to be addressed.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Steve steveson wrote:
obsidianaura wrote:

You see these new estates and they're all toy towns, all looking the same with their red brickwork and strange white powder on the walls (what is that about?!). There's no parking so the streets are lined with cars outside working hours. Why don't planners realise you need more than one space per household. Having one car parking space for a professional couple doesn't work. People need to drive to work! Oh and heaven forbid you have any friends or relatives that might want to visit!

Sorry to moan, but it is so irritating. It's all very well wanting to encourage people to use public transport but it's good enough for most people.

The white powder on the walls is efflorescence. It is salts leaching out of the bricks. Apparently it can cause problems and should be treated, but most people in these houses don't care about the building they live in. According to my brother (who is a builder) the best way to remove it is a wash of cheap supermarket value coke. Apparently the good stuff does not work, you have to use the really cheap stuff.

Also, I understand that planners do know this, but it is councilors meddling for "green" reasons. They think that if you only build room for one car people will only buy one car... As if people can live like that. They tell you to use public transport, but thats not always possible. Where I live we have just lost our local bus, which was hardly used because it ran 5 times a day, cost £5 to get anywhere and too forever.

Ketara wrote:

Thing is, right to buy actually makes economic sense within a limited context. Unless you want the majority of the country either dependent upon state housing or forced into untenable private rent costs, right to buy is an excellent tool for allowing previously impoverished people to effectively acquire a house at cost, often in expensive areas, as well as encouraging them to invest in something of tangible value. It's a good tool for social mobility generally, which is why so many previously working class families have now effectively migrated to the middle classes.

There is another issue with it. The houses will be sold at a discount, to those who already have a secure place to live at a reasonable rent. People like my friends (I am lucky enough to have been able to buy a small house thanks to a small inheritance that gave me enough boost to our deposit fund) who cannot afford to buy a house due to high house prices and high rent stopping them being able to save the £30k+ needed to buy a house in any reasonable time span, but are too well paid to get social housing. Thanks to the currently horrifically distorted housing market it will lead to a bizarre situation where low and high income people will own houses and those in the middle will be even less secure. It is a bribe to voters who are not traditionally tory voters.

Agree with this. Like I've already said, BTL has been a curse on some parts of London, and fuelling an economy on a housing bubble, will end in tears. Again.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

reds8n wrote:

Daily Mail gets to the core of what the electorate are really worried about.

Did you see last week's attempted smear on Miliband and Sturgeon? Utter disgrace.

**Yodhrin**

To be fair to the Daily Mail(*urghp* yup, I just threw up in my mouth a little), the Sturgeon smear was concocted by Carmichael and Mundell at the Scotland Office in cahoots with the Telegraph, the Mail just uncritically regurgitated it.

Honestly through my favourite "Mail Moment" so far in GE2015 was when they ran two huge front-page stories on Sturgeon on the same day - in the UK edition they branded her "the most dangerous woman in Britain" and insisted she would subjugate the English to a socialist nightmare by putting Labour in power, and in the Scottish edition they went with the aforementioned "Sturgeon secretly wants a Tory government" smear. I mean seriously, there were newsagents down in the Borders where the two editions literally sat on the shelf side by side

Now, as an antidote to having to think about the Daily Heil, enjoy this actual thing that someone just retweeted at me:

**obsidianaura**

How about an increasing tariff for property renters, if you rent 1 property you pay x if you have 2 xx rate 3 xxx and so on. Might free up some houses. ( I haven't really thought this through

)

On a corporate tax subject, I was reading that the EU is the reason we don't get tax from some companies.

If a company has residence in the EU it will only be liable for taxes in the country it registered in and not liable to anything else so we have no way of controlling that.

Also we've been denied by the EU being able to negotiate the terms of the EU treaty before the referendum.

I know we probably need the EU but right now if the referendum was moved up to now I'd vote out and damn the consequences.

**Kilkrazy**

Companies pay tax wherever their head office is registered, it's nothing to do with the EU.

**obsidianaura**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Companies pay tax wherever their head office is registered, it's nothing to do with the EU.

Yes you pay tax where your head office is but not exclusively. Unless its an EU company and you're a EU member

Any corporation duly established in any EU state may legally sell right across the EU. And corporation tax will be payable where the company is registered and not where any sales might take place.

So they set up in Luxemburg and then, tax avoidance.

If we were not a member of the EU we could tax sales, but we're not allowed.

**Yodhrin**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Companies pay tax wherever their head office is registered, it's nothing to do with the EU.

Then tax companies based on a proportionate percentage of their global profits. Company generates X revenue and makes Y profit globally, and generates Z revenue in your country. Find what percentage Y is of X, then apply that to Z and tax the resulting figure. You can't avoid or evade it, because "our HQ is in Luxembourg and our fulfillment centre is in Jersey" is irrelevant to determining total revenue, since the people buying the stuff reside here.

Corporations have had it their own way for too long, they want the benefits of a global economy at the same time as they manipulate the old nation-state structures to avoid any of the drawbacks, it's time they paid their due - either all the tax haven bollocks is eradicated with measures like the one outlined above, or governments should go back to placing limits on how, when, and in what quantities private entities can move money across borders, physically or otherwise.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

I agree with Yodhrin.

...

That's something I never thought I'd say.