General Election 2015

[Jeremy]

I know. Depleting the council housing stock and selling public assets for less than they're worth... yeah that's exactly what we need right now, isn't it?

Also talking about tax cuts (both inheritance tax and higher rate income tax) just doesn't seem right at a time when services are being slashed and the NHS is in crisis (and no I don't have any faith in his ?8bn pledge). Have heard Miliband being called "unelectable" over the last few months, but IMO he sounds much more fiscally responsible... what the tories are proposing just doesn't add up.

[Loz]

Oh well, cheer yourself up by reading the Green's manifesto. There's a set of policies dreamt up by a group of people in full knowledge that they will be nowhere near any form of power come May. It almost makes the Labour "free owls" policy look relatively sane and practical.

[JohnL]

Jah Lush Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It's Eton not Eaton, JohnL.

So you know I didn't go there :)

I edited it though (don't want to annoy)

[JohnL]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Oh well, cheer yourself up by reading the Green's

> manifesto. There's a set of policies dreamt up by

> a group of people in full knowledge that they will

> be nowhere near any form of power come May. It

> almost makes the Labour "free owls" policy look

> relatively sane and practical.

I think the Tory policies are drawn up assuming a hung

parliament - so they won't implement them in any coalition.

At least EdM tried.

[Earl Aelfheah]

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think the Tory policies are drawn up assuming a

> hung

> parliament - so they won't implement them in any

> coalition.

That's an interesting thought. I've been wondering how on earth the Tories think they'll be able to implement this ridiculous policy. The assets they're proposing to sell off belong to numerous private social enterprises. They would require a change in the law which would be unlikely to get through the Lords and would no doubt be open to legal challenge regardless. But perhaps they have no intention on this policy making it though coalition 'negotiations'.

[Otta]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> JohnL Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I think the Tory policies are drawn up assuming

> a

> > hung

> > parliament - so they won't implement them in

> any

> > coalition.

>

> That's an interesting thought. I've been wondering

> how on earth the Tories think they'll be able to

> implement this ridiculous policy. The assets

> they're proposing to sell off belong to numerous

> private social enterprises. They would require a

> change in the law which would be unlikely to get

> through the Lords and would no doubt be open to

> legal challenge regardless. But perhaps they have

> no intention on this policy making it though

> coalition 'negotiations'.

EXACTLY, they're not yours to sell you stupid bastard!

[Otta]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Cameron's pledge to extend 'Right to Buy' to

> Housing Association tenants is probably the most

> depressing thing I've heard during this entire

> campaign.

And in order to fund it they would force councils to sell off property as it became vacant, rather than reallocate to someone else.

It's twisted.

[Blah Blah]

It's a completely bonkers policy. HAs will almost certainly legally challenge anyway. HAs have completely different financial setups to LAs when it come to home building. Only an idiot would think that homes sold off would be replaced at the same rate. This to me is the same Tory disbelief in social housing that got us partly into the mess we are in in the first place. They really do believe that anyone who works can afford a home or private rent! Would be a complete disaster if this went through. And I really can not believe they would force councils to sell of homes to pay for it! Who will replace the homes lost there?

Agree with some of the comments above re: Miliband and Labour looking like the responsible party now. The Conservatives have just gone a bit bonkers over the last few days. They have shown just how uninterested they really are in the real problems. And the Greens?....sigh.....

[Otta]

Wasn't that the whole problem with RTB in the 80s, they said they'd build more homes with money raised from RTB, but never did. This looks like a move designed to rid us of social housing. Something some people would genuinely like to see.

[alice]

why hasnt anyone suggested extending help to buy scheme so that those council and housing association renters who wish to own their own property would be given the present/proposed discount off a property in the private sector. This would create a constant stream of vacant council/ association properties.

[Otta]

But that would cost an absolute fortune because the government would have to fork out half the cost of the privately sold property.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you.

[alice]

well what I was thinking is that it would work like an exit fee but you'd get the percentage off the value of the property you were in, not going to. so the council would get 1 empty property back at a cost of maybe half what it would be to build new.

[Blah Blah]

Many social housing tenants who work are on minimum/low wages Alice. That's why they are in social housing (and why we need it). They are never going to earn enough or be in stable enough employment to keep a mortgage on a private market property going.

And how about we stop artificially inflating the housing market and let it return to normal market forces. I.e. when first time buyers can no long afford to buy, the price comes down, instead of bringing out yet more products designed to give people part ownership etc.

[alice]

I mean using that idea as an alternative to the selling of council housing definitely not instead of having council homes.

[miga]

.

[JohnL]

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Many social housing tenants who work are on

> minimum/low wages Alice. That's why they are in

> social housing (and why we need it). They are

> never going to earn enough or be in stable enough

> employment to keep a mortgage on a private market

> property going.

>

> And how about we stop artificially inflating the

> housing market and let it return to normal market

> forces. I.e. when first time buyers can no long

> afford to buy, the price comes down, instead of

> bringing out yet more products designed to give

> people part ownership etc.

I'd say that Shared Ownership isn't social housing

any more - it's a mechanism to buy when you can't

afford it.

Apparently you need 65K+ income min for the shared ownership

blocks in Elephant & Castle lend lease.

[Blah Blah]

That's how I see it too John. It's an admission that prices are too high for ordinary working people to afford. Lend lease are just profiteers, who pretend to be specialists in urban regeneration.

Totally agree miga. There is no consideration of a problem that will take more than the lifetime of a parliament to rein in. It smacks of desperation really. Wishy washy Cameron couldn't win the last election outright and looks like he won't improve in this one. The delusion of power by the back door!

You have to ask yourself, do they really think these policies are the kinds of vote winner to swing an election? For the 1.3 million HAs tenants there are many more trapped in private rented accomodation or living with parents. I'd say the conservatives have now alienated those people.

When Thatcher came to power, the economy was so crippled it wasn't hard to be radical. If we want to be radical today, it has to be about bringing a fairer distribution of wealth surely? I don't see any of that from the Conservatives, just the usual pre-election tax bribes and giveaways, from a party that says we need to make more cuts in the next term to keep the deficit down! It just doesn't add up.

[miga]

.

[Jeremy]

Well... New Labour were supposed to give us a combination of free market economics, and strong welfare state with equality of opportunity. Not sure that redistributive taxation was ever really a focus for them (and is rarely a vote winning policy).

[Jeremy]

Saying that, they kinda screwed up the "equality of opportunity" bit too...

[Blah Blah]

I completely agree that New Labour didn't do enough, BUT they did reduce the discount on right to buy. The coalition on the other hand increased it to a higher discount than even under Thatcher. The issue remains the same for both parties. We need more jobs and more people working as a percentage of the population to raise the taxes needed to look after everything else. Neither party seems to have any solutions for that. The Conservatives are total free market enthusiasts, but we know that the free market doesn't take care of everything (without regulation to force it to do so). Labour on the other hand stand for some regulation but are essentially free market supporters too. Neither party wants to alienate the only wealth creating sectors we have left, and rightly so but there needs to be more effort to support start ups and to help successful small businesses to expand (especially in new technologies).

On social housing. The free market has never taken care of people at the lower end of the pay scale. That's why social housing came about, along with the welfare state. Either we believe in a minimum quality of life, housing etc for all, or we don't. I think the demonisation of the poorest has only been possible because middle income earners are feeling the squeeze as much as the low waged. The cost of housing/ property is playing a huge role in that.

[miga]

.

[miga]

.

[miga]

.

[Jeremy]

miga Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Gordon Brown, 50p top rate of tax

Surely a knee jerk reaction to the financial crisis rather than an integral "New Labour" policy...