Most of the G15 biggest Housing Associations in the South East build very few properties for 'social rent'.
The majority of their new stock is for 'market rent' which is significantly higher than the real social housing rental levels, or the properties are for 'shared ownership' and outright purchase.
A great deal of the issues with the current trend in social housing is the way most developers are getting away with more flexible section106 agreements. The quality of Social Housing has now become ridiculously high. Now there is nothing wrong with that per se, but the repair, maintenance and H&S costs of running a social housing property is about three times that of a similar property that is privately owned.
The housing market in this country is utterly unfit to build stable and secure communities. The proposed Tory sell off of the rest of Social Housing is only going to make things a whole lot worse.
Most of the G15 biggest Housing Associations in the South East build very few properties for 'social rent'.
The majority of their new stock is for 'market rent' which is significantly higher than the real social housing rental levels, or the properties are for 'shared ownership' and outright purchase.
A great deal of the issues with the current trend in social housing is the way most developers are getting away with more flexible section106 agreements. The quality of Social Housing has now become ridiculously high. Now there is nothing wrong with that per se, but the repair, maintenance and H&S costs of running a social housing property is about three times that of a similar property that is privately owned.
I am so glad that you posted that as I was beginning to think that I was wrong in my opinion and knowledge that these associations do have a side that is about profit as well as charity and moral ideals, the cost associated to the upkeep of these properties is the other way that they take money from the tax payer as a hidden and morally disgusting abuse of where our money goes as tax payers and very rarely gets mentioned, these are the things that need addressing to enable houses to be built maintained and distributed to those that are not only needy but deservedly able to be given them, my brother in law works within this sector and has told me so many instances where scumbag no marks, who stain and put strain on the people trying to assist them, destroy and neglect the property until they are evicted, terrorise their neighbours and community and get given other properties in new areas as to make them homeless is against their rights and is not fair on their children and themselves, it may not equate to any vast sum of money but it certainly does not help those in need who do not act in a way that may not be as high on the register due to them Not having numerous kids or a mysterious illness that stops them working and gives them more points, or hide behind the plight of one of their children actually having a condition like adhd, or other issues that people on our own forum have with their children, wives,husbands and who actually try with no joy to get help, all of this cost takes money from the purse that could help them get the support they need, this is why housing and owning your property and the ability to take accountability for your own path should be supported, assisted and be an achievable aspiration for our young next generation
The political parties we have, all of them, have no answers to the countries problems. They whore themselves to the electorate making hollow promises in order to either gain or keep power. Does anyone else find the whole thing rather unseemly and skin crawlingly embarrassing ?
I am sure I will vote Labour in the desperate hope that there is something left in the parties working class roots than can make things better for the working man and women and their families but I'm far from certain that there is.
It's all very depressing.
Very true SHG, though Labour have,since Blair, been 'tory light' IMO
Interesting debate last election about Labour's record on social housing - hardly inspires confidence they will do anything about it this time. Shows both main parties to be exactly as you describe.
Labour’s social housing record Has Labour neglected social housing during its thirteen years in office?
This was the charge levelled by Shadow Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt when answering the questions on BBC’s The Politics Show yesterday.
Facing a panel of members of the public, Mr Hunt was asked what a future Conservative Government would do to tackle the problems of homelessness, overcrowding and poor accommodation caused by a lack of social housing.
Mr Hunt was quick to make clear he felt a lack of building under Labour was at the root of the problem.
The Claim
Mr Hunt cited a little recognised figure about the comparative record of the Labour government and its Conservative predecessor.
“There is [sic] less social housing built in the last 13 years under Labour then there was under the previous Conservative Government”.
What are the figures behind his claim?
Analysis
The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) publishes figures on house building dating from the 1940s up to 2008. The statistics back up the Shadow Culture Secretary’s claim.
Between 1979 and 1996 the total building for houses by local authorities and by registered social landlords was 913,690, while from 1997 to 2008 building totalled a significantly lower 290,750.
Given that the last Conservative Government was in power for 18 years and the DCLG figures only cover Labour’s first 11 years it is worth looking at the average building under each Government.
Again the figures back up Mr Hunt. Between 1979 and 1996 an average of 50,761 new homes in the social housing sector were built, compared to 24,299 from 1997-2008.
So why the decline?
The most striking aspect of the figures is the steep decline in local authority housing during the period in question, falling from a peak of 88,530 new homes in 1980, to a low of 130 in 2004.
Full Fact contacted the National Housing Federation (NHF) for a perspective on the figures and it became clear that the decline was not a clear cut Red/Blue issue.
The figures show a move across successive Governments away from local authority provision of houses towards housing associations, explaining the significant drop in the building by local authorities.
That there was not a proportionate rise in registered social landlord house building over the period, can be attributed to a shift in thinking in the policies of both Labour and Conservatives, which had its origin in the Right to Buy legislation of the 1980’s. As Nick Foley of the NHF told us:
“Right to Buy had a major impact because although it was successful for a lot of people who bought those homes, it meant those home were lost forever from the system and were never really replaced”.
He added: “You’re talking over two million homes sold off. If you wanted to replace them it would take generation after generation to even attempt to do something like that.”
Replenishing the social housing stock after Right to Buy sales has not been a significant enough priority for the governments of either party, it seems. Given the reduced rates at which homes were sold, and the lack of in built guarantees for the proceeds to be reinvested, a fall in the supply of social housing seems almost inevitable.
While social housing has its place in society, there does not appear to be a willingness to have large parts of the population living in it.
Conclusion
Mr Hunt’s claim about the building of new social housing is factually accurate. However by using the figures to attack Labour’s record it could be argued that he is glossing over the legacy of the previous Conservative government and a much longer trend of decline in social housing.
Indeed the figures quoted show that the number of new homes being built each year fell by 72,850 under the Tories, but actually went up 2,220 under Labour.
Nevertheless with waiting lists for social housing running at four million, the Tory frontbencher, is justified in questions over Labour’s policy during the last 13 years.
i find labour about as far from intune or representive of the working man as possible
But for me nla they are at least in theory the only party for the working man. I could never vote conservative.
I don't understand this, surely you should vote for a candidate based on what his party has said their vision of the future is rather than your predefined notion of their past ?
When I worked for Rentokil, I looked after properties owned by The Nottng Hill Housing Trust, my area was from Chiswick, Fulham and Chelsea right out to Greenford, Wembley and Brent Park and everything n between including Holland Park, Notting Hill and Kensington and I can confirm that their properties were not only rented to the poor, far far from it in fact
Although I am not politically clever, it seems obvious to me now that we are about to endure another five years of the Con/Lib coalition. I do hope however to see Nigel Farage in Westminster to add a bit of spice, and keep me interested.
The political parties we have, all of them, have no answers to the countries problems. They whore themselves to the electorate making hollow promises in order to either gain or keep power. Does anyone else find the whole thing rather unseemly and skin crawlingly embarrassing ?
I am sure I will vote Labour in the desperate hope that there is something left in the parties working class roots than can make things better for the working man and women and their families but I'm far from certain that there is.
It's all very depressing.
Conclusion
Mr Hunt’s claim about the building of new social housing is factually accurate. However by using the figures to attack Labour’s record it could be argued that he is glossing over the legacy of the previous Conservative government and a much longer trend of decline in social housing.
Indeed the figures quoted show that the number of new homes being built each year fell by 72,850 under the Tories, but actually went up 2,220 under Labour.
Nevertheless with waiting lists for social housing running at four million, the Tory frontbencher, is justified in questions over Labour’s policy during the last 13 years.
But, also, under the pre-Blair Tory regime, population levels in the UK were remarkably flat, so it could easily be argued that there was no need for large scale additional housing until such time as Labour opened up the UK to immigration (because they viewed immigrants as natural Labour voters - see Peter Mandelson's comments on this). And then the Labour Party failed to house them properly!
Although I am not politically clever, it seems obvious to me now that we are about to endure another five years of the Con/Lib coalition. I do hope however to see Nigel Farage in Westminster to add a bit of spice, and keep me interested.
This is about the sum of it now, and also part of the problem for me. It's become so playground, that people prefer to see a bit of entertainment because they know dick all comes out in terms of policy. I swear politicians think it is more about witty retorts in parliament than it is sound governance and doing the job they were put in there for.
They look so pleased with themselves when they fire back a funny jibe and who can get the biggest laugh. It reminds me of the cussing table we used to have in year 10/11 art back in secondary school. We used to sit there and cuss one another's mums to see who got the best laugh. Good to know that our Government is just an extension of this when in Parliament.
i find labour about as far from intune or representive of the working man as possible
I could never vote conservative.
I find this so frustrating and one of the reasons why politics falls down a little in this country. There are a big percentage of people that will always be red or always be blue regardless of anything, and would never give any consideration to 'the other lot'.
Electing a government is not like supporting a football team, which so many take the approach to. Your local representative changes, leaders change, cabinets change, policies change.
The days where major parties were poles apart are in history, there is a fag paper in the grand scheme of things between the major parties of what they would actually do in power.
Find it a shame that the governance of this country is basically down to those who take an open mind and prepared to float with their vote, and the percentage of those never-changers that bother to turn out or not.
Just wish our voting brief was more dynamic and rewarding / punishing on achievements / non achievements
i find labour about as far from intune or representive of the working man as possible
I could never vote conservative.
I find this so frustrating and one of the reasons why politics falls down a little in this country. There are a big percentage of people that will always be red or always be blue regardless of anything, and would never give any consideration to 'the other lot'.
Electing a government is not like supporting a football team, which so many take the approach to. Your local representative changes, leaders change, cabinets change, policies change.
The days where major parties were poles apart are in history, there is a fag paper in the grand scheme of things between the major parties of what they would actually do in power.
Find it a shame that the governance of this country is basically down to those who take an open mind and prepared to float with their vote, and the percentage of those never-changers that bother to turn out or not.
Just wish our voting brief was more dynamic and rewarding / punishing on achievements / non achievements
I tend to agree with this ... I have never changed my basic alliegance to the political party that I would like to see in power ... but there have been occasions in the last 20 years or so when I have voted elsewhere because my chosen party of support just was not making sense.
i find labour about as far from intune or representive of the working man as possible
I could never vote conservative.
I find this so frustrating and one of the reasons why politics falls down a little in this country. There are a big percentage of people that will always be red or always be blue regardless of anything, and would never give any consideration to 'the other lot'.
Electing a government is not like supporting a football team, which so many take the approach to. Your local representative changes, leaders change, cabinets change, policies change.
The days where major parties were poles apart are in history, there is a fag paper in the grand scheme of things between the major parties of what they would actually do in power.
Find it a shame that the governance of this country is basically down to those who take an open mind and prepared to float with their vote, and the percentage of those never-changers that bother to turn out or not.
Just wish our voting brief was more dynamic and rewarding / punishing on achievements / non achievements
But it's the way of things I suppose, many people have long memories and don't forget or forgive. I would still, never, buy a product from the Japanese electronics firm Sharp because they had their name on Manure's shirt. It was of great satisfaction to me that in 2012 they lost 376 billion yen.
I still never shop in M&S because back in the day they refused to take any other credit card but their own store card. (They changed this policy 15 years ago.) So I took my underwear business elsewhere, permanently.
i find labour about as far from intune or representive of the working man as possible
But for me nla they are at least in theory the only party for the working man. I could never vote conservative.
I don't understand this, surely you should vote for a candidate based on what his party has said their vision of the future is rather than your predefined notion of their past ?
This is interesting . Like @ShootersHillGuru I vote Labour. It is not just because of tribal loyalty ,but I genuinely believe that they offer a better prospectus for the future.
My criticism of the Blair / Brown years was that they brought into Thatcherite economics in areas like PPP and bank regulation . Miliband has accepted this . The financial crash was not caused by Labour . Indeed most objective commentators agree Brown handled it well .
There is no getting away from the fact that Cameron , Osborne and Johnson etc all went to Eton . Even Michael Gove has criticised this.
Is this really the social system we want to create and perpetuate ? I don't think there are many ex Etonians on here . How can they genuinely empathise with the ordinary voter ? They will never have experienced life in the way people on here have . So no I could never vote for them.
Although I am not politically clever, it seems obvious to me now that we are about to endure another five years of the Con/Lib coalition. I do hope however to see Nigel Farage in Westminster to add a bit of spice, and keep me interested.
This is about the sum of it now, and also part of the problem for me. It's become so playground, that people prefer to see a bit of entertainment because they know dick all comes out in terms of policy. I swear politicians think it is more about witty retorts in parliament than it is sound governance and doing the job they were put in there for.
They look so pleased with themselves when they fire back a funny jibe and who can get the biggest laugh. It reminds me of the cussing table we used to have in year 10/11 art back in secondary school. We used to sit there and cuss one another's mums to see who got the best laugh. Good to know that our Government is just an extension of this when in Parliament.
100% agree with you. I would far prefer it if we had politicians that just quietly got on with the job of making better laws than thinking they are some latter day Jack Dee intent on winning cheap laughs whilst putting down the hecklers in the opposition. If it were up to me I'd end PMQT, censure any politician caught talking, shouting or booing when they didn't have the conch shell, stop the tv election debates and keep all celebrities out of Question Time and other political broadcasts.
i find labour about as far from intune or representive of the working man as possible
But for me nla they are at least in theory the only party for the working man. I could never vote conservative.
I don't understand this, surely you should vote for a candidate based on what his party has said their vision of the future is rather than your predefined notion of their past ?
Is this really the social system we want to create and perpetuate ? I don't think there are many ex Etonians on here . How can they genuinely empathise with the ordinary voter ? They will never have experienced life in the way people on here have . So no I could never vote for them.
Very true. But experiencing the life we have is vastly over-rated imo. Personally I want people who are ultra-intelligent and dynamic running the country. In the main such people have been privately educated. I don't want idiots like John Prescott anywhere near Govt. Nor someone who sits typing onto a football forum all day or has experience of erecting a garden fence. That's all bollocks.
Working in Government is complex and requires a good understanding of the niceties of the country's legal system which is why so many MPs are lawyers.
Although I am not politically clever, it seems obvious to me now that we are about to endure another five years of the Con/Lib coalition. I do hope however to see Nigel Farage in Westminster to add a bit of spice, and keep me interested.
This is about the sum of it now, and also part of the problem for me. It's become so playground, that people prefer to see a bit of entertainment because they know dick all comes out in terms of policy. I swear politicians think it is more about witty retorts in parliament than it is sound governance and doing the job they were put in there for.
They look so pleased with themselves when they fire back a funny jibe and who can get the biggest laugh. It reminds me of the cussing table we used to have in year 10/11 art back in secondary school. We used to sit there and cuss one another's mums to see who got the best laugh. Good to know that our Government is just an extension of this when in Parliament.
This is a very poor analysis of what goes on imo. Just look at either the last Govt's or the previous one's record on new bits of legislation. The output is huge. (Whether you agree with it is another matter.) In the last session there were 14 pieces of legislation before Parliament - and that's just those that started with the letter "A"! Here's the fulll list services.parliament.uk/bills/2013-14.htmlThen there's the committee work.....
What we do need to do is educate voters on what parliament does in reality and away from the PMQs knockabout session so loved of low-rent political journos who don't want to do any real work or analysis.
I have voted for different parties based on the way I feel at the time represents the best change /resolution to issues for imo the country and myself at the time maybe it is why the whole shit way we seem to tolerate no real political movement change from labour to tory back to labour and tory as the only answer,
i find labour about as far from intune or representive of the working man as possible
But for me nla they are at least in theory the only party for the working man. I could never vote conservative.
I don't understand this, surely you should vote for a candidate based on what his party has said their vision of the future is rather than your predefined notion of their past ?
Is this really the social system we want to create and perpetuate ? I don't think there are many ex Etonians on here . How can they genuinely empathise with the ordinary voter ? They will never have experienced life in the way people on here have . So no I could never vote for them.
Very true. But experiencing the life we have is vastly over-rated imo. Personally I want people who are ultra-intelligent and dynamic running the country. In the main such people have been privately educated. I don't want idiots like John Prescott anywhere near Govt. Nor someone who sits typing onto a football forum all day or has experience of erecting a garden fence. That's all bollocks.
Working in Government is complex and requires a good understanding of the niceties of the country's legal system which is why so many MPs are lawyers.
Although I am not politically clever, it seems obvious to me now that we are about to endure another five years of the Con/Lib coalition. I do hope however to see Nigel Farage in Westminster to add a bit of spice, and keep me interested.
This is about the sum of it now, and also part of the problem for me. It's become so playground, that people prefer to see a bit of entertainment because they know dick all comes out in terms of policy. I swear politicians think it is more about witty retorts in parliament than it is sound governance and doing the job they were put in there for.
They look so pleased with themselves when they fire back a funny jibe and who can get the biggest laugh. It reminds me of the cussing table we used to have in year 10/11 art back in secondary school. We used to sit there and cuss one another's mums to see who got the best laugh. Good to know that our Government is just an extension of this when in Parliament.
This is a very poor analysis of what goes on imo. Just look at either the last Govt's or the previous one's record on new bits of legislation. The output is huge. (Whether you agree with it is another matter.) In the last session there were 14 pieces of legislation before Parliament - and that's just those that started with the letter "A"! Here's the fulll list services.parliament.uk/bills/2013-14.htmlThen there's the committee work.....
What we do need to do is educate voters on what parliament does in reality and away from the PMQs knockabout session so loved of low-rent political journos who don't want to do any real work or analysis.
Okay take your point, and prob over egging it on my point. It was more in response to Granpa's comment about entertainment value I was picking up on. It just seems to me that somewhere along the line the retorts and back chat that goes on by the politicians in parliament seems to be something they think is important. And unfortunately I also think this is also how the media present it as well (ie the bacon sandwich). I know the majority of people don't vote or choose their government because of this, but all of it doesn't help. I don't care how slick Cameroon's one liner retorts are in PMQs or whether or not Milliband can eat a bacon sandwich, but somehow these things seem to be picked up on.
It's a good point from afka but I don't see that ever changing
Anti Thatcher lefties will never vote blue and anti Socialist Tories will never not vote blue (even if it's UKIP blue)
My choice of vote is quite simple. I have never been out of work in my adult life, have paid a fortune in tax in that time which I don't begrudge (much). But I believe that people like me who have started at the bottom and grafted to be in a position where I am now fairly senior and earning a good living would be penalised more by labour and their anti entrepreneurial, anti hard working, anti prudent, anti affluent, anti middle class tax policies, and at the end of the day all I want to do is graft and give my family as good a life as they deserve.
There are plenty of people on here earning between £50-150k a year - you will lose money under a Labour government.
i find labour about as far from intune or representive of the working man as possible
But for me nla they are at least in theory the only party for the working man. I could never vote conservative.
I don't understand this, surely you should vote for a candidate based on what his party has said their vision of the future is rather than your predefined notion of their past ?
Is this really the social system we want to create and perpetuate ? I don't think there are many ex Etonians on here . How can they genuinely empathise with the ordinary voter ? They will never have experienced life in the way people on here have . So no I could never vote for them.
Very true. But experiencing the life we have is vastly over-rated imo. Personally I want people who are ultra-intelligent and dynamic running the country. In the main such people have been privately educated. I don't want idiots like John Prescott anywhere near Govt. Nor someone who sits typing onto a football forum all day or has experience of erecting a garden fence. That's all bollocks.
Who is suggesting that we elect people who spend their life on football forums or erecting garden fences rather than a competent person? I accept that all social groups need to be represented . It is just the dominance of one that distorts our democracy.
Saying that ordinary people's experience is 'over rated' is quite patronising . I could counter your example of John Prescott with Boris Johnson but lets not go there . I am sure you won't agree with my view on Johnson as much as I don't agree with yours about Prescott . I also do not think any of the former deputy PM's class mates were in the Cabinet with him .
Indeed it is the rise of the people who are 'ultra-intelligent and dynamic' and have gone on to become SPAD's which is part of the problem . Cameron ,Clegg and Miliband all have this CV . This has added to peoples' disillusionment with the system . We feel it is one step removed from us . In my view this is why UKIP are emerging .
My point is not just about privately educated people ,but even within that group the dominance of Eton . If this system is so good why haven't other countries adopted it?
i find labour about as far from intune or representive of the working man as possible
But for me nla they are at least in theory the only party for the working man. I could never vote conservative.
I don't understand this, surely you should vote for a candidate based on what his party has said their vision of the future is rather than your predefined notion of their past ?
Is this really the social system we want to create and perpetuate ? I don't think there are many ex Etonians on here . How can they genuinely empathise with the ordinary voter ? They will never have experienced life in the way people on here have . So no I could never vote for them.
Very true. But experiencing the life we have is vastly over-rated imo. Personally I want people who are ultra-intelligent and dynamic running the country. In the main such people have been privately educated. I don't want idiots like John Prescott anywhere near Govt. Nor someone who sits typing onto a football forum all day or has experience of erecting a garden fence. That's all bollocks.
Working in Government is complex and requires a good understanding of the niceties of the country's legal system which is why so many MPs are lawyers.
Although I am not politically clever, it seems obvious to me now that we are about to endure another five years of the Con/Lib coalition. I do hope however to see Nigel Farage in Westminster to add a bit of spice, and keep me interested.
This is about the sum of it now, and also part of the problem for me. It's become so playground, that people prefer to see a bit of entertainment because they know dick all comes out in terms of policy. I swear politicians think it is more about witty retorts in parliament than it is sound governance and doing the job they were put in there for.
They look so pleased with themselves when they fire back a funny jibe and who can get the biggest laugh. It reminds me of the cussing table we used to have in year 10/11 art back in secondary school. We used to sit there and cuss one another's mums to see who got the best laugh. Good to know that our Government is just an extension of this when in Parliament.
This is a very poor analysis of what goes on imo. Just look at either the last Govt's or the previous one's record on new bits of legislation. The output is huge. (Whether you agree with it is another matter.) In the last session there were 14 pieces of legislation before Parliament - and that's just those that started with the letter "A"! Here's the fulll list services.parliament.uk/bills/2013-14.htmlThen there's the committee work.....
What we do need to do is educate voters on what parliament does in reality and away from the PMQs knockabout session so loved of low-rent political journos who don't want to do any real work or analysis.
Okay take your point, and prob over egging it on my point. It was more in response to Granpa's comment about entertainment value I was picking up on. It just seems to me that somewhere along the line the retorts and back chat that goes on by the politicians in parliament seems to be something they think is important. And unfortunately I also think this is also how the media present it as well (ie the bacon sandwich). I know the majority of people don't vote or choose their government because of this, but all of it doesn't help. I don't care how slick Cameroon's one liner retorts are in PMQs or whether or not Milliband can eat a bacon sandwich, but somehow these things seem to be picked up on.
That's really why I said we are poorly served by our political commentators in main-stream media. (Not everyone wants to plough through The Economist, New Statesman, Spectator or whatever and that's entirely reasonable.) In a way, I think I'm coming round to the view that the BBC's attempts at neutrality are largely to blame for this. Their political coverage has become neutered by so-called balance and not having any decent inquisitive aspect to it. It seems impossible for them to have any sort of real analysis or critique on anybodies' policies on the news bulletins so all you get is Labour said "x", Conservatives said "y" LibDems said "z" and Nigel went for a pint and the viewer is left not knowing who might be the more accurate.
Here's an example from today on the BBC's web site talking about the education pledges in the LibDem manifesto:
Leader Nick Clegg will say the plans are all about boosting opportunity.
But the Conservatives said the Lib Dems offered "uncertainty for parents" while Labour said Nick Clegg's party had "broken their promises" in government.
Meanwhile, the BBC's assistant political editor Norman Smith said he expected it to be a "minimalist, pared-back" document, with a focus on a few key priorities, after the party was unable to deliver its main commitment on tuition fees from 2010.
Well thanks for that Norman, very insightful.
IF YOU WANT A GOOD POLITICAL DEBATE WITH PROPER ANALYSIS - CHARLTON LIFE SEEMS A BETTER OPTION THAN THE BBC WHICH IS A SHOCKING STATE OF AFFAIRS REALLY!
It's a good point from afka but I don't see that ever changing
Anti Thatcher lefties will never vote blue and anti Socialist Tories will never not vote blue (even if it's UKIP blue)
My choice of vote is quite simple. I have never been out of work in my adult life, have paid a fortune in tax in that time which I don't begrudge (much). But I believe that people like me who have started at the bottom and grafted to be in a position where I am now fairly senior and earning a good living would be penalised more by labour and their anti entrepreneurial, anti hard working, anti prudent, anti affluent, anti middle class tax policies, and at the end of the day all I want to do is graft and give my family as good a life as they deserve.
There are plenty of people on here earning between £50-150k a year - you will lose money under a Labour government.
All I can go on is my life experience. Anti Entrepreneurial - Under the last Labour Government, I started my own import export business (worked myself up from data entry clerk !!) - I can tell you now the financial CRASH was global. When the Tories came in, the bank took my funding and I had to eventually close the company due to cashflow ?
Anti Prudent - I thought up until the Crash - Brown was known as prudence. (might be wrong).
Anti Hardworking - I have worked hard all my life, Labour Government - Hard working - I personally was succeeding. Tory government - now back to hard working for someone else.
Anti Middleclass Policies - Labour got into government because of attractive policies for the Middle Class. Not sure they have stepped to far away from this.
There are also plenty of people on here who earn alot less than 50k and will find their lives much more difficult under a Tory government. i.e VAT (I know they ruled it out but they also ruled it out last time).
In my relatively short adult life I've voted Conservative, Lib Dem and Labour but this time I think I'll vote Green as their policies are steeped in such sound economic logic.
Conservative candidate for Cambridge suggests mental health patients should wear colour coded wristbands.
Interesting. Caused a furore no doubt? But I think there are about 25 (+?) conditions that people wear medical identification tags for. Surely if people with mental health issues want to be treated the same as everyone else in society, they should embrace the idea with open arms?
In my relatively short adult life I've voted Conservative, Lib Dem and Labour but this time I think I'll vote Green as their policies are steeped in such sound economic logic.
i'm hoping there was sarcasm there... thus the reason i gave you a LOL, cos i literally LOL'd at your comment...
Comments
The majority of their new stock is for 'market rent' which is significantly higher than the real social housing rental levels, or the properties are for 'shared ownership' and outright purchase.
A great deal of the issues with the current trend in social housing is the way most developers are getting away with more flexible section106 agreements. The quality of Social Housing has now become ridiculously high. Now there is nothing wrong with that per se, but the repair, maintenance and H&S costs of running a social housing property is about three times that of a similar property that is privately owned.
I am so glad that you posted that as I was beginning to think that I was wrong in my opinion and knowledge that these associations do have a side that is about profit as well as charity and moral ideals, the cost associated to the upkeep of these properties is the other way that they take money from the tax payer as a hidden and morally disgusting abuse of where our money goes as tax payers and very rarely gets mentioned, these are the things that need addressing to enable houses to be built maintained and distributed to those that are not only needy but deservedly able to be given them, my brother in law works within this sector and has told me so many instances where scumbag no marks, who stain and put strain on the people trying to assist them, destroy and neglect the property until they are evicted, terrorise their neighbours and community and get given other properties in new areas as to make them homeless is against their rights and is not fair on their children and themselves, it may not equate to any vast sum of money but it certainly does not help those in need who do not act in a way that may not be as high on the register due to them Not having numerous kids or a mysterious illness that stops them working and gives them more points, or hide behind the plight of one of their children actually having a condition like adhd, or other issues that people on our own forum have with their children, wives,husbands and who actually try with no joy to get help, all of this cost takes money from the purse that could help them get the support they need, this is why housing and owning your property and the ability to take accountability for your own path should be supported, assisted and be an achievable aspiration for our young next generation
Interesting debate last election about Labour's record on social housing - hardly inspires confidence they will do anything about it this time. Shows both main parties to be exactly as you describe.
Labour’s social housing record
Has Labour neglected social housing during its thirteen years in office?
This was the charge levelled by Shadow Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt when answering the questions on BBC’s The Politics Show yesterday.
Facing a panel of members of the public, Mr Hunt was asked what a future Conservative Government would do to tackle the problems of homelessness, overcrowding and poor accommodation caused by a lack of social housing.
Mr Hunt was quick to make clear he felt a lack of building under Labour was at the root of the problem.
The Claim
Mr Hunt cited a little recognised figure about the comparative record of the Labour government and its Conservative predecessor.
“There is [sic] less social housing built in the last 13 years under Labour then there was under the previous Conservative Government”.
What are the figures behind his claim?
Analysis
The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) publishes figures on house building dating from the 1940s up to 2008. The statistics back up the Shadow Culture Secretary’s claim.
Between 1979 and 1996 the total building for houses by local authorities and by registered social landlords was 913,690, while from 1997 to 2008 building totalled a significantly lower 290,750.
Given that the last Conservative Government was in power for 18 years and the DCLG figures only cover Labour’s first 11 years it is worth looking at the average building under each Government.
Again the figures back up Mr Hunt. Between 1979 and 1996 an average of 50,761 new homes in the social housing sector were built, compared to 24,299 from 1997-2008.
So why the decline?
The most striking aspect of the figures is the steep decline in local authority housing during the period in question, falling from a peak of 88,530 new homes in 1980, to a low of 130 in 2004.
Full Fact contacted the National Housing Federation (NHF) for a perspective on the figures and it became clear that the decline was not a clear cut Red/Blue issue.
The figures show a move across successive Governments away from local authority provision of houses towards housing associations, explaining the significant drop in the building by local authorities.
That there was not a proportionate rise in registered social landlord house building over the period, can be attributed to a shift in thinking in the policies of both Labour and Conservatives, which had its origin in the Right to Buy legislation of the 1980’s. As Nick Foley of the NHF told us:
“Right to Buy had a major impact because although it was successful for a lot of people who bought those homes, it meant those home were lost forever from the system and were never really replaced”.
He added: “You’re talking over two million homes sold off. If you wanted to replace them it would take generation after generation to even attempt to do something like that.”
Replenishing the social housing stock after Right to Buy sales has not been a significant enough priority for the governments of either party, it seems. Given the reduced rates at which homes were sold, and the lack of in built guarantees for the proceeds to be reinvested, a fall in the supply of social housing seems almost inevitable.
While social housing has its place in society, there does not appear to be a willingness to have large parts of the population living in it.
Conclusion
Mr Hunt’s claim about the building of new social housing is factually accurate. However by using the figures to attack Labour’s record it could be argued that he is glossing over the legacy of the previous Conservative government and a much longer trend of decline in social housing.
Indeed the figures quoted show that the number of new homes being built each year fell by 72,850 under the Tories, but actually went up 2,220 under Labour.
Nevertheless with waiting lists for social housing running at four million, the Tory frontbencher, is justified in questions over Labour’s policy during the last 13 years.
They look so pleased with themselves when they fire back a funny jibe and who can get the biggest laugh. It reminds me of the cussing table we used to have in year 10/11 art back in secondary school. We used to sit there and cuss one another's mums to see who got the best laugh. Good to know that our Government is just an extension of this when in Parliament.
Electing a government is not like supporting a football team, which so many take the approach to. Your local representative changes, leaders change, cabinets change, policies change.
The days where major parties were poles apart are in history, there is a fag paper in the grand scheme of things between the major parties of what they would actually do in power.
Find it a shame that the governance of this country is basically down to those who take an open mind and prepared to float with their vote, and the percentage of those never-changers that bother to turn out or not.
Just wish our voting brief was more dynamic and rewarding / punishing on achievements / non achievements
I still never shop in M&S because back in the day they refused to take any other credit card but their own store card. (They changed this policy 15 years ago.) So I took my underwear business elsewhere, permanently.
This is interesting . Like @ShootersHillGuru I vote Labour. It is not just because of tribal loyalty ,but I genuinely believe that they offer a better prospectus for the future.
My criticism of the Blair / Brown years was that they brought into Thatcherite economics in areas like PPP and bank regulation . Miliband has accepted this . The financial crash was not caused by Labour . Indeed most objective commentators agree Brown handled it well .
There is no getting away from the fact that Cameron , Osborne and Johnson etc all went to Eton . Even Michael Gove has criticised this.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2581299/Eton-mess-Michael-Gove-attacks-ridiculous-number-wealthy-ministers-Cabinet-claims-exclusive-developed-world.html
Is this really the social system we want to create and perpetuate ? I don't think there are many ex Etonians on here . How can they genuinely empathise with the ordinary voter ? They will never have experienced life in the way people on here have . So no I could never vote for them.
Working in Government is complex and requires a good understanding of the niceties of the country's legal system which is why so many MPs are lawyers. This is a very poor analysis of what goes on imo. Just look at either the last Govt's or the previous one's record on new bits of legislation. The output is huge. (Whether you agree with it is another matter.) In the last session there were 14 pieces of legislation before Parliament - and that's just those that started with the letter "A"! Here's the fulll list services.parliament.uk/bills/2013-14.htmlThen there's the committee work.....
What we do need to do is educate voters on what parliament does in reality and away from the PMQs knockabout session so loved of low-rent political journos who don't want to do any real work or analysis.
Anti Thatcher lefties will never vote blue and anti Socialist Tories will never not vote blue (even if it's UKIP blue)
My choice of vote is quite simple. I have never been out of work in my adult life, have paid a fortune in tax in that time which I don't begrudge (much). But I believe that people like me who have started at the bottom and grafted to be in a position where I am now fairly senior and earning a good living would be penalised more by labour and their anti entrepreneurial, anti hard working, anti prudent, anti affluent, anti middle class tax policies, and at the end of the day all I want to do is graft and give my family as good a life as they deserve.
There are plenty of people on here earning between £50-150k a year - you will lose money under a Labour government.
In a way, I think I'm coming round to the view that the BBC's attempts at neutrality are largely to blame for this. Their political coverage has become neutered by so-called balance and not having any decent inquisitive aspect to it. It seems impossible for them to have any sort of real analysis or critique on anybodies' policies on the news bulletins so all you get is Labour said "x", Conservatives said "y" LibDems said "z" and Nigel went for a pint and the viewer is left not knowing who might be the more accurate.
Here's an example from today on the BBC's web site talking about the education pledges in the LibDem manifesto:
Leader Nick Clegg will say the plans are all about boosting opportunity.
But the Conservatives said the Lib Dems offered "uncertainty for parents" while Labour said Nick Clegg's party had "broken their promises" in government.
Meanwhile, the BBC's assistant political editor Norman Smith said he expected it to be a "minimalist, pared-back" document, with a focus on a few key priorities, after the party was unable to deliver its main commitment on tuition fees from 2010.
Well thanks for that Norman, very insightful.
IF YOU WANT A GOOD POLITICAL DEBATE WITH PROPER ANALYSIS - CHARLTON LIFE SEEMS A BETTER OPTION THAN THE BBC WHICH IS A SHOCKING STATE OF AFFAIRS REALLY!
Anti Entrepreneurial - Under the last Labour Government, I started my own import export business (worked myself up from data entry clerk !!) - I can tell you now the financial CRASH was global. When the Tories came in, the bank took my funding and I had to eventually close the company due to cashflow ?
Anti Prudent - I thought up until the Crash - Brown was known as prudence. (might be wrong).
Anti Hardworking - I have worked hard all my life, Labour Government - Hard working - I personally was succeeding. Tory government - now back to hard working for someone else.
Anti Middleclass Policies - Labour got into government because of attractive policies for the Middle Class. Not sure they have stepped to far away from this.
There are also plenty of people on here who earn alot less than 50k and will find their lives much more difficult under a Tory government. i.e VAT (I know they ruled it out but they also ruled it out last time).