Jeremy Corbyn wins economists’ backing for anti-austerity policies

ruggedtoast

Jeremy Corbyn knows that Britain is best in Europe!

:money:
:beer:

MS1950

michaels wrote: »

But even more, a proportion of those ex council houses are now in private rental with more people per house so actually without the sales the situation would be even worse.

Aren't you slightly tending towards 'solutions' mentioned in my last discussion on housing policy with CLAPTON earlier this month?:

"There has been a proliferation of not-houses in recent years, from houseboats to ‘beds-in-sheds.’ The reason is clear – Britain has a sore lack of proper slums. Government regulations designed to clamp down on ‘cowboy landlords’ restrict people’s ability to choose the kind of accommodation in which they want to live".

http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/planning-transport/britain-needs-more-slums/

CLAPTON

MS1950 wrote: »

I notice that your first list doesn't include the 40% of 'right to buyers' 'living somewhere else funded by renting out their ex council house'...?

You claim that “if there had been no RTB then the people living in the houses would in most cases still be there (or maybe their children) so there would be no empty council houses available for 'new' people in need”, However, 'right to buy' has existed for around 35 years and council tenancies can only be 'inherited' once and then only by a family member living in the home at the time of the tenant's death; so that for many long term tenants where the tenancy was in the husband's name if he died his wife inherited, but the tenancy could not then be passed to any children even if still living at home (and many would not have been anyway) - so many homes would have become available over those years.

As for “The problem we face in a shortage of HOUSING and NOT council housing” - although it's beyond the scope of my time and inclination at the moment - I would have thought that any reasonable 'cost benefit analysis' of the use of public funds accrued from 35 years of sales, the current colossal expenditure on housing benefit to private landlords, plus the subsidies implicit in 'Help to Buy', might conclude that using those funds to stimulate more house building rather than their actual use would have contributed more to reducing that 'shortage'.

to do a cost benefit analysis you need to consider all the factors

which include (but not limited to)

-increase in population
-state policies on housing people in 'need'
-follow the people and not the houses (which you have totally failed to understand)
-state policies on housing building
-that hypothecation is nonsense

ruggedtoast

Jeremy Corbyn knows housing young families is key to our nation's future prosperity!

:beer::j
:money:

michaels

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Jeremy Corbyn knows that Britain is best in Europe!

:money:
:beer:

Does he? I thought he had been rather equivocal on the matter in the past?

michaels

MS1950 wrote: »

Aren't you slightly tending towards 'solutions' mentioned in my last discussion on housing policy with CLAPTON earlier this month?:

"There has been a proliferation of not-houses in recent years, from houseboats to ‘beds-in-sheds.’ The reason is clear – Britain has a sore lack of proper slums. Government regulations designed to clamp down on ‘cowboy landlords’ restrict people’s ability to choose the kind of accommodation in which they want to live".

http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/planning-transport/britain-needs-more-slums/

That would be the logical way to reduce housing benefit.

Of course the real issue is why houses cost so much more than the cost of farmland plus build costs..and we all know the reason for this almost uniquely British problem. Given that we also have congested roads I'm surprised the govt doesn't put strict limits on the number of cars and then offer rental subsidies to those who can't afford them, it is economically equivalent.

DiggerUK

The story that we were saved from the looney left, the enemy within, etc., etc., etc., has been the history written by the victors post 80's.

The truth is slowly revealing itself to those who are starting to ask what is going wrong now, and why is it going wrong.......hadn't we put an end to boom and bust?

The right wing on here, are all over the place trying to take in that a new realisation is coming into Joe and Janes thinking, and a frightening phenomenon of a new generation thinking for themselves.

The Murdochs and Generalis of this world are receiving a lot of shots across their bows at the moment, and not before time. Just rejoice at that news.
..._

CLAPTON

DiggerUK wrote: »

The story that we were saved from the looney left, the enemy within, etc., etc., etc., has been the history written by the victors post 80's.

The truth is slowly revealing itself to those who are starting to ask what is going wrong now, and why is it going wrong.......hadn't we put an end to boom and bust?

The right wing on here, are all over the place trying to take in that a new realisation is coming into Joe and Janes thinking, and a frightening phenomenon of a new generation thinking for themselves.

The Murdochs and Generalis of this world are receiving a lot of shots across their bows at the moment, and not before time. Just rejoice at that news.
..._

teenagers always think they are the first generation in 10,000 years to think for themselves

Generali

michaels wrote: »

Bleugh, just watching Andy Burnham saying we should get rid of SATS..I guess like Labour did in Wales where educational standards have fallen off a cliff. Talk about accepting low ambition and failure

The trying to get some unions on side I reckon. That sounds to me like a dog whistle policy: look what I'm prepared to do for the teaching unions, imagine what I'll do for yours.

Graham_Devon

CLAPTON wrote: »

teenagers always think they are the first generation in 10,000 years to think for themselves

But your generation always knows better, right?

Knew better when you were teenagers in the 60's/70's and still know better now.