The UK General Politics Thread Page 103

  • Page

    of 829 First / Last

  • FWB 14 May 2013 00:31:06 54,074 posts
    Seen 10 hours ago
    Registered 16 years ago
    Shared ownership

    1) Council never buys it back. Don't have the funds.
    2) Pretty sure I read that it is estimated that at least 25 percent are being illegally rented out.

    Housing Associations are useless. They care not about what happens as long as they get their government money and rent. They certainly aren't checking up on tenants.

    I moved into a new build, next door we have about 12-15 social apartments. Within a few months the local estate agent was advertising a couple of them for rent for extortionate prices.

    Friends report almost exactly the same in their new builds with social and shared. Plenty of people still milking things.

    Edited by FWB at 00:34:49 14-05-2013
  • chopsen 14 May 2013 00:33:18 19,970 posts
    Seen 23 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    mowgli wrote:
    TheSaint wrote:
    Accepting that you earn enough to look after yourself and pay the market rate rather than occupying a place in a very limited supply of social housing that could be better used for someone who really needs the added protection.
    That is fucking nonsense. 'The market rate' is redundant in this situation. There is nothing fair, right or 'real world' about the private rented market. The general housing supply is limited, hence the insanely high rents. You seem to have a completely warped notion of what social housing is, and what it is for.
    isn't state subsidised renting in the form of housing benefit part of the driver causing artificially elevated rents?
    if landlords could only charge what people could actually afford without state help, rents would be lower.
  • Deleted user 14 May 2013 00:39:33
    FWB wrote:
    Shared ownership

    1) Council never buys it back. Don't have the funds.
    2) Pretty sure I read that it is estimated that at least 25 percent are being illegally rented out.

    Housing Associations are useless. They care not about what happens as long as they get their government money and rent. They certainly aren't checking up on tenants.

    I moved into a new build, next door we have about 12-15 social apartments. Within a few months the local estate agent was advertising a couple of them for rent for extortionate prices.

    Friends report almost exactly the same in their new builds with social and shared. Plenty of people still milking things.
    Councils/HAs do buy back.
  • disusedgenius 14 May 2013 01:03:11 8,726 posts
    Seen 5 minutes ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    FWB wrote:
    2) Pretty sure I read that it is estimated that at least 25 percent are being illegally rented out.
    No different from any other kind of social housing, surely?
  • spamdangled 14 May 2013 03:49:53 31,044 posts
    Seen 20 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    I don't say this often these days, but Mowgli is completely right in this one.

    bollocks about the "market rate" is the rhetoric that led to shocking current state of this system in the first place, not to mention boom and bust as people were freely given mortgages they couldn't afford due to the absurdly high rise in property values as a quick fix rather than a willingness to tamper with the all-hallowed "free markets".

    housing is a basic fucking human right, not a privilege. And it has been desperate need of sorting out since Maggie sold it all down the river.
  • Khanivor 14 May 2013 04:02:56 43,445 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 16 years ago
    Something in short supply costing more is pretty much the definition of the market rate.

    I wonder what percentage of private renters stay in their home for more than one year, five years, ten years, twenty years, versus those in council housing.

    If an appreciable section of affordable housing is effectively off the market because its occupants are not budging then that's going to compound any problems concerning a lack of supply.

    The 'bedroom tax' is a poorly implemented way of dealing with one aspect of a complicated problem. Buildings loads more houses might seem a grand idea with lots of knock-on economic advantages but it's apparently not enough of a problem for people to get their politicians to do something about it.

    Maybe if the UK banned all immigration for a few years that would free up loads of homes and thus relieve the pressure.

    What?
  • FWB 14 May 2013 07:53:54 54,074 posts
    Seen 10 hours ago
    Registered 16 years ago
    mowgli wrote:
    Councils/HAs do buy back.
    Not according to my lawyer. They can reject to do so and after decades of years of working with shared ownership he says they virtually always do, mainly due to funds. He was very implicit about that.

    I'll add that having searched in this area for quite a while, I found almost all of those selling on to be individuals, not councils or HAs. It doesn't even make much since as to why a HA would want to pick it up, unless the seller has stupidly used one of their agents who has then gone on to massively undervalue the property.

    Edited by FWB at 07:59:45 14-05-2013
  • Deleted user 14 May 2013 08:01:01
    I thought councils/HAs were starved of funds to buy anything anyway. Banks haven't been loaning to HAs, so they have to sell to generate cash.
  • FWB 14 May 2013 08:12:16 54,074 posts
    Seen 10 hours ago
    Registered 16 years ago
    Yep. Plus the government tightened the purse strings in the last few years. HAs are money driven anyway. Useless cunts who will avoid doing more than they absolutely need while trying to milk you for every penny.

    Unless you are using their agents to value your property when you sell it on, there is nothing to gain from them pursing off you and even then, depending on the value of your place, we'd only be at a looking at a few thousand.

    I got a two hour speech on them from my lawyer when I purchased my place. He also told me to never deal with their internal folk when possible. If you want to sell/buy more, ask for the names of their surveyors and then go to the the RICS and pick someone from there that isn't one of them. They'll work for you and the HAs has to accept the value. They'll decline and voila.

    He also said never step up unless you plan to purchase the whole property because anything above the minimum is very difficult to sell on. People are either looking to join at the bottom of the ladder and thus will have limited funds, or will want everything. And having read the stories of those struggling to shift their part, that seems very true. They appear to be individuals who only stepped up a bit. And of course if you do go all the way don't do it straight away. Go up to 80% and then do the final 20%. You'll only pay stamp duty on that last bit as opposed to all of it if you do it in one go.

    Edited by FWB at 08:29:40 14-05-2013
  • PazJohnMitch 14 May 2013 08:12:45 13,025 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Chopsen wrote:

    Now, communism is a system that many feel has merits, but in practice it hasn't turned out too well. Basically, people tend to like nicer houses.
    The comment about Communism made me think abut what China does. I am only an observer so I may have got this completely wrong:

    As far as I can tell there is no social housing in China. However state run companies do have an obligation to ensure that their workforce has somewhere to live if they cannot afford their own house. (They also have an obligation to find people jobs which does lead to quite a bit of 'dead weight' in the workforce).

    So a lot of low to medium income people in China live in apartment blocks owned by their employers. (In the UK I believe this practice is frowned upon as there is fear that the people will be locked into slums they cannot escape. A Chinese person I know kind of suggested this happened to her but was unwilling to say anything else).

    China also seems to focus a lot on new buildings as it keeps people in work. There seems to be far more buildings in China than there are people to live in them which is impressive given the size of the population. But it does mean that people are free to move cities if they want to as there is always housing available.*

    China seem to highlight towns that have a good solid manufacturing sector and build lots of houses to encourage people to move there and grow them into cities. If the UK adopted that practice I guess they would probably select somewhere like Aberdeen which was quite a few chemical plants and try and grow it. (I believe this approach happened in Liverpool with ICI many years ago).

    Now the problem with this is the British people themselves. We either seems to want to stay where we are or move to London. There seem to be very few people that are prepared to move elsewhere in search of work. (If we were prepared then many would have left England entirely).

    The only real communist thing about houses in China is their pricing. You buy houses in the same way you buy carpets (per square metre). So any appartment in a block of flats (or even an entire estate) will be say 1000Yuan / m2. This essentially stops someone buying a London townhouse for £1m and splitting into into 4 flats which then retail at £600k each. In China those flats would be £1m / 4 = £250k. (The downside to this approach is that there is no incentive to renovate older places).



    *I think Beijing and Shanghai have limits to the number of Chinese people not from the province that can work there. This is to essentially avoid the migration to the rich bits that we kind of see in London. But it also leads to a wealth division which seems to be growing quickly.
  • chopsen 14 May 2013 08:56:16 19,970 posts
    Seen 23 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    China is getting increasingly free-markety though, isn't it? It's got stock exchanges even! Interesting to see if a growing middle-class in China changes the property situation years/generations down the line.

    Now the problem with this is the British people themselves. We either seems to want to stay where we are or move to London. There seem to be very few people that are prepared to move elsewhere in search of work.
    Quoted that for fucking truth.

    @DM. You're so fond of spouting your little sound-bites that you've picked up I don't think you're really paying attention. Nobody is saying that there isn't a problem with social housing, and nobody is saying the government's strategy is the correct one. Also, you can't just wish away market forces. Even if you build more social housing, you are still using market forces to gain leverage.
  • disusedgenius 14 May 2013 09:47:02 8,726 posts
    Seen 5 minutes ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    I dunno, every other person I meet in London is just praying that their industry moves away from it so they can have a few more options. Kinda self-fulfilling, I guess.
  • senso-ji 15 May 2013 16:27:47 8,132 posts
    Seen 3 minutes ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Looks like Dorries might run as a joint Tory-UKIP candidate in the next election

    Edited by senso-ji at 16:27:59 15-05-2013
  • RobTheBuilder 15 May 2013 17:35:40 6,976 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    The thing about London is true. As a country we put far too much focus on the capital at the expense of huge potential elsewhere.

    I recall lots of BBC people whining about moving to Manchester.

    It's fucking manchester, not some tiny market town.

    I've seen it in jobs too. London drains all the talent out of most other cities.

    Even HS2 is designed to get people to London. We'd gain far more by making cross country travel between other large cities faster. Cardiff (a total pain to get to by train), Edinburgh, Manchester, Sheffield, Leeds, Newcastle, etc.
  • spamdangled 16 May 2013 10:25:50 31,044 posts
    Seen 20 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Google have just shot themselves in the foot:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/21006886

    Their chief of sales has just tripped himself up and admit that sales are conducted in the UK.

    Edited by darkmorgado at 10:26:13 16-05-2013
  • Deleted user 16 May 2013 10:28:45
    Someone needs to remind the Conservatives that they don't have a majority.
  • spamdangled 16 May 2013 10:31:08 31,044 posts
    Seen 20 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    Why is that a problem?
    Because according to law, regardless of where the financial transaction takes place, where the sale was conducted is where responsibility for paying tax is established.

    So if the sales are all taking place in the UK, regardless as to whether the money changes hands via Ireland, means that Google are avoiding tax.
  • spamdangled 16 May 2013 10:33:07 31,044 posts
    Seen 20 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    mcmonkeyplc wrote:
    Someone needs to remind the Conservatives that they don't have a majority.
    Young Tory MP, newly elected on a majority of only 300 decides to make a big name for himself.

    The Tories are seriously shooting themselves in the foot with all this banging on about Europe every single fucking day whilst ignoring the state of people's lives.
  • TheSaint 16 May 2013 10:36:20 17,438 posts
    Seen 7 minutes ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    I think it's quite a clever tactic actually. They are going to have a great "Why don't you trust the British people?" stick to beat the other parties with at the next election.
  • Deleted user 16 May 2013 10:38:37
    "Why don't you fix the economy?" In response.

    Edited by mcmonkeyplc at 10:39:05 16-05-2013
  • Deleted user 16 May 2013 10:41:12
    Conservative response: "We're fixing the economy by leaving"

    ...

    :D
  • spamdangled 16 May 2013 10:45:30 31,044 posts
    Seen 20 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    mcmonkeyplc wrote:
    Conservative response: "We're fixing the economy by leaving"...

    :D
    ..."our chances of re-election for the next generation at the door on the way out of Downing Street"

    ;)
  • spamdangled 16 May 2013 10:48:46 31,044 posts
    Seen 20 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    mcmonkeyplc wrote:
    Someone needs to remind the Conservatives that they don't have a majority.
    Erm, the ballot isn't just lmited to the Tories.
    No, but the majority is. It's a Tory issue, front and centre, after Cameron admitted that the reason the Tories lost to Labour in 97 was because the country was sick of the Nasty Party obsessing about Europe more than the consequences of their actions on the electorate.

    The last year has really shown people that the Nasty Party never left. The mask has slipped now and they're all now in the stage of self-destructing. At this rate it won't be long before we find out about a leadership contest to oust Cameron.
  • TheSaint 16 May 2013 10:50:07 17,438 posts
    Seen 7 minutes ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    mcmonkeyplc wrote:
    "Why don't you fix the economy?" In response.
    Why didn't you fix your mum?

    I really hope the next debates go in that direction.

    Edited by TheSaint at 10:50:35 16-05-2013
  • spamdangled 16 May 2013 10:52:17 31,044 posts
    Seen 20 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    darkmorgado wrote:
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    Why is that a problem?
    Because according to law, regardless of where the financial transaction takes place, where the sale was conducted is where responsibility for paying tax is established.

    So if the sales are all taking place in the UK, regardless as to whether the money changes hands via Ireland, means that Google are avoiding tax.
    I take your point but your technical jargon is all over the place. Your first paragraph is a half truth at best - tax is generated from financial transactions (which you get wrong), but the argument is that the financial transaction is created at the moment of sale. And for what it is worth tax avoidance isn't illegal.
    Evasion, avoidance.... I'm not the first person to confuse the distinction :)

    Watch the hearing though, it's been very enlightening. HMRC are on after Google to discuss the whole thing too, case law has already been quoted included the HMRC definition of taxable business activity, etc etc. The Committee are chomping at the bit now because they can smell blood and have found a crack in the wall to start chipping at.
  • TheSaint 16 May 2013 10:53:03 17,438 posts
    Seen 7 minutes ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    DM - predicting leadership challenges that never happen for four years.
  • Page

    of 829 First / Last

Log in or register to reply

Sometimes posts may contain links to online retail stores. If you click on one and make a purchase we may receive a small commission. For more information, go here.