Margaret Thatcher

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Margaret Thatcher

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 86 of 126 < 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 >

Stirlingsays 13 Apr 13 12.33am
Quote Jimenez at 12 Apr 2013 11.38pm Long Long hours...other trades earned more. You may have only had a few weeks to fit out a shop. I did loads of Pizza Huts back then. The flagship one at Leicester Sq I think we did in 20 weeks... mind you tax for a Subbie back then was 30odd % thank God for Maggie that went down to 27% It was a corny joke of course. But the background info is interesting all the same. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

13 Apr 13 12.33am

Quote Jimenez at 12 Apr 2013 11.38pm

Long Long hours...other trades earned more. You may have only had a few weeks to fit out a shop. I did loads of Pizza Huts back then. The flagship one at Leicester Sq I think we did in 20 weeks... mind you tax for a Subbie back then was 30odd % thank God for Maggie that went down to 27%

It was a corny joke of course.

But the background info is interesting all the same.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

chris123 hove actually 13 Apr 13 4.36am
Quote Stirlingsays at 13 Apr 2013 12.29am Quote chris123 at 12 Apr 2013 11.39pm It has to be affordable, otherwise you'd have a bunch of empty properties. If you're a landlord it's difficult to see how you can be successful marketing a suite of properties at unaffordable rents. If you have a set number of properties then you can charge the rate the market will bear to fill those properties. If there isn't enough houses the basic demand and supply means the rate is higher. The market isn't there to house everyone, that isn't its role. It has a set number of properties (which isn't enough to house everyone) and the market is going to make as much money as it can. This is a key reason why we had government build social housing in the first place and not the market.....The market aren't interested in housing everyone...At the lower end the profit is too low to risk the expensive outlay to build the property.....Much more profit in chasing the better earners. This isn't 'choice' for a large number of people who don't earn enough.....This is no choice. Edited by Stirlingsays (13 Apr 2013 3.29am) Of course there's a choice - move somewhere cheaper. I can't afford to live in Knightsbridge which would be dead handy for work, so I rent in Caterham and commute. There's always a choice.
Alert a moderator to this post

chris123

hove actually 13 Apr 13 4.36am

Quote Stirlingsays at 13 Apr 2013 12.29am

Quote chris123 at 12 Apr 2013 11.39pm

It has to be affordable, otherwise you'd have a bunch of empty properties. If you're a landlord it's difficult to see how you can be successful marketing a suite of properties at unaffordable rents.

If you have a set number of properties then you can charge the rate the market will bear to fill those properties.

If there isn't enough houses the basic demand and supply means the rate is higher.

The market isn't there to house everyone, that isn't its role. It has a set number of properties (which isn't enough to house everyone) and the market is going to make as much money as it can.

This is a key reason why we had government build social housing in the first place and not the market.....The market aren't interested in housing everyone...At the lower end the profit is too low to risk the expensive outlay to build the property.....Much more profit in chasing the better earners.

This isn't 'choice' for a large number of people who don't earn enough.....This is no choice.

Edited by Stirlingsays (13 Apr 2013 3.29am)

Of course there's a choice - move somewhere cheaper. I can't afford to live in Knightsbridge which would be dead handy for work, so I rent in Caterham and commute. There's always a choice.

Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8 Hevon 13 Apr 13 9.42am
Rent controls implemented Renationalisation of transport, water and energy industries Full on Apprenticeship schemes in useful and needed trades for 15, 16 and 17 year olds who don't want to go on to Further Education. Compulsory and daily foreign language learning classes on the school curriculum from aged 6 to 14 Big tax avoidance loopholes closed Higher tax rates - 50 per cent over £150k Incentive schemes for start ups to locate in other areas of the country away from the South-East and that are being regenerated. Capital gains tax of 5 per cent on house sales profit..Money raised to go into ongoing house building schemes. Houses that are being built by the now qualified apprentices from above. The marketing and sale of alcohol aimed at teenagers to face an outright ban. (Won't stop them getting their hands on drink but let's make it difficult for them for a change) A Guilianiesque Zero tolerance policy towards anti-social and lower end criminal behaviiour to be implemented in London and beyond. With the whole population given fair warning. Police operating under strict directives Rogue policeman sacked. Corrupt ones jailed. That'll do for the first year in power Kermitism The antidote to the social disease that swept through our nation 1979-1990 Big chest and massive boobs [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8

Hevon 13 Apr 13 9.42am

Rent controls implemented

Renationalisation of transport, water and energy industries

Full on Apprenticeship schemes in useful and needed trades for 15, 16 and 17 year olds who don't want to go on to Further Education.

Compulsory and daily foreign language learning classes on the school curriculum from aged 6 to 14

Big tax avoidance loopholes closed

Higher tax rates - 50 per cent over £150k

Incentive schemes for start ups to locate in other areas of the country away from the South-East and that are being regenerated.

Capital gains tax of 5 per cent on house sales profit..Money raised to go into ongoing house building schemes. Houses that are being built by the now qualified apprentices from above.

The marketing and sale of alcohol aimed at teenagers to face an outright ban. (Won't stop them getting their hands on drink but let's make it difficult for them for a change)

A Guilianiesque Zero tolerance policy towards anti-social and lower end criminal behaviiour to be implemented in London and beyond. With the whole population given fair warning. Police operating under strict directives

Rogue policeman sacked. Corrupt ones jailed.

That'll do for the first year in power

Kermitism

The antidote to the social disease that swept through our nation 1979-1990

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 13 Apr 13 10.15am
Quote Penge Eagle at 12 Apr 2013 8.41pm I genuinely don't understand your point about landlords. Is it because they earn money and are therefore evil? I'm not arguing over housing stock, but the issue about landlords. For your information, housing benefit IS paid directly to the tenant unless they ask otherwise. Owen Jones said different at the NUT jolly, so it must be true? You are parroting what he said. Edited by Penge Eagle (12 Apr 2013 8.49pm) Landlords specialising in the provision of low end rent housing are subsidised by the state through housing benefit. They're benefit scroungers sucking on the teets of the state (if you wanted to write it as the mail would for people who claim housing benefit). Of course there is a minority of unscrupulous and exploitive landlords - Just like there are a minority of benefit scrounger scum. The right seem to be very happy with the tar brush when it suits them. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 13 Apr 13 10.15am

Quote Penge Eagle at 12 Apr 2013 8.41pm
I genuinely don't understand your point about landlords. Is it because they earn money and are therefore evil?

I'm not arguing over housing stock, but the issue about landlords.

For your information, housing benefit IS paid directly to the tenant unless they ask otherwise. Owen Jones said different at the NUT jolly, so it must be true? You are parroting what he said.

Edited by Penge Eagle (12 Apr 2013 8.49pm)

Landlords specialising in the provision of low end rent housing are subsidised by the state through housing benefit.

They're benefit scroungers sucking on the teets of the state (if you wanted to write it as the mail would for people who claim housing benefit).

Of course there is a minority of unscrupulous and exploitive landlords - Just like there are a minority of benefit scrounger scum. The right seem to be very happy with the tar brush when it suits them.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 13 Apr 13 10.18am
Quote Stirlingsays at 12 Apr 2013 10.58pm Quote Willo at 12 Apr 2013 10.53pm Quote Seth at 12 Apr 2013 6.15pm That hotbed of rabid communism and anti-Tory bias, the BBC, has decided not to play Ding Dong the Witch is Dead on the Radio 1 chart show. What do those who regularly attack the Beeb for being rampant lefties think of this blatant piece of Tory-appeasing censorship? The very nadir of radio coverage came on Tuesday evening when the BBC unearthed some chap who had been promoting the song. This was in appallingly bad taste to give airtime to someone capable of promoting such a song about a woman who had died the previous day.This poison should have been kept off the airwaves. Disgusting and repugnant. Seconded. News is news, no matter how unpalatable. Personally I don't like the idea of the song, largely because its owned by MGM (and thus Sony and a whole plethora of corporate entities with shady records on market restriction and monopolisation). Plus I always feel if you're going to have a 'tribute' song - make it a real one, written for the occasion. Like Chumbawumba's 'Waiting for Thatcher to Go', or the Thatcher Memorium EP (Pre-Order only). [Link] A proper 'tribute'. Edited by jamiemartin721 (13 Apr 2013 10.19am) "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 13 Apr 13 10.18am

Quote Stirlingsays at 12 Apr 2013 10.58pm

Quote Willo at 12 Apr 2013 10.53pm

Quote Seth at 12 Apr 2013 6.15pm

That hotbed of rabid communism and anti-Tory bias, the BBC, has decided not to play Ding Dong the Witch is Dead on the Radio 1 chart show.

What do those who regularly attack the Beeb for being rampant lefties think of this blatant piece of Tory-appeasing censorship?

The very nadir of radio coverage came on Tuesday evening when the BBC unearthed some chap who had been promoting the song. This was in appallingly bad taste to give airtime to someone capable of promoting such a song about a woman who had died the previous day.This poison should have been kept off the airwaves. Disgusting and repugnant.

Seconded.

News is news, no matter how unpalatable. Personally I don't like the idea of the song, largely because its owned by MGM (and thus Sony and a whole plethora of corporate entities with shady records on market restriction and monopolisation). Plus I always feel if you're going to have a 'tribute' song - make it a real one, written for the occasion.

Like Chumbawumba's 'Waiting for Thatcher to Go', or the Thatcher Memorium EP (Pre-Order only).

[Link]

A proper 'tribute'.

Edited by jamiemartin721 (13 Apr 2013 10.19am)

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 13 Apr 13 10.20am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Apr 2013 10.15am Quote Penge Eagle at 12 Apr 2013 8.41pm I genuinely don't understand your point about landlords. Is it because they earn money and are therefore evil? I'm not arguing over housing stock, but the issue about landlords. For your information, housing benefit IS paid directly to the tenant unless they ask otherwise. Owen Jones said different at the NUT jolly, so it must be true? You are parroting what he said. Edited by Penge Eagle (12 Apr 2013 8.49pm) Landlords specialising in the provision of low end rent housing are subsidised by the state through housing benefit. They're benefit scroungers sucking on the teets of the state (if you wanted to write it as the mail would for people who claim housing benefit). Of course there is a minority of unscrupulous and exploitive landlords - Just like there are a minority of benefit scrounger scum. The right seem to be very happy with the tar brush when it suits them. Sheriff Fatman?
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 13 Apr 13 10.20am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Apr 2013 10.15am

Quote Penge Eagle at 12 Apr 2013 8.41pm
I genuinely don't understand your point about landlords. Is it because they earn money and are therefore evil?

I'm not arguing over housing stock, but the issue about landlords.

For your information, housing benefit IS paid directly to the tenant unless they ask otherwise. Owen Jones said different at the NUT jolly, so it must be true? You are parroting what he said.

Edited by Penge Eagle (12 Apr 2013 8.49pm)

Landlords specialising in the provision of low end rent housing are subsidised by the state through housing benefit.

They're benefit scroungers sucking on the teets of the state (if you wanted to write it as the mail would for people who claim housing benefit).

Sheriff Fatman?

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 13 Apr 13 11.13am
Quote chris123 at 13 Apr 2013 4.36am Of course there's a choice - move somewhere cheaper. I can't afford to live in Knightsbridge which would be dead handy for work, so I rent in Caterham and commute. There's always a choice. By 'choice' you mean you are forced to. Landlord rents are generally ridiculous. Compared to council rent levels they are not cheap. Also these 'cheaper' areas don't number anything like enough. Again this is no solution compared to the right level of social housing for those that need it. The fact that there isn't has lead to large numbers of younger people just not leaving home because they basically can't afford it. While on a practical level for those that can work...Which is the majority of us I agree with the idea that they move to where the work is. However this only really works for young or fit people. For the old or disabled that policy would split up families. Also that policy leads to ghettoisation where whole areas are populated depending upon wealth. This isn't a good thing....To a certain extent this has happened all ready...The only thing to stop this is social housing. That's going back to Victorian times where the poor or poorer were kept away from the other classes in separate areas. Now that may seem like a natural process of capitalism to you but it defeats the whole point of social housing in the first place. That was to provide affordable housing.....Not affordable housing only in areas where no one wants to live......Where those who can't cope for whatever reason are forced to separate from those in their family who can. Shall we just build social houses in poor areas? It also leads to a great inequality in who has social housing and pays realistic actual rent levels compared to people who can't get on the list but who need to. Edited by Stirlingsays (13 Apr 2013 11.21am) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

13 Apr 13 11.13am

Quote chris123 at 13 Apr 2013 4.36am

Of course there's a choice - move somewhere cheaper. I can't afford to live in Knightsbridge which would be dead handy for work, so I rent in Caterham and commute. There's always a choice.

By 'choice' you mean you are forced to.

Landlord rents are generally ridiculous. Compared to council rent levels they are not cheap. Also these 'cheaper' areas don't number anything like enough.

Again this is no solution compared to the right level of social housing for those that need it. The fact that there isn't has lead to large numbers of younger people just not leaving home because they basically can't afford it.

While on a practical level for those that can work...Which is the majority of us I agree with the idea that they move to where the work is. However this only really works for young or fit people. For the old or disabled that policy would split up families.

Also that policy leads to ghettoisation where whole areas are populated depending upon wealth. This isn't a good thing....To a certain extent this has happened all ready...The only thing to stop this is social housing.

That's going back to Victorian times where the poor or poorer were kept away from the other classes in separate areas.

Now that may seem like a natural process of capitalism to you but it defeats the whole point of social housing in the first place.

That was to provide affordable housing.....Not affordable housing only in areas where no one wants to live......Where those who can't cope for whatever reason are forced to separate from those in their family who can.

Shall we just build social houses in poor areas?

It also leads to a great inequality in who has social housing and pays realistic actual rent levels compared to people who can't get on the list but who need to.

Edited by Stirlingsays (13 Apr 2013 11.21am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

nickyf 13 Apr 13 11.13am
) You know, one of the most heart wrenching stories i heard from that conflict was when the police were baton charging some miners in Sheffield. The older miners that had fought in the 2nd World War, just stood still not expecting their police force to actually attack them, but they went right through them. Well if they fought in the war and were still mining in at the start of the 80's they must have been fairly senior, that's at least 35 years.[/quote] ----------------------------------------------- My wifes dad was a miner at that time, he was in his 50s during the miners strike he was still working down the mine and was a tank driver during ww2 on reconnaissance missions.. Edited by nickyf (13 Apr 2013 11.15am)
Alert a moderator to this post

nickyf 13 Apr 13 11.13am

)

You know, one of the most heart wrenching stories i heard from that conflict was when the police were baton charging some miners in Sheffield. The older miners that had fought in the 2nd World War, just stood still not expecting their police force to actually attack them, but they went right through them.

Well if they fought in the war and were still mining in at the start of the 80's they must have been fairly senior, that's at least 35 years.[/quote]

-----------------------------------------------
My wifes dad was a miner at that time, he was in his 50s during the miners strike
he was still working down the mine and was a tank driver during ww2 on reconnaissance missions..

Edited by nickyf (13 Apr 2013 11.15am)

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 13 Apr 13 12.52pm
Quote nickgusset at 13 Apr 2013 10.20am Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Apr 2013 10.15am Quote Penge Eagle at 12 Apr 2013 8.41pm I genuinely don't understand your point about landlords. Is it because they earn money and are therefore evil? I'm not arguing over housing stock, but the issue about landlords. For your information, housing benefit IS paid directly to the tenant unless they ask otherwise. Owen Jones said different at the NUT jolly, so it must be true? You are parroting what he said. Edited by Penge Eagle (12 Apr 2013 8.49pm) Landlords specialising in the provision of low end rent housing are subsidised by the state through housing benefit. They're benefit scroungers sucking on the teets of the state (if you wanted to write it as the mail would for people who claim housing benefit). Of course there is a minority of unscrupulous and exploitive landlords - Just like there are a minority of benefit scrounger scum. The right seem to be very happy with the tar brush when it suits them. Sheriff Fatman? [Link] Crystal Palace fans - So they can't be wrong!! "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 13 Apr 13 12.52pm

Quote nickgusset at 13 Apr 2013 10.20am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Apr 2013 10.15am

Quote Penge Eagle at 12 Apr 2013 8.41pm
I genuinely don't understand your point about landlords. Is it because they earn money and are therefore evil?

I'm not arguing over housing stock, but the issue about landlords.

For your information, housing benefit IS paid directly to the tenant unless they ask otherwise. Owen Jones said different at the NUT jolly, so it must be true? You are parroting what he said.

Edited by Penge Eagle (12 Apr 2013 8.49pm)

Landlords specialising in the provision of low end rent housing are subsidised by the state through housing benefit.

They're benefit scroungers sucking on the teets of the state (if you wanted to write it as the mail would for people who claim housing benefit).

Sheriff Fatman?

[Link]

Crystal Palace fans - So they can't be wrong!!

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 13 Apr 13 12.58pm
Quote chris123 at 13 Apr 2013 4.36am Of course there's a choice - move somewhere cheaper. I can't afford to live in Knightsbridge which would be dead handy for work, so I rent in Caterham and commute. There's always a choice. What if that commute means losing two hours of wages a day in travel? Makes it unviable on a low income salary. The problems aren't really for people not being able to live in Knightsbridge or the city, chances are that job pays well. Its the people who have to travel from poor areas, the nearest low or minimum wage job, in an area they can't afford to live in. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 13 Apr 13 12.58pm

Quote chris123 at 13 Apr 2013 4.36am

Of course there's a choice - move somewhere cheaper. I can't afford to live in Knightsbridge which would be dead handy for work, so I rent in Caterham and commute. There's always a choice.

What if that commute means losing two hours of wages a day in travel? Makes it unviable on a low income salary. The problems aren't really for people not being able to live in Knightsbridge or the city, chances are that job pays well.

Its the people who have to travel from poor areas, the nearest low or minimum wage job, in an area they can't afford to live in.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 13 Apr 13 1.07pm
Quote Stirlingsays at 13 Apr 2013 11.13am Quote chris123 at 13 Apr 2013 4.36am Of course there's a choice - move somewhere cheaper. I can't afford to live in Knightsbridge which would be dead handy for work, so I rent in Caterham and commute. There's always a choice. By 'choice' you mean you are forced to. Landlord rents are generally ridiculous. Compared to council rent levels they are not cheap. Also these 'cheaper' areas don't number anything like enough. Again this is no solution compared to the right level of social housing for those that need it. The fact that there isn't has lead to large numbers of younger people just not leaving home because they basically can't afford it. While on a practical level for those that can work...Which is the majority of us I agree with the idea that they move to where the work is. However this only really works for young or fit people. For the old or disabled that policy would split up families. Also that policy leads to ghettoisation where whole areas are populated depending upon wealth. This isn't a good thing....To a certain extent this has happened all ready...The only thing to stop this is social housing. That's going back to Victorian times where the poor or poorer were kept away from the other classes in separate areas. Now that may seem like a natural process of capitalism to you but it defeats the whole point of social housing in the first place. That was to provide affordable housing.....Not affordable housing only in areas where no one wants to live......Where those who can't cope for whatever reason are forced to separate from those in their family who can. Shall we just build social houses in poor areas? It also leads to a great inequality in who has social housing and pays realistic actual rent levels compared to people who can't get on the list but who need to. Edited by Stirlingsays (13 Apr 2013 11.21am) When I was a little kid my parents bought an ex-council house in Henley on Thames, off of the people who bought it off of the council (their choice, not mine). All of those council properties were sold off. But the advantage of that time was that a affluent area had two largish council estates, that allowed people on low income to live in one of the best areas of the country, and for me it was a massive boost in my opportunities in life. Granted some people didn't take advantage of the opportunities growing up poor in a rich area offers, but most did. I agree, we need affordable accommodation, even if it not for private ownership, in all areas. Those areas need low wage workers as much as anywhere else (maybe more so). When I worked supermarkets to put myself through college, it was disturbing how many people had to travel 15-20 miles just to work stacking shelves. Its counter productive ghettoising the poor to the cheapest areas. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 13 Apr 13 1.07pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 13 Apr 2013 11.13am

Quote chris123 at 13 Apr 2013 4.36am

Of course there's a choice - move somewhere cheaper. I can't afford to live in Knightsbridge which would be dead handy for work, so I rent in Caterham and commute. There's always a choice.

By 'choice' you mean you are forced to.

Landlord rents are generally ridiculous. Compared to council rent levels they are not cheap. Also these 'cheaper' areas don't number anything like enough.

That's going back to Victorian times where the poor or poorer were kept away from the other classes in separate areas.

Now that may seem like a natural process of capitalism to you but it defeats the whole point of social housing in the first place.

Shall we just build social houses in poor areas?

It also leads to a great inequality in who has social housing and pays realistic actual rent levels compared to people who can't get on the list but who need to.

Edited by Stirlingsays (13 Apr 2013 11.21am)

When I was a little kid my parents bought an ex-council house in Henley on Thames, off of the people who bought it off of the council (their choice, not mine). All of those council properties were sold off. But the advantage of that time was that a affluent area had two largish council estates, that allowed people on low income to live in one of the best areas of the country, and for me it was a massive boost in my opportunities in life. Granted some people didn't take advantage of the opportunities growing up poor in a rich area offers, but most did.

I agree, we need affordable accommodation, even if it not for private ownership, in all areas. Those areas need low wage workers as much as anywhere else (maybe more so). When I worked supermarkets to put myself through college, it was disturbing how many people had to travel 15-20 miles just to work stacking shelves.

Its counter productive ghettoising the poor to the cheapest areas.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Penge Eagle Beckenham 13 Apr 13 2.55pm
Quote nickgusset at 12 Apr 2013 10.22pm Quote chris123 at 12 Apr 2013 9.15pm Quote Penge Eagle at 12 Apr 2013 9.05pm Quote nickgusset at 12 Apr 2013 9.02pm Quote Penge Eagle at 12 Apr 2013 8.41pm Quote nickgusset at 12 Apr 2013 7.27pm Quote Penge Eagle at 12 Apr 2013 5.22pm Quote nickgusset at 12 Apr 2013 12.29am WhiteHorse hasn't been on for a while, was he really a senile Thatch? I notice in the Daily Mirror that of all the council homes sold off, one third are being rented out by private landlords...Probably for a lot more than council rent would cost!!! Edited by nickgusset (12 Apr 2013 12.31am) Again, you are simply parroting what the likes of Owen Jones says. Please explain in a bit more detail how landlords are profiteering or the "Probably for a lot more than council rent would cost!" bit. I asked Owen Jones about this through twitter and he didn't get back to me, funnily enough! Edited by Penge Eagle (12 Apr 2013 5.23pm) I was merelysharing the Daily Mirrors story, I haven't read what Owen Jones wrote, although he did touch upon housing benefit being paid directly to unscrupulous landlords (not into the pockets of the inhabitants) during his excellent speech at the NUT conference. If you repeat anything in a paper, may I accuse you of 'parroting' Littlejohn. Once again Penge, you resort to personal digs rather than countering the argument. Do you have evidence against the fact that a third of sold off council houses are owned by private landlords? If you do, I'd be more than happy to read it. Sorry Nick, I fail to see any personal insult there. Why are you quoting a story to score points without being aware of the facts of the actual story? I said you [in the case of this Mirror link] and "the likes of Owen Jones" as I've heard it so many times before and it's rubbish. By you quoting that Mirror story, you clearly agree with it. "Greedy landlords" is regularly trotted out by left wing commentators and politicians. I am really interested to know how landlords who provide a service for the population profiteer on vulnerable people or are unscrupulousness. I genuinely don't understand your point about landlords. Is it because they earn money and are therefore evil? I'm not arguing over housing stock, but the issue about landlords. For your information, housing benefit IS paid directly to the tenant unless they ask otherwise. Owen Jones said different at the NUT jolly, so it must be true? You are parroting what he said. Edited by Penge Eagle (12 Apr 2013 8.49pm) I was paraphrasing, not saying word for word. Landlords are profiting out of your taxes, did you know that the son of the housing minister at the time of the council house sell off has a portfolio of over 40 ex council houses? "Landlords are profiting out of your taxes". I just don't understand what is wrong with that? The State gives money to the private sector all of the time... Do you have a problem with landlords? Edited by Penge Eagle (12 Apr 2013 9.07pm Landlord's are inherently risk takers. We have had two major property slumps in my memory. In the SE property prices may be fairly stable at the moment, but elsewhere they are not. If you are prepared to invest, take on risk and provide a service, what is wrong with those that get right making a profit? I don't have a problem with landlords per se. One and a half million council houses were sold off at up to 50% of their value. 1/3 of these houses are now owned by private landlords, fair play to private landlords if that is their way of making money. However the rent they are charging is way above what the council rent would have been. In the vast majority of cases, the houses are being rented back to people who would have, had there been enough, been renting off of the council. As tax payers, we are paying a lot of the (now inflated when compared to council)rent through housing benefit. Rents have increased by 36% in the last few years- now whether this is partly because landlords know they are onto a good thing because they know they have a guaranteed income from benefit tenants is debatable but not unlikely-I know there are other reasons, supply/demand etc-(a hangover from the original sold off housing stock not being replaced) So as tax payers, we are paying a great deal more to support those who need housing benefit in order to provide a profit for individuals rather than to a council who could use the money for other projects-building more houses, fixing the facking pothole in the road, keeping libraries open etc etc. That is where my beef lies. Edited by nickgusset (12 Apr 2013 10.24pm) I'm glad you had overnight to research your point since. You say: "However the rent they are charging is way above what the council rent would have been." Landlords do not get paid any more letting out to the local council as they would a private individual. In fact, many council schemes give the landlord LESS money but tie to a rental guarantee scheme and the landlord has to spend more money to bring it up to council standards. It doesn't affect the tenant as the rent is still covered. OBVIOUSLY, if the council owned the property themselves then it would be cheaper for them instead of renting off a landlord. But that is not the landlord's fault!! It's down to a shortage of housing stock after Maggie (rightly) enabled people to buy their council home and the social housing was not replaced by her or in the 30 years since by Labour governments. Coupled with a rising population and more divorces that makes supply even more scare. It's got nothing to do with landlords renting out accommodation. The rent is market value! Anyway, you could argue that a council paying a landlord rent works out much cheaper and better value for the taxpayer than the cost of building and maintaining thousands of homes in the medium term. I find it incredible that you are concerned about value for money for the tax payer all of a sudden! Only when a private individual has the opportunity to earn some money, then it's not fair! You forget that many landlords don't make any money or have lost thousands - so they are not all "profiteering". Many don't like the fact tenants get the housing allowance direct to the tenant because tenants have run off with the money or trashed the place after. From a moral perspective, only genuine cases should get housing benefit and the frauds should not which should in turn free up cash for fixing the potholes etc. The landlords are irrelevant as they are simply providing a service. Edited by Penge Eagle (13 Apr 2013 2.59pm)
Alert a moderator to this post \| Board Moderator

Penge Eagle

Beckenham 13 Apr 13 2.55pm

Quote nickgusset at 12 Apr 2013 10.22pm

Quote chris123 at 12 Apr 2013 9.15pm

Quote Penge Eagle at 12 Apr 2013 9.05pm

Quote nickgusset at 12 Apr 2013 9.02pm

Quote Penge Eagle at 12 Apr 2013 8.41pm

Quote nickgusset at 12 Apr 2013 7.27pm

Quote Penge Eagle at 12 Apr 2013 5.22pm

Quote nickgusset at 12 Apr 2013 12.29am

WhiteHorse hasn't been on for a while, was he really a senile Thatch?

I notice in the Daily Mirror that of all the council homes sold off, one third are being rented out by private landlords...Probably for a lot more than council rent would cost!!!

Edited by nickgusset (12 Apr 2013 12.31am)

Again, you are simply parroting what the likes of Owen Jones says.

Please explain in a bit more detail how landlords are profiteering or the "Probably for a lot more than council rent would cost!" bit.

I asked Owen Jones about this through twitter and he didn't get back to me, funnily enough!

Edited by Penge Eagle (12 Apr 2013 5.23pm)

I was merelysharing the Daily Mirrors story, I haven't read what Owen Jones wrote, although he did touch upon housing benefit being paid directly to unscrupulous landlords (not into the pockets of the inhabitants) during his excellent speech at the NUT conference.

If you repeat anything in a paper, may I accuse you of 'parroting' Littlejohn.

Once again Penge, you resort to personal digs rather than countering the argument. Do you have evidence against the fact that a third of sold off council houses are owned by private landlords? If you do, I'd be more than happy to read it.

Sorry Nick, I fail to see any personal insult there.

Why are you quoting a story to score points without being aware of the facts of the actual story?

I said you [in the case of this Mirror link] and "the likes of Owen Jones" as I've heard it so many times before and it's rubbish. By you quoting that Mirror story, you clearly agree with it. "Greedy landlords" is regularly trotted out by left wing commentators and politicians.

I am really interested to know how landlords who provide a service for the population profiteer on vulnerable people or are unscrupulousness.

I genuinely don't understand your point about landlords. Is it because they earn money and are therefore evil?

I'm not arguing over housing stock, but the issue about landlords.

For your information, housing benefit IS paid directly to the tenant unless they ask otherwise. Owen Jones said different at the NUT jolly, so it must be true? You are parroting what he said.

Edited by Penge Eagle (12 Apr 2013 8.49pm)

I was paraphrasing, not saying word for word.
Landlords are profiting out of your taxes, did you know that the son of the housing minister at the time of the council house sell off has a portfolio of over 40 ex council houses?

"Landlords are profiting out of your taxes". I just don't understand what is wrong with that? The State gives money to the private sector all of the time...

Do you have a problem with landlords?

Edited by Penge Eagle (12 Apr 2013 9.07pm

Landlord's are inherently risk takers. We have had two major property slumps in my memory. In the SE property prices may be fairly stable at the moment, but elsewhere they are not. If you are prepared to invest, take on risk and provide a service, what is wrong with those that get right making a profit?

I don't have a problem with landlords per se.

One and a half million council houses were sold off at up to 50% of their value. 1/3 of these houses are now owned by private landlords, fair play to private landlords if that is their way of making money. However the rent they are charging is way above what the council rent would have been.

In the vast majority of cases, the houses are being rented back to people who would have, had there been enough, been renting off of the council. As tax payers, we are paying a lot of the (now inflated when compared to council)rent through housing benefit.
Rents have increased by 36% in the last few years- now whether this is partly because landlords know they are onto a good thing because they know they have a guaranteed income from benefit tenants is debatable but not unlikely-I know there are other reasons, supply/demand etc-(a hangover from the original sold off housing stock not being replaced)

So as tax payers, we are paying a great deal more to support those who need housing benefit in order to provide a profit for individuals rather than to a council who could use the money for other projects-building more houses, fixing the facking pothole in the road, keeping libraries open etc etc.

That is where my beef lies.

Edited by nickgusset (12 Apr 2013 10.24pm)

I'm glad you had overnight to research your point since.

You say: "However the rent they are charging is way above what the council rent would have been."

Landlords do not get paid any more letting out to the local council as they would a private individual. In fact, many council schemes give the landlord LESS money but tie to a rental guarantee scheme and the landlord has to spend more money to bring it up to council standards.

It doesn't affect the tenant as the rent is still covered.

OBVIOUSLY, if the council owned the property themselves then it would be cheaper for them instead of renting off a landlord.

But that is not the landlord's fault!!

It's down to a shortage of housing stock after Maggie (rightly) enabled people to buy their council home and the social housing was not replaced by her or in the 30 years since by Labour governments. Coupled with a rising population and more divorces that makes supply even more scare. It's got nothing to do with landlords renting out accommodation.

The rent is market value!

Anyway, you could argue that a council paying a landlord rent works out much cheaper and better value for the taxpayer than the cost of building and maintaining thousands of homes in the medium term.

I find it incredible that you are concerned about value for money for the tax payer all of a sudden! Only when a private individual has the opportunity to earn some money, then it's not fair! You forget that many landlords don't make any money or have lost thousands - so they are not all "profiteering". Many don't like the fact tenants get the housing allowance direct to the tenant because tenants have run off with the money or trashed the place after.

From a moral perspective, only genuine cases should get housing benefit and the frauds should not which should in turn free up cash for fixing the potholes etc. The landlords are irrelevant as they are simply providing a service.

Edited by Penge Eagle (13 Apr 2013 2.59pm)

Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator

Page 86 of 126 < 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Margaret Thatcher

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors