tonyh29 Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 local councils simply don;t have the cash they did until they put it in Icelandic banks ?? I can sympathise with people loosing their homes and jobs , but if you adopt this pay what you can approach , where is the incentive for them to get back to work ? .. the more people in work , means the more revenue coming into government coffers so a back to work program has to be number 1 priority ... The country is bankrupt , how do you propose buying back all these properties and then giving them away almost rent free .... and The only trouble is you can almost be certain that somewhere down track a future government will look to sell them back off to the pubic again to generate cash ... no matter how hard you try and prevent it from happening and for me the armed forces is one area. 100% No on this , it's bad enough our army are sent around the world on phony wars with nothing more than paper , scissors , stone as a means of trying to win combat ... The armed forces need to be kept and spending increased if anything so that they have the tools to do the difficult job OUR Government asks them to do . If you are serious about raising funds , look no further than the economic drain that is the EU .. think from 1997 - 2007 we paid £104 bn and received back £64 Bn .. however as the £64 bn comes back with conditions attached .. I.e , it has to be spent on sustaining EU projects , the £40bn isn't entirely accurate Something i would like to see is Corporate lead .. Instead of letting them hide money in tax loopholes offshore , work some form of deal with these companies ... so give corporations government contracts in exchange for a % of the profits being ploughed back into areas such as Hospitals or schools .. win win surely ..you secure jobs for British companies , you get people back to work and you get some info structure in place paid for the private sector ...... of course that would be deemed to be unfair competition by our Big Brothers in the EU .. so we'd have to tell them where to go as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 If Cable has said that then I agree with him and the money can come from other sources where we cut back and for me the armed forces is one area. It is an idea, but it's a rubbish one! The budget is only about thrity billion (about 2.2% of GDP), what exactly do you suggest is cut? Even if you binned the armed forces entirely it would probably only be enough to bail a bank out for six months anyway. Cable is the only person in politics who seems to have a clue at the moment, I suggested way back on this thread that the entire banking system needs to be nationalised and then re-privatised over a ten-fifteen year period. I don't think there is anywhere else left to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 The idea of buying up repossesed homes is so last year. The idea then was to try and prop up the housing market and prevent implosion. Too late for that now. A better use of any funds would be building new social housing, which employs builders and blokes in builders yards and wimmin who make the bacon butties. Buying up existing repossesed houses gives the govt funds back to the banks who won't lend it back out anyway. Better to boost the economy is a simple, yet easy and quick to implement manner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted February 13, 2009 Author Share Posted February 13, 2009 Tony look at what happens, now, someone gets unemployed they may get 6 months grace anyway on the mortgage if not then they get chuicked out, go to the councils and get rehoused, the cost of that per person far outweighs the cost of keeping them in the same house and them paying rent. Obviously there would be limitations on it but the costs of peopel being rehoused are far more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted February 13, 2009 Author Share Posted February 13, 2009 If Cable has said that then I agree with him and the money can come from other sources where we cut back and for me the armed forces is one area. It is an idea, but it's a rubbish one! The budget is only about thrity billion (about 2.2% of GDP), what exactly do you suggest is cut? Even if you binned the armed forces entirely it would probably only be enough to bail a bank out for six months anyway. Cable is the only person in politics who seems to have a clue at the moment, I suggested way back on this thread that the entire banking system needs to be nationalised and then re-privatised over a ten-fifteen year period. I don't think there is anywhere else left to go. I don't think there is but poltically it is a dynamite topic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted February 13, 2009 Author Share Posted February 13, 2009 The idea of buying up repossesed homes is so last year. The idea then was to try and prop up the housing market and prevent implosion. Too late for that now. A better use of any funds would be building new social housing, which employs builders and blokes in builders yards and wimmin who make the bacon butties. Buying up existing repossesed houses gives the govt funds back to the banks who won't lend it back out anyway. Better to boost the economy is a simple, yet easy and quick to implement manner. the reason I suggested the plan was because it also redfines the economy to understand that owning your own house is no longer a government aim won;t happen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 The idea of buying up repossesed homes is so last year. The idea then was to try and prop up the housing market and prevent implosion. Too late for that now. A better use of any funds would be building new social housing, which employs builders and blokes in builders yards and wimmin who make the bacon butties. Buying up existing repossesed houses gives the govt funds back to the banks who won't lend it back out anyway. Better to boost the economy is a simple, yet easy and quick to implement manner.One can still employ builders, blokes in builders' yards and the bacon-butty makers on refurbishment projects. Why make the first (real) action of restimulating the economy another exercise in imprudent lavishness? As mentioned before on this thread there are a huge number of empty properties across the country and there is a large amount of empty (commercial but unlikely to b used in that way) floorspace, all of which could be bought and used to increase social housing stock. It will still have an impact in the building industry because very few of these properties, supposedly, are fit to live in straight away and therefore there would need to be a program of refurbishment. To purposely have a policy that ignores what we have in favour of spending on things that we don't necessarily need (if we made good use of what we already had then the need would be minimal) would seem like a social housing policy based on the consumerism that got us into this mess, wouldn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Tony look at what happens, now, someone gets unemployed they may get 6 months grace anyway on the mortgage From where? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 The idea of buying up repossesed homes is so last year. The idea then was to try and prop up the housing market and prevent implosion. Too late for that now. A better use of any funds would be building new social housing, which employs builders and blokes in builders yards and wimmin who make the bacon butties. Buying up existing repossesed houses gives the govt funds back to the banks who won't lend it back out anyway. Better to boost the economy is a simple, yet easy and quick to implement manner. the reason I suggested the plan was because it also redfines the economy to understand that owning your own house is no longer a government aim won;t happenWhereas building lots of scoial housing - and forcing banks who helped inflate the bubble through their lending policies to hold onto recently devalued assets (instead of the cash they would get through your scheme), helps redefine the economy more away from the house owning culture than your proposal would. It also puts people into work whereas yours increases state dependence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted February 13, 2009 Author Share Posted February 13, 2009 Social housing is state dependenace is it not ? I am all for any plan to increase social housing but also I think a lot of private housings needs to be made into state, reverse the disatorus policy of thatcher of selling the good stock of council housing and leaving councils with shite we do actually agree I think on the increase in social/rented secotr but is the UK public ready to give up the drug of house prices as some kind of status symbol ? If the Tories win the next election Gringo as it seems likely do you think they would do any of this ? Labour might do a little, lib dems a bit more, but you and I, I feel would go further Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 the money would have to come from central government, local councils simply don;t have the cash and I think any scheme like this (you could include new builds that have not been solid and empty houses) would have to be run through national guidelines to ensure all take part because some councils would not want to take part And that would be, to a certaint extent, where I would differ from you. There have been too many top down policies in the last decade. They often prove unworkable and increasingly often are proving unpopular with the public. The money does need to come from central government (initially), I agree. And there ought to be guidelines which come with the money that local areas decide to take. But it ought not to be a directive from on high. The regional housing policy and targets passed down from central government have already caused a great deal of anger and resentment, it would be rather silly not to learn the lessons from that and devise a slightly better strategy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 If the Tories win the next election Gringo as it seems likely do you think they would do any of this ?Of course they won't - they're in hock to the property companies as much as labour are to the banks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted February 13, 2009 Author Share Posted February 13, 2009 well Gringo, say Labour said they would spend 10bn on social housing (whether buying up exisiting properties or new builds) it would be interesting to see the Tories response Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted February 13, 2009 Author Share Posted February 13, 2009 the money would have to come from central government, local councils simply don;t have the cash and I think any scheme like this (you could include new builds that have not been solid and empty houses) would have to be run through national guidelines to ensure all take part because some councils would not want to take part And that would be, to a certaint extent, where I would differ from you. There have been too many top down policies in the last decade. They often prove unworkable and increasingly often are proving unpopular with the public. The money does need to come from central government (initially), I agree. And there ought to be guidelines which come with the money that local areas decide to take. But it ought not to be a directive from on high. The regional housing policy and targets passed down from central government have already caused a great deal of anger and resentment, it would be rather silly not to learn the lessons from that and devise a slightly better strategy. the only reason I say top down is in some areas some councils would go for it 100% and in other areas they would not based on poltical colour I would suspect Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 well Gringo, say Labour said they would spend 10bn on social housing (whether buying up exisiting properties or new builds) it would be interesting to see the Tories response Probably by saying "oh really, and where are you going to find another 10 billion Mr Brown?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Well if it's Boris he will probably throw in a load of abuse swear words and a few racist comments just for fun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 the only reason I say top down is in some areas some councils would go for it 100% and in other areas they would not based on poltical colour I would suspect Perhaps, perhaps not. Why should local areas not be responsible for their local, social housing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 well Gringo, say Labour said they would spend 10bn on social housing (whether buying up exisiting properties or new builds) it would be interesting to see the Tories response I doubt they'd be massively in favour. I'd also hope that whatever response they made it would be relevant to the discussion being had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Well if it's Boris he will probably throw in a load of abuse swear words Following the lead off topic, if ever a man deserved a gobfull for being a slimy, duplicitous vacuum of integrity, it's Keith Vaz. I wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire. Well said Boris. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 I'd also hope that whatever response they made it would be relevant to the discussion being had. Oooh get you :angel: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts