Off Topic Politics Thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
ImpSaint said:
The 1% must be in "real terms" then because my rent has gone up year on year. A hefty £69 a week now. lol. It was £56.34 a week when I "won it" in 2007.

There is a difference "here in Lincoln anyway" where my house is £69 council (£300/mnth) £80 housing association (£346/month) and private they are in the £450/mnth region. So mine by that guide is 2/3 market. and housing assoc is about 3/4.

All council houses are on that lower rate here. There tend to be more bidders for a council house than the housing assoc ones (they are on the same bidding site.)

Low earners or non earners aren;t paying any rent though so its by the by really. Council is better off paying housing benefit to themselves than the £450 private sector rent.

There is state owned derelict land all over the place especially in the existing council estates. There used to be schools all over the place, some back to back. They've merged a fair few of them. They;ve supposedly been going to build on one on my estate for the last 6 or 7 years when they merged it with the school it neighboured (quite literally a fence between their 2 playing fields.) Just been left derelict with nothing done to it. I think these were being saved for George Osborne's "preferred partners" to get sweet deals and build exec houses.

So for me its a great policy. Up yours Osborne. Now to make sure that the big developers are kept out of the loop and local builders enticed back into the building trade rather than stacking shelves or driving taxis.
Click to expand...
Most housing association homes are inherited from councils so have the exact same tenancy agreements. There's no reason I know of that a housing association would be more unless it's some specific scheme of your council.
And social rent is a formula so no different between either. The only reason I can think of is that all the ones being listed have been converted to affordable after the resident moved out, which would be due to associations taking up government policy.


My local derilict school (woolston) has been bought by a housing association to build on, but they're not building any social homes to rent, half will be market sale and half affordable sale.

Conservative policies just mean more and more housing benefit will go to private companies. I'm all for unlocking land to build on, but just saying they will do it with no mention of how isn't very inspiring.
 
Whiteley Saint said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41498353

Reality check article on housing (repeats itself). About time they realised that more social housing is needed, it's been obvious for years.
Click to expand...
Good write up that.

Shows the way the government has caused confusion over the term social rent. Starts off by quoting the conservatives saying 25k built for social rent which includes affordable, but then has to use social rent as a contrast to affordable like I do, because they use the term for formula rented properties alone too. makes it easy to back track on promises though I guess. "'No I didn't say I would build social rented properties I said 'social' rented properties"
 
Oh for the old liberal consensus.

Easy quick questions:

1. Under which Prime Minister were most council houses built?
2. Which Secretary of State for Education closed the most grammar schools and approve moves to a comprehensive system?

1. Macmillan
2.Thatcher

What both of these stats underline was that for many years post-war there was a consensus on a wide range of social issues. That the 1951 Tory Government did not row back on the Welfare State and NHS introduced by the Labour administration is an example. We had one nation Toryism, and a sort of pinko Labour party. It is starting to look like a golden age. Just as 24 hour news coverage demands that there must be news, and if not they'll create it, we have politicians who feel the need to constantly re-jig policies. Could a government of any party please ask itself two simple questions. What do we want in terms of housing for the people of the UK? Is what we're currently doing achieving these goals?

We need the Tories to stop trying to go all "hey kids we're with you, and the market is cool". We need Labour to stop "Public Good; Private Bad". If one or preferably both of them sought answers to these questions life could be OK.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ImpSaint and TheSecondStain
VocalMinority said:
Most housing association homes are inherited from councils so have the exact same tenancy agreements. There's no reason I know of that a housing association would be more unless it's some specific scheme of your council.
And social rent is a formula so no different between either. The only reason I can think of is that all the ones being listed have been converted to affordable after the resident moved out, which would be due to associations taking up government policy.
Click to expand...

Not something I recognise here I'm afraid. All the council homes are either still council or private. All the housing assoc are "new builds" over the past 10-20 years. Maybe it costs more in "admin" for housing assoc seeing as they have their own CEOs rather than just a department head?


My local derilict school (woolston) has been bought by a housing association to build on, but they're not building any social homes to rent, half will be market sale and half affordable sale.
Click to expand...

My point with Osborne and his "preferred partners." Blair was the same.

Conservative policies just mean more and more housing benefit will go to private companies. I'm all for unlocking land to build on, but just saying they will do it with no mention of how isn't very inspiring.
Click to expand...

Totally agree on what you are saying here. The Tories need to clarify if these will be state owned, housing assoc or private. And then give numbers/percentages of how many are state. Housing association are just more "not for profit" organisations and nobody trusts them. They just "spend" the profits in house instead.
 
Missing Lambo said:
Oh for the old liberal consensus.

Easy quick questions:

1. Under which Prime Minister were most council houses built?
2. Which Secretary of State for Education closed the most grammar schools and approve moves to a comprehensive system?

1. Macmillan
2.Thatcher

What both of these stats underline was that for many years post-war there was a consensus on a wide range of social issues. That the 1951 Tory Government did not row back on the Welfare State and NHS introduced by the Labour administration is an example. We had one nation Toryism, and a sort of pinko Labour party. It is starting to look like a golden age. Just as 24 hour news coverage demands that there must be news, and if not they'll create it, we have politicians who feel the need to constantly re-jig policies. Could a government of any party please ask itself two simple questions. What do we want in terms of housing for the people of the UK? Is what we're currently doing achieving these goals?

We need the Tories to stop trying to go all "hey kids we're with you, and the market is cool". We need Labour to stop "Public Good; Private Bad". If one or preferably both of them sought answers to these questions life could be OK.
Click to expand...

You forgot which PM closed the more coal mines ;)
 
ImpSaint said:
Not something I recognise here I'm afraid. All the council homes are either still council or private. All the housing assoc are "new builds" over the past 10-20 years. Maybe it costs more in "admin" for housing assoc seeing as they have their own CEOs rather than just a department head?
.
Click to expand...

Housing associations don't set the rent, its based off of market conditions, the same formula is used by the council so they will come out the same amount no matter who owns them. so no matter how much 'admin' costs you have the rent will stay the same(and changing due to market conditions). I think they can still do stuff with services charges though. If all your local housing association's stock are new builds then that would explain it because just about all new builds are affordable. why would you build a true social rented property when you can build the same property, get more money in rent to maintain it and get government grants to build it that aren't available for social homes?

Although i would expect the older builds to still be social since that obviously only applies since 'affordable' homes became a thing.
 
Missing Lambo said:
Oh for the old liberal consensus.

Easy quick questions:

1. Under which Prime Minister were most council houses built?
2. Which Secretary of State for Education closed the most grammar schools and approve moves to a comprehensive system?

1. Macmillan
2.Thatcher

What both of these stats underline was that for many years post-war there was a consensus on a wide range of social issues. That the 1951 Tory Government did not row back on the Welfare State and NHS introduced by the Labour administration is an example. We had one nation Toryism, and a sort of pinko Labour party. It is starting to look like a golden age. Just as 24 hour news coverage demands that there must be news, and if not they'll create it, we have politicians who feel the need to constantly re-jig policies. Could a government of any party please ask itself two simple questions. What do we want in terms of housing for the people of the UK? Is what we're currently doing achieving these goals?

We need the Tories to stop trying to go all "hey kids we're with you, and the market is cool". We need Labour to stop "Public Good; Private Bad". If one or preferably both of them sought answers to these questions life could be OK.
Click to expand...

That's one of the things that really bugs me with politics. Someone can come up with a good idea but just because it's not their idea the other side will say it's rubbish. If only parties would acknowledge good ideas and work together more. You see it on the news all the time. So and so has announced this and they then talk to the other side, but there is no need to listen to them because they will just be negative without fail. They seem to forget that it's not about them but what is best for the country. Both sides do this.

Of course some of the things both parties come up with are complete rubbish. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Number 1 Jasper and Saints_Alive
VocalMinority said:
Housing associations don't set the rent, its based off of market conditions, the same formula is used by the council so they will come out the same amount no matter who owns them. so no matter how much 'admin' costs you have the rent will stay the same(and changing due to market conditions). I think they can still do stuff with services charges though. If all your local housing association's stock are new builds then that would explain it because just about all new builds are affordable. why would you build a true social rented property when you can build the same property, get more money in rent to maintain it and get government grants to build it that aren't available for social homes?
Click to expand...

Your last sentence is what I am on about. They should be but aren't. When I say the housing association's stock are "new builds" I mean they aren't the 1950/60s standard clone red brick (or rendered/pebbledashed over the red brick) houses. I mean ones built in the 80s/90s/00s not that they have been built since 2010 (although some have obviously.) The council has new builds as well and they are cheaper than the housing assoc ones. There is a clutch of real new builds (early noughties) across the road from me. Slightly smaller houses if anything as the stairs are "in" the living room but they are the same rent as mine. Housing assoc ones are always more than the council ones on the bidding site.


Although i would expect the older builds to still be social since that obviously only applies since 'affordable' homes became a thing.
Click to expand...

So ones built before the "affordable homes" descriptor should be the sameprice as the council "new builds" if they were also built before the "affordable homes" descriptor? They aren't round here. People want the council ones because they are cheaper AND because they trust the council as landlord more than housing associations.
 
The Spanish ought to get Dave Merrington in as an advisor. "Now what you don;t want to do is.........oops."

The Spanish court has suspended the Catalan parliament session on Monday!!! That will calm things down.....erm.
 
Whiteley Saint said:
That's one of the things that really bugs me with politics. Someone can come up with a good idea but just because it's not their idea the other side will say it's rubbish. If only parties would acknowledge good ideas and work together more. You see it on the news all the time. So and so has announced this and they then talk to the other side, but there is no need to listen to them because they will just be negative without fail. They seem to forget that it's not about them but what is best for the country. Both sides do this.

Of course some of the things both parties come up with are complete rubbish. :)
Click to expand...


This is why the loss in the AV Referendum in 2011 was such a travesty (almost as much as Brexit IMO). We will ALWAYS get this pathetic partisan party politics in the first past the post electoral system.
The UK electorate only have themselves to blame for what crap they get, it's about time everyone got a bit more politically aware.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Number 1 Jasper and VocalMinority
ImpSaint said:
Your last sentence is what I am on about. They should be but aren't. When I say the housing association's stock are "new builds" I mean they aren't the 1950/60s standard clone red brick (or rendered/pebbledashed over the red brick) houses. I mean ones built in the 80s/90s/00s not that they have been built since 2010 (although some have obviously.) The council has new builds as well and they are cheaper than the housing assoc ones. There is a clutch of real new builds (early noughties) across the road from me. Slightly smaller houses if anything as the stairs are "in" the living room but they are the same rent as mine. Housing assoc ones are always more than the council ones on the bidding site.




So ones built before the "affordable homes" descriptor should be the sameprice as the council "new builds" if they were also built before the "affordable homes" descriptor? They aren't round here. People want the council ones because they are cheaper AND because they trust the council as landlord more than housing associations.
Click to expand...
No, if the resident leaves they are free to change the tenancy type for the property to affordable. If they are on a bidding site rather than a swapping site then presumably the resident has left. There might be some restrictions there but if there is I've not heard of them.

I'm just saying rent on the same tenancy for the same value property in the same area would be the same. Lots of variables there though.

It's probably just that your council is keeping it's social housing while your housing associations aren't for obvious reasons.

My association is going 50/50
 
ImpSaint said:
The Spanish ought to get Dave Merrington in as an advisor. "Now what you don;t want to do is.........oops."

The Spanish court has suspended the Catalan parliament session on Monday!!! That will calm things down.....erm.
Click to expand...

And for good measure have moved two army units to "support" the police in this matter. Rajoy hasn't a clue how to settle the dispute other than use bully boy tactics. No wonder most Spanish would like to see the back of him. Meanwhile "Pudgy" is hell bent on this confrontation, having created a crisis where there wasn't one.

It would be good if the soldiers disobeyed orders!! Do they do that?
 
The Ides of March said:
And for good measure have moved two army units to "support" the police in this matter. Rajoy hasn't a clue how to settle the dispute other than use bully boy tactics. No wonder most Spanish would like to see the back of him. Meanwhile "Pudgy" is hell bent on this confrontation, having created a crisis where there wasn't one.

It would be good if the soldiers disobeyed orders!! Do they do that?
Click to expand...
Depends where the soldiers are from I guess. If it is from Madrid I bet some more beatings or worse will happen.
 
Sorry, just to add to finish off the rent debate, here is a document which shows how formula rent is calculated specific to housing associations. The formula is shown in appendix 1 (page 18) and has an example of how it works a couple of pages later. its interesting (in a mind numbingly boring kind of way), and shows the kind of control assocations have in setting their rent. Also goes into affordable.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...a/file/419271/Rent_Standard_Guidance_2015.pdf
 
ImpSaint said:
The Spanish ought to get Dave Merrington in as an advisor. "Now what you don;t want to do is.........oops."

The Spanish court has suspended the Catalan parliament session on Monday!!! That will calm things down.....erm.
Click to expand...

It's as if the Spanish government are determined to give an object lesson in how not to deal with seperatists.

It calls to mind, in less drastic terms , the British governments response to the 1916 Easter rising in Ireland.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VocalMinority
Beef said:
Depends where the soldiers are from I guess. If it is from Madrid I bet some more beatings or worse will happen.
Click to expand...

They're based in Aragon but these soldiers are more that likely to come from all over Spain. Fodder for the bully that is Rajoy whle the Catalan citizens are the fodder for Puigdemont. These two nasty politicians should settle their differences in a boxing ring on Prime Time TV as it is beneath either of them to yield an inch in pursuit of their "beliefs" or maintaining the sacrosanct "Constitution." Thou shall not change the Constitution, Thou shall not change the second amendment. If you do, you will be condemned to eternity in hell!!

If declaration of independence is declared Catalunya's banking system crashes, they do not have a currency and are outside the EU. I do wonder if Pudgy has thought through the consequences of his actions for the sake of Catalan Independence. It has never been an independent country. It might but not with its current actions.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back