Off Topic Politics Thread

[San Tejón]

Just one reason why social housing should never be sold off.

It’s not just the loss of council house stock, but the payment of housing benefits to private owners, rather than to the local council.
Not saying that housing benefits are involved in this case, but it is happening elsewhere.

Hopefully the next non Tory Government will outlaw the “Right to buy scheme”.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/council-estate-rich-london-borough-11678843

 

[VocalMinority]

I think what she was trying to explain was that they were making exceptions to the normal rules where families were having to share and wait for "their turn" for siblings to get their own place. I didn't hear the "grandma" bit. What I heard and understood was that this was more about where kids have grown up and want their own place etc. Bit like me where I am waiting for a 3 bed because we only had 2 boys when we moved here.

The chocking bit was where VD kept trying to make her suggest that it was the resident's fault where the council leader was obviously trying to detail that they were trying to bend the rules to accommodate the sensitivity of this issue.

Then when VD went on the "how many houses do you own" angle I couldn't believe it. Pretty typical of her show though. They should send her to Sky.

I don't know why you think the Council Leader came across badly. She has performed a magic trick of buying 250 properties to replace the 120 that were in Grenfell. I am struggling to understand where this "300" figure has come from and how it is just stated as being the target needed.

I haven’t seen the interview but from the sounds of it I would guess the same as you, that they are talking about people in the tower like yourself who are over occupying. That is interesting.
Was it mentioned what rules the council were trying to bend? We’re not allowed to house somebody in a property that would cause them to overoccupy. For example if somebody who is currently overoccupying, like yourself, tries to mutual exchange to a property of the same size, we would block the exchange as you would be overoccupying, even if you are already. This means that the housing need would be greater than it was in the block. So if they are using this as an excuse then the rules the council are trying to bend are the ones the residents don’t want them to bend – the number and size of the properties. I have no idea when happens when a family with a member on the list for a separate house become homeless in circumstances like this, i assume they are treated as separate households so rules still apply. I don't see why they would be forced into the same property. Residents are probably very worried about being put back down at the bottom of the list after being given the property, which according to the rules, they shouldn’t be given.

There may be some in the Highlands but I can confirm they are not high up on the west coast where the country is at it's wildest and I hope there never is. Maybe they are on the flatter east side which we don't visit anymore (Inverness way). I think there are more than enough up the north of the UK already personally.

I have always thought it was weird that they have to turn them off when it's too windy. It seems some improvements wouldn't go amiss.

Overcharging generators causes them to burn out or break the gearbox. So shutting them down if they can’t handle the load is a no brainer. Rather than a design flaw, I imagine this is a compromise between the cost of maintaining a more expensive gearbox and internal mechanisms with a higher range of speed, and the cost of losing days of wind when gusts get too high to cope with. Also in storms, wind speeds vary between none and very high in short spaces of time. I don't think it would be easy to design something that can cope with that.

Just one reason why social housing should never be sold off.

It’s not just the loss of council house stock, but the payment of housing benefits to private owners, rather than to the local council.
Not saying that housing benefits are involved in this case, but it is happening elsewhere.

Hopefully the next non Tory Government will outlaw the “Right to buy scheme”.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/council-estate-rich-london-borough-11678843

Yeah, a while ago i mentioned a story very similar to this one on here i believe. Private landlord offered to buy their properties from them at market price if they brought it from us at RTB prices giving the residents a tidy profit with the promise to then rent it back to them. the Residents lost the security of our tenancy and once the landlord got as many as they could, the rent was hiked up and residents who couldn't afford it kicked out. Our remaining residents feel very lucky.

 

[Whiteley Saint]

Just one reason why social housing should never be sold off.

It’s not just the loss of council house stock, but the payment of housing benefits to private owners, rather than to the local council.
Not saying that housing benefits are involved in this case, but it is happening elsewhere.

Hopefully the next non Tory Government will outlaw the “Right to buy scheme”.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/council-estate-rich-london-borough-11678843

I've never been a fan of selling council houses (even though my in laws benefited from it). If it is going to happen, the houses shouldn't be sold until new replacement homes have already been built. Built 100 council homes offer 50 people the chance to buy theirs. This would build up the stock from it's woefully low levels after decades of inadequate building.

 

[BobbyD]

I haven’t seen the interview but from the sounds of it I would guess the same as you, that they are talking about people in the tower like yourself who are over occupying. That is interesting.
Was it mentioned what rules the council were trying to bend? We’re not allowed to house somebody in a property that would cause them to overoccupy. For example if somebody who is currently overoccupying, like yourself, tries to mutual exchange to a property of the same size, we would block the exchange as you would be overoccupying, even if you are already. This means that the housing need would be greater than it was in the block. So if they are using this as an excuse then the rules the council are trying to bend are the ones the residents don’t want them to bend – the number and size of the properties. I have no idea when happens when a family with a member on the list for a separate house become homeless in circumstances like this, i assume they are treated as separate households so rules still apply. I don't see why they would be forced into the same property. Residents are probably very worried about being put back down at the bottom of the list after being given the property, which according to the rules, they shouldn’t be given.


Overcharging generators causes them to burn out or break the gearbox. So shutting them down if they can’t handle the load is a no brainer. Rather than a design flaw, I imagine this is a compromise between the cost of maintaining a more expensive gearbox and internal mechanisms with a higher range of speed, and the cost of losing days of wind when gusts get too high to cope with. Also in storms, wind speeds vary between none and very high in short spaces of time. I don't think it would be easy to design something that can cope with that.



Yeah, a while ago i mentioned a story very similar to this one on here i believe. Private landlord offered to buy their properties from them at market price if they brought it from us at RTB prices giving the residents a tidy profit with the promise to then rent it back to them. the Residents lost the security of our tenancy and once the landlord got as many as they could, the rent was hiked up and residents who couldn't afford it kicked out. Our remaining residents feel very lucky.

I'm going to assume that is correct and not do my due diligence but this is exactly the sort of nice surprise i love reading about on the forums. Cheers for the info

 

[ImpSaint]

Just one reason why social housing should never be sold off.

It’s not just the loss of council house stock, but the payment of housing benefits to private owners, rather than to the local council.
Not saying that housing benefits are involved in this case, but it is happening elsewhere.

Hopefully the next non Tory Government will outlaw the “Right to buy scheme”.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/council-estate-rich-london-borough-11678843

Check the member's interests and you might find several of Labour's high profile and very vocal voices on this issue are actually landlords!!! There was an instance not so long ago where Emily Thornberry threatened on Twitter to sue Guido Fawkes when "he" stated that she was one (bought the property off a housing association to boot!!! and "he" publically tweeted back "Here are my details, bring it on." David Lammy is also in the list of member's interests as being a landlord.

 

[ImpSaint]

I haven’t seen the interview but from the sounds of it I would guess the same as you, that they are talking about people in the tower like yourself who are over occupying. That is interesting.
Was it mentioned what rules the council were trying to bend? We’re not allowed to house somebody in a property that would cause them to overoccupy. For example if somebody who is currently overoccupying, like yourself, tries to mutual exchange to a property of the same size, we would block the exchange as you would be overoccupying, even if you are already. This means that the housing need would be greater than it was in the block. So if they are using this as an excuse then the rules the council are trying to bend are the ones the residents don’t want them to bend – the number and size of the properties. I have no idea when happens when a family with a member on the list for a separate house become homeless in circumstances like this, i assume they are treated as separate households so rules still apply. I don't see why they would be forced into the same property. Residents are probably very worried about being put back down at the bottom of the list after being given the property, which according to the rules, they shouldn’t be given.

Re-homing siblings in their own homes that "already have a home" are not priorities that are top of the list. So I understand this as the Kensington Council choosing to take this opportunity to be sympathetic and rather than replace families like for like, they are making allowances to give those "on the list" their own homes rather than say "you all came from 1 flat and you;re all going in 1 flat because there are (were?) people ahead of you in the priority list.

As for my situation and the exchange. I am not looking to exchange for the same size. Your scenario of blocking that seems more than reasonable on that issue. I am however not moving out of this house that I have upgraded, is in a decent(ish for council) area, has a decent garden, is dry and free of mould and neighbours not that bad (for council areas) for space anyway "just" to get a bigger house. My 6 year old daughter is still in our bedroom in a midsleeper (it is quite a large master bedroom) and I will wait till something I want appears at a time when I have reached the top of the list. We only reapplied to go on the list 3 years ago so might take another 2 or 3 years.

Yes I appreciate that the residents are worried about being put at the bottom of the list. That is part of the problem. The main part of the problem is that the story is being presented as if the Council have not offered moves, have been sitting on their hands and there is no mention of offers being turned down.

The other thing is some of those flats were private under right to buy. Surely insurance would cover the owners of those? And the illegal sub letters in there? Do they get off scott free?

Yes it is a sensitive issue but it should not mean that serious questions are not asked like this.

 

[Archers Road]

Check the member's interests and you might find several of Labour's high profile and very vocal voices on this issue are actually landlords!!! There was an instance not so long ago where Emily Thornberry threatened on Twitter to sue Guido Fawkes when "he" stated that she was one and "he" publically tweeted back "Here are my details, bring it on. David Lammy is also in the list of member's interests as being a landlord.

There is, however, a world of difference between letting out a property you have inherited, as David Lammy has, and systematically setting out to enrich yourself on the back of buy-to-let in the manner of former Tory Housing Minister Grant Schapps, who owns 40 former council homes in the Borough of Westminster.

 

[VocalMinority]

Re-homing siblings in their own homes that "already have a home" are not priorities that are top of the list. So I understand this as the Kensington Council choosing to take this opportunity to be sympathetic and rather than replace families like for like, they are making allowances to give those "on the list" their own homes rather than say "you all came from 1 flat and you;re all going in 1 flat because there are (were?) people ahead of you in the priority list.

A: These residents have lost their home. Their situation has changed and I'm not sure you can treat them as a single household anymore. I may well be out of date but last i heard some of them were still decanted to hotels.

B: You can't replace like for like if that causes them to over-occupy, even if they were already over occupied. Was the point i was making when talking about the exchange.

Other than that I don't disagree.

 

[ImpSaint]

There is, however, a world of difference between letting out a property you have inherited, as David Lammy has, and systematically setting out to enrich yourself on the back of buy-to-let in the manner of former Tory Housing Minister Grant Schapps, who owns 40 former council homes in the Borough of Westminster.

I agree however Thornberry was called out on hers being bought from a housing association. Trying to make out the Labour lot are different is on very weak gound. There are loads in there that are vocal on this issue but do not practice what they preach.

 

[ImpSaint]

A: These residents have lost their home. Their situation has changed and I'm not sure you can treat them as a single household anymore. I may well be out of date but last i heard some of them were still decanted to hotels.

Which I agree with.

B: You can't replace like for like if that causes them to over-occupy, even if they were already over occupied. Was the point i was making when talking about the exchange.

I agree with that too. My point is that the "headline" and SJWs are trying to paint this as a one way problem as if the council have not done what they said they would. They have been offering new properties but a lot are turning them down. I suppose not helped by the papers within days publishing posh exec newly built apartment blocks that are to be used for some. I would guess many are holding out for those rather than take other viable options. I would probably do the same given an opportunity to hold out and get a super dooper exec property.

Still doesn't address all the other illegalities that the disaster showed up. The council is one and a big one but all those illegal subletters should be brought to court. I can understand illegal immigrants being let off and given a chance but those who illegally sublet their flats were breaking their tenancy agreements and should be taken to task for it.

And if 300 properties are required to replace 120 flats then that brings into focus a vast overoccupancy problem. It isn't just a small difference.

 

[SaintinSerbia]

USA today.

Alabama senate election - Roy Moore, a former Alabama judge who is embroiled in allegations of child sex abuse, who has been endorsed by the US president versus Doug Jones, a prosecutor who convicted Ku Klux Klan members of murder? I know where I'm putting my money.

 

[San Tejón]

Check the member's interests and you might find several of Labour's high profile and very vocal voices on this issue are actually landlords!!! There was an instance not so long ago where Emily Thornberry threatened on Twitter to sue Guido Fawkes when "he" stated that she was one (bought the property off a housing association to boot!!! and "he" publically tweeted back "Here are my details, bring it on." David Lammy is also in the list of member's interests as being a landlord.

I don’t have any issues with MPs being landlords.
My objection is to the selling off of council house stock, period, even if they were to be replaced 1 for 1 with new builds.
There will always be a desperate need for social housing and, with an ever increasing population, reducing the housing stock, or sticking with what we have, just doesn’t make sense to me.

Do councils still run there own repair and refurbish crews, or is everything sub-contracted out now?
I used to work for a training company, which was also part of Southampton City Council, and we were responsible for putting their young workforce through apprenticeships.
If, as I believe, everything is now sub-contracted out, there will likely have been a drop in the number of apprentices being brought through, as SCC were quite prolific in driving apprenticeships.
For me, increasing the council house stock, and rebuilding a repair and refurbishment work force, with apprentices being brought through, would be a good step forward.

 

[Archers Road]

I agree however Thornberry was called out on hers being bought from a housing association. Trying to make out the Labour lot are different is on very weak gound. There are loads in there that are vocal on this issue but do not practice what they preach.

I have no difficulty in asserting that the Labour Party is founded on a completely different set of principles and values than those which drive the Conservative Party.

Not every MP lives up to those principles - we are all human after all - but there is no doubt in my mind which party stands for collective responsibility, and which stands for "every man for himself".

 

[ImpSaint]

I don’t have any issues with MPs being landlords.
My objection is to the selling off of council house stock, period, even if they were to be replaced 1 for 1 with new builds.
There will always be a desperate need for social housing and, with an ever increasing population, reducing the housing stock, or sticking with what we have, just doesn’t make sense to me.

I have no problem with the right to buy but I do agree they should have been replacing them.

Do councils still run there own repair and refurbish crews, or is everything sub-contracted out now?
I used to work for a training company, which was also part of Southampton City Council, and we were responsible for putting their young workforce through apprenticeships.
If, as I believe, everything is now sub-contracted out, there will likely have been a drop in the number of apprentices being brought through, as SCC were quite prolific in driving apprenticeships.
For me, increasing the council house stock, and rebuilding a repair and refurbishment work force, with apprentices being brought through, would be a good step forward.

In Lincoln's case they have their own repair crews but these are for day to day "handyman" types of job. Mending gutters, unblocking drains, fixing plumbing. putting a few tiles along the side of a bath etc.

Boiler repair and maintenance is block contracted out, anything to do with decent homes is contracted out. Massive contracts sold on a supposedly "upgrade if needed" basis that these contracted companies just "upgrade everybody" and charge for it.

Most of the work done on these houses is done by "preferred partners" that always win the tenders to do this work and tend to be big names that the government is friends with..........like Kier Group!!

And I agree that they should offer local people local apprenticeships for this stuff just like the councils should be offering local builders the deals to build local houses and insist on them employing local workers but they don't. They give the land to their mates in the big 4 at favourable rates and the big 4 then ignore the local workforce bringing in staff through the chose employment agencies and the Co-Op/Council/Church are on a winner with a favourable land price etc.

And then these paper walled boxes that have cracks everywhere within 10 years sell for crazy prices just because they have all new fittings inside. Never mind the walls are crap and they are built on shifting clay, its all about the swanky kitchen.

 

[ImpSaint]

I have no difficulty in asserting that the Labour Party is founded on a completely different set of principles and values than those which drive the Conservative Party.

Not every MP lives up to those principles - we are all human after all - but there is no doubt in my mind which party stands for collective responsibility, and which stands for "every man for himself".

The principles the Labour party was founded on bears no relation to the Labour party in its modern form. It is the epitome of "everyman for himself" as shown by champagne socialists that are all swinging in behind Corbyn to save their skins.

Thornberry is the epitome of "everman for himself" in that she would do or say anything to maintain her position while ignoring anything she says when it comes down to her own personal practices. The woman is married to a lawyer that specialises in off-shore investment and trusts.

She even tries to play the common "in touch" card taking humbridge to someone referring to her as Lady Nugee stating "I do not use that title" when her twitter handle is............@LadyNugee.

She makes it up on the hoof. They are all like that on both sides.

 

[Schad]

Well, apparently there is a situation where the state of Alabama will elect a fairly liberal Democrat, and it is when the Republican candidate is credibly accused of having a thing for underaged girls. Granted, he only lost by 1.5% or thereabouts, but progress!

 

[tiggermaster]

Well, apparently there is a situation where the state of Alabama will elect a fairly liberal Democrat, and it is when the Republican candidate is credibly accused of having a thing for underaged girls. Granted, he only lost by 1.5% or thereabouts, but progress!

It must be Christmas.... Somebody invoked the Sanity Clause...

 

[Archers Road]

The principles the Labour party was founded on bears no relation to the Labour party in its modern form. It is the epitome of "everyman for himself" as shown by champagne socialists that are all swinging in behind Corbyn to save their skins.

.

That sounds nothing like the Labour Party I know and love. The grass roots is, and always has been, made up of people who share a common belief in a fairer distribution of opportunity and reward, and a society that looks after all it's members. The leadership may have been compromised or corrupted by the struggle for power, but your description of a Labour Party that has lost sight of it's principles is way off the mark frankly.

As for Jeremy Corbyn, I don't share all his views, but there is no doubt that he has energised and inspired the grass roots. I admit he may be off putting to some aspirational voters and supporters, those who perhaps identify as middle class (like the ones Tony Blair worked so hard to win over).

Someone like you Imps, should be a prime prospect for a Labour Party led by JC.

 

[Archers Road]

Well, apparently there is a situation where the state of Alabama will elect a fairly liberal Democrat, and it is when the Republican candidate is credibly accused of having a thing for underaged girls. Granted, he only lost by 1.5% or thereabouts, but progress!

First time in 25 years Alabama has returned a Democrat Senator?

 

[SaintinSerbia]

That sounds nothing like the Labour Party I know and love. The grass roots is, and always has been, made up of people who share a common belief in a fairer distribution of opportunity and reward, and a society that looks after all it's members. The leadership may have been compromised or corrupted by the struggle for power, but your description of a Labour Party that has lost sight of it's principles is way off the mark frankly.

Absolutely Archers! my daughter has started volunteering for the Labour Party in Gloucester. She's not doing it for fame and fortune, she's doing it because of the socialist principles learned from her dad and the inspiration of a certain Jeremy Corbyn!