General Election 4th July
- Thread starter SirGalahad
- Start date
Sponsored Links
No, they were sold off in the Thatcher era
1) To weaken local councils
2) Because she was intoxicated with delight at discovering that publicly owned assets could be sold, and by an accounting trick the results could be made to look as if public sector wealth had not decreased and as if revenue had increased without taxation
3) With the intention of getting more owner-occupiers who would be more likely to vote Con
4) Because she despised common people and had no interest in decent living conditions for the poor
Load of baloney
Sponsored Links
I'd be interested to see you try to disprove any of those points.
- Joined
- 25 Jul 2022
- Messages
- 12,516
- Reaction score
- 983
- Country
Who would you say was responsible for selling off council housing stock and not replacing it?
If it wasn't replaced where did the money go? To the councils?
You clearly don't understand why. I deliberately avoided going into that. People need to work it out for themselves also why there is unlikely to be a repeat of lets say around the 50's. That one really is simple - money and debt. Easiest answer is to leave it to landlords - the build affordable housing idea. Much the same with PFI.
Can't say I entirely agree with the reasons but when I look at current UK debt levels there is a real need to wonder.
Go to the big build period and my parents moved into an overspill estate. A private section of it but there was also rather lot of council house. Actually a lot on the outskirts that had been built some time before. This was ~1955. I knew a number of people who lived in council houses. Some receive support - free school meats being one aspect. Some needed no support at all. A view - why buy when council rent is cheaper. Add as gov run maintenance meticulous. Politically the difficulties in increasing rent. She also used the term short term housing stock. How long is short term. eg When will a roof need replacing. Wooden window replacement when needed even though repainted every 5 years. Some used metal to avoid that. Sell and all of the problems pass to the owner. Make the buying affordable.
So I have mixed feeling on the subject but still best to grasp the reasons and point out why it's unlikely to happen again.
B'ham has been meeting it's house building targets. Affordable too but can't say I would want to live in one. Also more normal prices too but city wise not that many. Next phase is heading to what I have seen in many cities in other countries who have already gone this way. Large apartment blocks. There are still council houses around. I know some one who does maintenance work on them. What will happen to them. Hard to say. There has been cases where they don't get reoccupied. Eventually knocked down to allow more houses to built in the same space. Condition may figure. Maybe when there are high rises about with plenty of green around. An area like that is near me is now completely covered with a lot of affordable houses and some flats.
Older houses in some cases/areas. Demolished and rebuilt. Always more of them. I wonder if the flat my parent lived in for a while still exists. In a large house that still had the servant bell stuff around and really ancient electrics. My nan's place rented and in some ways rather spacious was still around a couple of years ago and probably still rented. All of the ones in a rather long street the same. Bigger terraced types. Larger families who may well have shared large bedrooms.
Yes that’s right
A bigger swing than 1997
Despite the polls, I think Labour will struggle to win a majority
Starmer wants to let 16 year olds vote. I know its to try and swing the votes in their direction as traditionally the younger you are the more likely you are to vote labour but giving the vote to 16 years olds is a stupid idea. If he want to change the system to favour labour then I would rather he ban voting for the over 70s
- Joined
- 25 Jul 2022
- Messages
- 12,516
- Reaction score
- 983
- Country
You can pay income tax at 16. Indeed if you earn enough then you have to. But not vote.
Do I think you are wise enough to know who to vote for at 16, or indeed, 18 or 21 or 25 for that matter. No. But if you're being taxed you should be entitled to
I said why.
Nonsense argument - how many 16 year olds are earning over £12,570
So by the tax measurement - you think that those who do not earn enough to pay tax should not be entitled to vote no matter what the age.
Starmer just wants to try and secure a second term and this vote grab plan shows that he does not think he will have a second term without it.
They will only be in gov because the conservative are so bad.
Last edited:
an interesting suggestion, that people, for example those on low incomes, or a basic state pension, should not be allowed to vote.
- Joined
- 25 Jul 2022
- Messages
- 12,516
- Reaction score
- 983
- Country
Sponsored Links
