Good shout.Originally Posted by joecity
We can afford tax cuts for the most wealthy. We don't get a return on that and it costs the economy, but we can afford that. Long term, building has to be more affordable than private renting.
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
Good shout.
We can afford tax cuts for the most wealthy. We don't get a return on that and it costs the economy, but we can afford that. Long term, building has to be more affordable than private renting.
Labour from 1997 to 2010 certainly didn't. Blair pledged 200,000 per year, Brown aimed for 240,000 a year (the number experts believed were necessary). Between them they averaged 185,000 in that 13-year span.
Blair's government are amongst the worst offenders in housing policy agreed. Governments have built homes before. I not going to believe that the private sector is going to fill the void. They won't. You know it, I know it. Government intervention is required. Who else is going to build affordable homes.
Labour failed on getting enough new homes built - but in other areas of housing policy the Blair/Brown government was light years ahead of what had come before (since the 1970s). The green paper in 2000 'Quality And Choice For All' was the first policy paper in over a generation that thought housing was about more than Right To Buy and interest rates. It set out to transform social rented housing (Choice Based Lettings, the Decent Homes programme and much more) and it also in its last couple of years freed up Councils to start building again (with the work on Self Financing Housing Revenue Accounts that went live under Cameron in 2010). Labour also produced the two housing ministers from the last four decades who cared about housing and knew what they were talking about - Nick Raynsford and John Healey. Governments since 2010 have rolled back to the pathetic stance of the Thatcher/Major years - using the financial crisis and cult of austerity as cover.
Since 2010 , Tory government
Benefits reform leading to rent arrears and homelessness
Tory cuts to social services , drug and alcohol intervention tems
Selling even more fecking council houses and housing association properties and failing to replace those sold as they said they would
Too fecking right it's the Tory government who are responsible
Well the Tories found money to bribe the DUP to get a government together
It's their watch now and they are overseeing a massive housing crisis
The problem is the Tory party never have and never will give a feck about the vulnerable in society as they don't vote for them
I’ll ask again - wheres the money coming from for all these new houses?
It’s a straightforward, direct question.
Sludge is right. Where did this government find Ł1bn to cling onto power? There might be the answer you're looking for. You could also ask where this government is finding the money to subsidise Brexit so the full effect isn't felt.
No, all I’m asking is where the money is coming from to build many, many new houses. Nothing else. Just that.
Must say it’s good to see that political debate is now accepted on the main message board.
I'll answer that one. The money can be created from thin air. Just like that 800 billion quid was in 2008 to bail out those bastard bankers.
It's coming from the same place as the Ł1bn for the DUP, Brexit subsidies etc. Maybe you'd like to question where the money is coming from for those.
What a load of rubbish. You actually think that the Labour government pre 2010 have nothing to do with the state the country is in now ?. They spent billions of pounds of money they didn't have, which our children and childrens children will still be paying for in 50-100 years time. The country was almost bankrupt in 2010 and Corbyns answer to all this is to propose spending and borrowing more in future. How do you know who votes for the Conservatives anyway. There are many of working class and vulnerable people who must have voted for them in 2010 and since in order for them to get in. Corbyn and Mcdonnell are basically communists who dont give a fig about the ordinary people of this country and are only interested in lining their own pockets and the pockets of the people who are backing them (the Corbynistas). The richest and most powerful people in far left/communist places like Russia and China are the leaders, whilst most of the prople live in abject poverty.
George Osborne said he would have spent exactly the same as Labour had he been in power, so what is your point?
he was making a statement about how government spending in the run up to the crash meant the country was unprepared for the downturn. I thought it was quite obvious really.
So when asked the question recently by Andrew Neil, "Would you do what Labour did" and Osborne's reply was "broadly speaking, yes", coupled with the fact that Osborne backed Labour's spending plans 100% when in opposition, should we assume that had the Conservatives been in power, they would have spent the same or not?
'What a load of rubbish', to borrow from you.
If the UK was 'almost bankrupt' in 2010 (defined as the government being unable to pay all its debts immediately if they were all called in?) then that was true for most western governments - certainly the USA. But that technical definition is not useful or very illuminating. The official UK debt to GDP ratio in 2010 was under 70% - lower than many other western countries, and much lower than in earlier decades. If you add in the so-called 'hidden' debts or liabilities then that % rises steeply, but so it does for most other countries too. Most of the debate about unofficial debt and liabilities is so politicised that it is hard to find any figures to trust - but in any case it is not a new phenomenon.
As this piece describes, if the UK was broke in 2010 it had been broke for centuries! In other words it's a scare-mongering headline with no value.
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...tain-not-broke
Your solution to defecit and low growth seems to be cuts. The alternative strategy of investing to promote growth and greater national income through government capital projects (funded by low interest borrowing) is a century old and has worked all around the world. It may not fit with the Thatcherite 'corner shop' model of economics, but then the Chancellor of the Exchequer doesn't keep the assets and revenues of the UK in a shoe box under his bed either. Labour has been consistent in advocating a version of Keynsian economics to invest and build our way out of trouble - and has a lot of popular and academic support for its plans.
Yes, many working people voted Tory in 2010 - and 2015 - and every other election where they had a vote. They always have. A lot of people in elections vote against their own interests for a lot of complicated reasons. In my opinion it has historically been down to The Sun, The Mail and an unhealthy deference. Just maybe a few crunched the numbers and read the manifestos and thought Thatcher or Cameron were the answer. My 'out-laws' are an example.
Corbyn and McDonnell are not communists. They are left social democrats. They are also - obviously - amongst that small group of MPs who have consistently not lined their own pockets (see expenses). You are entitled to disagree with them and detest their politics, but the personal attack on them and their motives is pathetic.
The issue was the deficit was running at >10% of GDP, which is a course for bankruptcy in the long run.
typically when the deficit is less than inflation adjusted growth the rising payments on debt is more than offset by the rising tax base to cover it.
it is one school of thought. not every school of thought advocates it.
it is hard to suggest what could happened if a Keynesian model had been adopted. It may have worked, ut may not. it is all supposition.
it really is crass to suggest working people voting Tory are voting against their own best interests. you have no idea what is in the best interests of the 13.7m or so who voted Tory in this years election. People vote for a myriad of reasons and not everyone is obsessed with money in the way those on the left are.
They are not social democrats - Blair was a social democrat, so was Brown and Milliband. Corbyn and McDonnell are very much further left. McDonnell is on R4 quite a lot and you only have to listen to him to see he is not an advocate of social democracy.
Shipping containers probably don't cost the world...if I had a choice between a shop doorway and a modified shopping container I know where I'd go...
I am no fan of Blair , he was Thatcher in a suit
33 million people in England and Wales self-identified as Christians according to the 2011 Census. There must be plenty of spare bedrooms that can be made available from that lot. Their churches are way underused too.
:) !
The money is there , they found it for the DUP !!
And I have just told you , the money's there to go to war , prop up a minority government , it's a simple question of priority
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
