Starmer being compared to Enoch Powell now.

[JamesWales]

Make something up and I will agree with you

The situation is that Labour are in power and when asked questions as to what they are realistically trying to do regarding immigration and for numbers of crime gangs smashed their main governor isn't able to answer

That's the problem and instead of trying to appeal to farage voters and right wing Labour voters like you they should simply be providing evidence they are doing something

People like you can talk about 200k off the figures till you send everyone to sleep but until starmer can start saying he's presiding over a fair and robust immigration policy it's a waste of everyone's time

So let's say 250 k net migration in 3 years

I have made that up but it sounds OK I suppose

I think that's what he's asking - what a fair and robust policy is. And not just fair and robust to people coming here (and leaving) but fair and robust to those of us already here too.

Current numbers are way too high. Have been for years. It blows my mind that people can't accept that when aside from any cultural or social arguments anyone may make, you physically cannot build the infrastructure in time.

And people go through the most complex mental gymnastics to try and avoid the truth staring them in the face too.

[JamesWales]

Completely agree Eric.

I didn't mention housing in my post - but I spent most of my working life managing Council housing in Sheffield and it is the most critical factor in ensuring that society - with its ebbs and flows, incomings and outgoings - works.

We need to build and refurbish more homes. We need to stop the regressive Right To Buy system (loading debt on tenants, bleeding resources out of improvement and new build budgets, and creating concentrations of deprivation), stop second homes purchases, and limit the spread of Airbnb. The last two kill communities in rural Britain and ensure that there is no where for workers to live even if we can find workers for farms, restaurants and hotels in the first place. Unjoined-up thinking of the worst type that with the Brexit impacts and Covid disruptions has created social and economic chaos in many places.

Decent enough ideas. I never use Airbnb and would encourage others to do the same. It's a real issue as houses are taken out of the market. I would also add in that much new housing (nearly all large flat debts) is now but to let. We are building this stuff and actively preventing normal folk from buying them and forcing them to rent (at astronomical prices) from corporate landlords. It's shocking. Welsh and UK Govt could intervene, but they don't.

Build and refurbish more homes is easier said than done esp with environmental legislation which simply would need scaling back. But also who is paying for it when the country has so many competing needs? And even saying "build more" (which I agree with) is itself s recognition that it's only there to meet demand. With demand through the roof (no pun intended) then you will never meet demand.

But yeah, decent ideas and part of a host of changes needed, but when you keep adding hundreds of thousands of people to the housing demand every month then those suggestions are only plugging one hole whilst another two appear elsewhere.

[JamesWales]

I mean nearly all large flat devts (developments) not debts..

Also, of course..

Also, hundreds of thousands of people every YEAR not month(!)

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

I think that's what he's asking - what a fair and robust policy is. And not just fair and robust to people coming here (and leaving) but fair and robust to those of us already here too.

Current numbers are way too high. Have been for years. It blows my mind that people can't accept that when aside from any cultural or social arguments anyone may make, you physically cannot build the infrastructure in time.

And people go through the most complex mental gymnastics to try and avoid the truth staring them in the face too.

No that's bullshit

We know that the issue needs to be dealt with

It's the fact that starmer is chasing lost votes whilst also doing very little that's the problem

I was embarrassed by him and Cooper dancing around the subject as much as anyone

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

Decent enough ideas. I never use Airbnb and would encourage others to do the same. It's a real issue as houses are taken out of the market. I would also add in that much new housing (nearly all large flat debts) is now but to let. We are building this stuff and actively preventing normal folk from buying them and forcing them to rent (at astronomical prices) from corporate landlords. It's shocking. Welsh and UK Govt could intervene, but they don't.

Build and refurbish more homes is easier said than done esp with environmental legislation which simply would need scaling back. But also who is paying for it when the country has so many competing needs? And even saying "build more" (which I agree with) is itself s recognition that it's only there to meet demand. With demand through the roof (no pun intended) then you will never meet demand.

But yeah, decent ideas and part of a host of changes needed, but when you keep adding hundreds of thousands of people to the housing demand every month then those suggestions are only plugging one hole whilst another two appear elsewhere.

You have supported right wing housing policy for years , irrespective of immigration this is a huge part of the problem

It started with Thatcher pushing the right to buy and has never been dealt with

It's no good you crying over something you have defended

The power of the market place eh !

[Eric Cartman]

No that's bullshit

We know that the issue needs to be dealt with

It's the fact that starmer is chasing lost votes whilst also doing very little that's the problem

I was embarrassed by him and Cooper dancing around the subject as much as anyone

I just have no time for anyone who focuses more on language than action/outcomes, essentially the nimbys of politics, just getting in the way of anything actually happening. That isn't to say there isn't a point where language can cross the line, but that line is pretty high for me. Loads of things have been stated about Starmer's speech in this thread that a) couldn't be backed up by direct quotes and b) don't matter anyway. What matters is the right outcome, which everyone is going to have a different opinion on but needs to include all of the things being touched upon here. The point of my question was echoing what I said in a different thread, politics is essentially about picking a point on a line - infinite immigration is clearly bad for the UK, infinite emigration (i.e. just everybody leaving) is clearly bad for the UK, so the right outcome is somewhere in the middle and everyone will disagree with where it is and why.

Same with WFA - universal is practically impossible to justify, giving it to nobody is pretty hard to justify so the answer is somewhere in the middle. Add in the fact that basing it on age kind of removes the argument that it is about need, it becomes a very complex discussion about something that looks simple. Yet almost everything I read about it, presents it as a simple choice.

[Eric Cartman]

Completely agree Eric.

I didn't mention housing in my post - but I spent most of my working life managing Council housing in Sheffield and it is the most critical factor in ensuring that society - with its ebbs and flows, incomings and outgoings - works.

We need to build and refurbish more homes. We need to stop the regressive Right To Buy system (loading debt on tenants, bleeding resources out of improvement and new build budgets, and creating concentrations of deprivation), stop second homes purchases, and limit the spread of Airbnb. The last two kill communities in rural Britain and ensure that there is no where for workers to live even if we can find workers for farms, restaurants and hotels in the first place. Unjoined-up thinking of the worst type that with the Brexit impacts and Covid disruptions has created social and economic chaos in many places.

There's loads they could be doing and aren't and I'm with anybody who criticises the government for that, I just don't care about the pearl-clutching about language/chasing votes from the right.

Part of the problem with our system seems to be how slow it is, we are still seeing bills going through parliament that during the election were being talked about as if they were 'from day 1'. The main danger for labour is even if they get it right, all this heel dragging means in 4 years time there is no noticeable change.

[jon1959]

I just don't care about the pearl-clutching about language/chasing votes from the right.

I don't know why you would label that concern as 'pearl-clutching'.

I think language matters, tone matters, the analysis matters, legitimising what might otherwise be seen as extreme and reactionary views matters, and the way the national policy debate is set matters.

And it is never just about words.... it always works through into government action or inaction.

To my mind Starmer has (yet again) demonstrated his lack of principle, his lack of consistency other than when it comes to lying, and his dismal lack of leadership. He reacts to challenges by trying to copy his challengers - but it turns out he is not very convincing as The New Enoch or Nigel's boring twin!

[Eric Cartman]

I don't know why you would label that concern as 'pearl-clutching'.

I think language matters, tone matters, the analysis matters, legitimising what might otherwise be seen as extreme and reactionary views matters, and the way the national policy debate is set matters.

And it is never just about words.... it always works through into government action or inaction.

To my mind Starmer has (yet again) demonstrated his lack of principle, his lack of consistency other than when it comes to lying, and his dismal lack of leadership. He reacts to challenges by trying to copy his challengers - but it turns out he is not very convincing as The New Enoch or Nigel's boring twin!

'deliberately over the top', it feels it to me, especially because you have to wring an opinion about the actual issue out of people.

I posted the speech earlier in the thread for people to go through and point out the bits that they had a problem with all, all I got back was sludge saying 'all of it, because it's him', which shows why I don't take the criticism at face value.

I take your point around language and tone but I am not seeing what he has said that 'legitimises extreme views' and as for 'words working through into actions', I don't see anything wrong with what they are proposing to do.

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

'deliberately over the top', it feels it to me, especially because you have to wring an opinion about the actual issue out of people.

I posted the speech earlier in the thread for people to go through and point out the bits that they had a problem with all, all I got back was sludge saying 'all of it, because it's him', which shows why I don't take the criticism at face value.

I take your point around language and tone but I am not seeing what he has said that 'legitimises extreme views' and as for 'words working through into actions', I don't see anything wrong with what they are proposing to do.

Give it a rest you fabian

[JamesWales]

You have supported right wing housing policy for years , irrespective of immigration this is a huge part of the problem

It started with Thatcher pushing the right to buy and has never been dealt with

It's no good you crying over something you have defended

The power of the market place eh !

I'm not sure why you view everything on the left/right scale as most people don't, but I can assure you I havent supported a right-wing housing policy for years, and I have no idea what that would be anyway.

I assume you mean total deregulation? (Which isn't any more right than left) Well, I don't. I am okay with the sell out of council houses when I was a child as it was the tenants who bought them and it was one of the few ways that working class people could accumulate wealth. In my experience it's mainly people who themselves accumulated wealth through housing that feel the strongest preventing others. The error, in my opinion was that new ones weren't built.

As for anything else, I think you would have to explain what a "right wing housing policy" is, as I don't.

What I don't support is taking glee at the demand for such housing massively outstripping the supply of them and then not taking seriously those who can barely afford to live anymore.

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

I'm not sure why you view everything on the left/right scale as most people don't, but I can assure you I havent supported a right-wing housing policy for years, and I have no idea what that would be anyway.

I assume you mean total deregulation? (Which isn't any more right than left) Well, I don't. I am okay with the sell out of council houses when I was a child as it was the tenants who bought them and it was one of the few ways that working class people could accumulate wealth. In my experience it's mainly people who themselves accumulated wealth through housing that feel the strongest preventing others. The error, in my opinion was that new ones weren't built.

As for anything else, I think you would have to explain what a "right wing housing policy" is, as I don't.

What I don't support is taking glee at the demand for such housing massively outstripping the supply of them and then not taking seriously those who can barely afford to live anymore.

I am not explaining anything to you , you are a tory boy , now a reform boy and it's you voting in these sort of government's that's the problem

Your nonsense about right to buy is laughable it's a prime mover of the housing crisis yet you defend it then blame immigration

Absolute 😃

[JamesWales]

I am not explaining anything to you , you are a tory boy , now a reform boy and it's you voting in these sort of government's that's the problem

Your nonsense about right to buy is laughable it's a prime mover of the housing crisis yet you defend it then blame immigration

Absolute 😃

People are still living in those homes Sludge. They aren't empty. They just pay a mortgage instead of rent to the council and the wealth goes to their family.

I agree with you on building far more social housing.

But it doesn't matter on the tenancy. If there are more people than houses you are fkd. Unless you already have your own home.

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

People are still living in those homes Sludge. They aren't empty. They just pay a mortgage instead of rent to the council and the wealth goes to their family.

I agree with you on building far more social housing.

But it doesn't matter on the tenancy. If there are more people than houses you are fkd. Unless you already have your own home.

The state provided a huge subsidy to allow people who could probably have afforded a mortgage anyway a house on the cheap

So whilst it was GREAT for those lucky enough to have a council house in the first place , everybody else lost out

You can roll out this oh it helped ordinary people get a home but that's bullshit

Why should a council house , built for those less well off , be sold and taken off the council stock .....and bollocks to everyone else ?

Oh my old man , my aunty , my uncle .....HE bought his house and WE did ok ...

Well that's bollocks

Greedy private landlords bought up many of these former council houses and are sitting on huge profits whilst people scramble for social housing


Stick that up your arris Mr free market , it stinks

And Angela Rayner who criticised tory housing policy but made 200 k profit out of selling the council house she disgracefully bought in the first place can also shove it

It's laughable that the current lack of social housing is lumped on immigration when your lot have been the root cause of it by selling off the country's assets

If we didn't sell the council houses we would have had about 5 million more homes to provide homes for people , irrespective of immigration

Put that in your market led pipe of nonsense and puff away

People who bought their houses out of the freebie council houses bribe are slaves to the market but frack all to do with the problems of social housing

That's the fault of those that sold them ...Thatcher and successive governments ....those that grabbed the bait and bought them ......and the lying governments , mostly tory ....that failed to replace the ones sold

A plague on all their houses , all guilty

[jon1959]

The Right To Buy wasn't only about selling the better stock at a big discount to those who chose to take advantage.

Yes, their families benefitted. Yes, they initially lived in the property paying a mortgage not a rent.

But a very high % of former Right To Buy homes have been sold on to private landlords (not just in London - all around the country) who now charge 2x/3x/5x the rent that would have been charged under the Council. Those most in need are priced out - or else we all pay through general taxation for the housing benefit that ends up in private landlords' pockets.

The subsidy on the Right To Buy sale didn't come from central government (general taxpayers didn't fund this bonanza) it washed through Council's Housing Revenue Accounts. Councils were generally paying for the cost of housing they built over 60 years (via the Public Works Loans Boards). When the rental income stopped the debt remained. The reduced capital receipt normally didn't cover the remaining debt - so all the other tenants paid for the RTB subsidy through their rents and through reduced improvement and repair services!

And for most of the time the Right To Buy has been in place it has been impossible for Councils with any historic debt to spend on new build housing (or buying existing housing to add to their stock). It was outside the rules. Governments said one thing, but then stopped it happening by the way the housing subsidy system operated. That was a deliberate decision.

It has become possible for a few more Councils to build new housing (small scale - a tiny fraction of what was lost through Right To Buy) when the Self Financing Housing Revenue Account changes came in from 2012. But it really is small scale - and for most of the UK the Right To Buy rules (that have changed over time - and John Prescott came closest to ending it) mean that new home can be lost within a few years and again the Council and its tenants will have to fund a huge discount to the 'lucky' sitting tenant.

The whole system was set up as a cynical way of buying Tory votes on Council estates - and making tenants who didn't or couldn't join the party pay the cost. It also transferred over a million homes from Councils (where rents are too high anyway) to private landlords who often charge multiples of a Council rent - and the rest of us pick up the tab in housing benefits.

The (preserved) Right To Buy also applies to some Housing Associations where there was a past stock transfer from a Council.

It is probably the biggest single contributor over more than four decades to the UK's housing crisis. There is no justification for it as a policy to improve UK housing (in fact many RTB homes that initially got the new door were/are in worse condition than Council homes that have gone through the Decent Homes Programme). It is 100% political and a disaster.

[JamesWales]

RTB, and other issues are part of the story, and ideologically comfortable ground for you guy, but it's a far far lesser part of the story than adding millions of people more than the dwellings you can provide for them. You are tweaking on the edges and missing the elephant in the room.

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

RTB, and other issues are part of the story, and ideologically comfortable ground for you guy, but it's a far far lesser part of the story than adding millions of people more than the dwellings you can provide for them. You are tweaking on the edges and missing the elephant in the room.

The reply above from someone with a background in local authority housing states that the RTB was probably the biggest factor in 4 decades contributing to the housing crisis

You love all that thatcherite crap but selling off council housing was a nightmare for those who needed it yet were not lucky enough to be stiffed money to buy it in the first place ....the worst kind of I am allright jack types imaginable .....I couldn't give a toss that they were paying rent .....so were other tenants worse off .....and those without a place to live saw their chances of even doing that slashed away

But uncle Bert bought his house and that money stayed in OUR family.....so that's OK, WE were hard working so stuff everyone else

You think you know everything but you don't

I know that's hard for you and you will never be able to admit it but that's the way it is

You have been pushing the mantra of right wing politics for ages and now you have a party to vote for

Whilst the current government are absolutely dire I won't be joining you

You would be better off sticking on a union jack t shirt and joining Nigel and his publicity team than waste people's time on here

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

The Right To Buy wasn't only about selling the better stock at a big discount to those who chose to take advantage.

Yes, their families benefitted. Yes, they initially lived in the property paying a mortgage not a rent.

But a very high % of former Right To Buy homes have been sold on to private landlords (not just in London - all around the country) who now charge 2x/3x/5x the rent that would have been charged under the Council. Those most in need are priced out - or else we all pay through general taxation for the housing benefit that ends up in private landlords' pockets.

The subsidy on the Right To Buy sale didn't come from central government (general taxpayers didn't fund this bonanza) it washed through Council's Housing Revenue Accounts. Councils were generally paying for the cost of housing they built over 60 years (via the Public Works Loans Boards). When the rental income stopped the debt remained. The reduced capital receipt normally didn't cover the remaining debt - so all the other tenants paid for the RTB subsidy through their rents and through reduced improvement and repair services!

And for most of the time the Right To Buy has been in place it has been impossible for Councils with any historic debt to spend on new build housing (or buying existing housing to add to their stock). It was outside the rules. Governments said one thing, but then stopped it happening by the way the housing subsidy system operated. That was a deliberate decision.

It has become possible for a few more Councils to build new housing (small scale - a tiny fraction of what was lost through Right To Buy) when the Self Financing Housing Revenue Account changes came in from 2012. But it really is small scale - and for most of the UK the Right To Buy rules (that have changed over time - and John Prescott came closest to ending it) mean that new home can be lost within a few years and again the Council and its tenants will have to fund a huge discount to the 'lucky' sitting tenant.

The whole system was set up as a cynical way of buying Tory votes on Council estates - and making tenants who didn't or couldn't join the party pay the cost. It also transferred over a million homes from Councils (where rents are too high anyway) to private landlords who often charge multiples of a Council rent - and the rest of us pick up the tab in housing benefits.

The (preserved) Right To Buy also applies to some Housing Associations where there was a past stock transfer from a Council.

It is probably the biggest single contributor over more than four decades to the UK's housing crisis. There is no justification for it as a policy to improve UK housing (in fact many RTB homes that initially got the new door were/are in worse condition than Council homes that have gone through the Decent Homes Programme). It is 100% political and a disaster.

I wish I was as eloquent

That's bang on the money

People were getting council houses then as soon as they had lived there for 2 years , buying the bloody thing and then being in a position to make big money

Absolutely appalling greed on the back of what was a state asset to provide housing for those less well off

I had total respect for those tenants with principles who refused to buy their homes and passed them on after their deaths to others who were in desperate need of accommodation

It must have been sickening for hard pressed councils to provide a house for a family who were on the list only to see the greedy selfish gits buy the place just a short time later , as soon as they were able to

They were as bad as Thatcher

[Rjk]

I think it's an outlier because the only person who is going to win the next election on present evidence is very sadly Nigel Farage


Since the wins at the recent local elections those who wanted a right wing party to vote for now have one and they are consistently on 28 to 30 percent

Easily enough to either form a coalition with the Tories or govern on their own

It's a shocking indictment of Labour , it was always going to be difficult but they should be polling around 30 percent

Trying to look at them from a distance I don't think any of the current labour government appear to be of any substance and they are led by a lump of wet lettuce

Farage is still a long way from being able to win a general election

[Eric Cartman]

The Right To Buy wasn't only about selling the better stock at a big discount to those who chose to take advantage.

Yes, their families benefitted. Yes, they initially lived in the property paying a mortgage not a rent.

But a very high % of former Right To Buy homes have been sold on to private landlords (not just in London - all around the country) who now charge 2x/3x/5x the rent that would have been charged under the Council. Those most in need are priced out - or else we all pay through general taxation for the housing benefit that ends up in private landlords' pockets.

The subsidy on the Right To Buy sale didn't come from central government (general taxpayers didn't fund this bonanza) it washed through Council's Housing Revenue Accounts. Councils were generally paying for the cost of housing they built over 60 years (via the Public Works Loans Boards). When the rental income stopped the debt remained. The reduced capital receipt normally didn't cover the remaining debt - so all the other tenants paid for the RTB subsidy through their rents and through reduced improvement and repair services!

And for most of the time the Right To Buy has been in place it has been impossible for Councils with any historic debt to spend on new build housing (or buying existing housing to add to their stock). It was outside the rules. Governments said one thing, but then stopped it happening by the way the housing subsidy system operated. That was a deliberate decision.

It has become possible for a few more Councils to build new housing (small scale - a tiny fraction of what was lost through Right To Buy) when the Self Financing Housing Revenue Account changes came in from 2012. But it really is small scale - and for most of the UK the Right To Buy rules (that have changed over time - and John Prescott came closest to ending it) mean that new home can be lost within a few years and again the Council and its tenants will have to fund a huge discount to the 'lucky' sitting tenant.

The whole system was set up as a cynical way of buying Tory votes on Council estates - and making tenants who didn't or couldn't join the party pay the cost. It also transferred over a million homes from Councils (where rents are too high anyway) to private landlords who often charge multiples of a Council rent - and the rest of us pick up the tab in housing benefits.

The (preserved) Right To Buy also applies to some Housing Associations where there was a past stock transfer from a Council.

It is probably the biggest single contributor over more than four decades to the UK's housing crisis. There is no justification for it as a policy to improve UK housing (in fact many RTB homes that initially got the new door were/are in worse condition than Council homes that have gone through the Decent Homes Programme). It is 100% political and a disaster.

Agree completely. Almost everything that has happened as a result could have been forecast.

[JamesWales]

The reply above from someone with a background in local authority housing states that the RTB was probably the biggest factor in 4 decades contributing to the housing crisis

You love all that thatcherite crap but selling off council housing was a nightmare for those who needed it yet were not lucky enough to be stiffed money to buy it in the first place ....the worst kind of I am allright jack types imaginable .....I couldn't give a toss that they were paying rent .....so were other tenants worse off .....and those without a place to live saw their chances of even doing that slashed away

But uncle Bert bought his house and that money stayed in OUR family.....so that's OK, WE were hard working so stuff everyone else

You think you know everything but you don't

I know that's hard for you and you will never be able to admit it but that's the way it is

You have been pushing the mantra of right wing politics for ages and now you have a party to vote for

Whilst the current government are absolutely dire I won't be joining you

You would be better off sticking on a union jack t shirt and joining Nigel and his publicity team than waste people's time on here

This is such a ridiculous overreach and a straw man argument. Why are you talking about union jack t shirts? 😂

There are a tonne of issues that cause any larger problem such as the housing crisis. That's true. Divorce rates, economic changes, growth of universities, many other things too. No one denies it. The problem here is that some of you are unable (presumably ideologically so) to acknowledge that the massive increase in demand (which all comes from people) is not intrinsincly linked to a massive increase in population which is overwhelmingly derived from high immigration which is on a scale absolutely incomparable to the 80s and 90s which with respect is an era where your politics seemed to stop.

We would probably agree on many things. The need for more social housing, the need for regulation, the need to end build to let, the need to severely restrict air BnB, and many other factors. But until you address the big cause of the spike in demand you are pissing in the wind. And it's other people (not you) getting the piss in their faces through huge rents btw, although we are all paying a lot of their housing benefit collectively too.

The problem with you and Jon just talking about RTB is that while you are right in that i removed nearly a million from the social housing stock (which is bad) it also removed millions from the demand side (which is good). If those houses were back in the social housing mix they would instantly be filled by the people who currently live in them. It's a transfer of ownership that happened. It didn't impact supply and demand, aside from not being used to build new social housing, which I do entirely agree with you on.

[the other bob wilson]

I wish I was as eloquent

That's bang on the money

People were getting council houses then as soon as they had lived there for 2 years , buying the bloody thing and then being in a position to make big money

Absolutely appalling greed on the back of what was a state asset to provide housing for those less well off

I had total respect for those tenants with principles who refused to buy their homes and passed them on after their deaths to others who were in desperate need of accommodation

It must have been sickening for hard pressed councils to provide a house for a family who were on the list only to see the greedy selfish gits buy the place just a short time later , as soon as they were able to

They were as bad as Thatcher

My parents weren’t “greedy selfish gits”. Yes, they were lucky because in 1976 (under a Labour Government and I’m pretty sure a Labour council in Cardiff) my father being made redundant by British Rail coincided with an offer from the council that gave them a chance to buy the council house they were renting for a sum they would never have been able to afford without the redundancy money. There was someone from my family living in that house for the next 42 years until I moved up here and in the block of six houses we lived in three other families took up the offer - one of them were still there when I left and the other two stayed until the parents had passed away some thirty odd years after they’d bought their houses.

None of those families were rich, they just took advantage of what they thought was a generous offer from the council. My father voted Labour all of his life and my mother was a Tory who switched to Labour when she was about thirty after hearing Harold MacMillan tell her she’d never had it so good - they’ll be turning in their graves at being described as being “as bad as Thatcher.”

[jon1959]

My parents weren’t “greedy selfish gits”. Yes, they were lucky because in 1976 (under a Labour Government and I’m pretty sure a Labour council in Cardiff) my father being made redundant by British Rail coincided with an offer from the council that gave them a chance to buy the council house they were renting for a sum they would never have been able to afford without the redundancy money. There was someone from my family living in that house for the next 42 years until I moved up here and in the block of six houses we lived in three other families took up the offer - one of them were still there when I left and the other two stayed until the parents had passed away some thirty odd years after they’d bought their houses.

None of those families were rich, they just took advantage of what they thought was a generous offer from the council. My father voted Labour all of his life and my mother was a Tory who switched to Labour when she was about thirty after hearing Harold MacMillan tell her she’d never had it so good - they’ll be turning in their graves at being described as being “as bad as Thatcher.”

I wouldn't blame anyone who took advantage of Right To Buy - the fault lies with those who invented and implemented the policy.

But I did know a lot of Council tenants who were proud of being tenants (saw it as a privilege and a right) and refused on political and social grounds to buy their homes. They were a minority. Most would just consider the advantages or disadvantages for themselves and their immediate family.

Good to be reminded that Thatcher didn't invent Right To Buy. It started in 1936; expanded a bit in the late 1950s and 1960s; grew a bit more in the early and mid 1970s (much of that under a Labour Government) but remained small scale and limited until Thatcher turned a small rumble into an earthquake after 1980.

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

Farage is still a long way from being able to win a general election

My arse he is

Regular polling ten points above starmer

If he doesn't get over the line himself he will be able to form a coalition with the Tories

People seem to be ignoring what's going on in front of their eyes

Labour and Plaid trounced in Llanelli by Reform yesterday

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

This is such a ridiculous overreach and a straw man argument. Why are you talking about union jack t shirts? ��

There are a tonne of issues that cause any larger problem such as the housing crisis. That's true. Divorce rates, economic changes, growth of universities, many other things too. No one denies it. The problem here is that some of you are unable (presumably ideologically so) to acknowledge that the massive increase in demand (which all comes from people) is not intrinsincly linked to a massive increase in population which is overwhelmingly derived from high immigration which is on a scale absolutely incomparable to the 80s and 90s which with respect is an era where your politics seemed to stop.

We would probably agree on many things. The need for more social housing, the need for regulation, the need to end build to let, the need to severely restrict air BnB, and many other factors. But until you address the big cause of the spike in demand you are pissing in the wind. And it's other people (not you) getting the piss in their faces through huge rents btw, although we are all paying a lot of their housing benefit collectively too.

The problem with you and Jon just talking about RTB is that while you are right in that i removed nearly a million from the social housing stock (which is bad) it also removed millions from the demand side (which is good). If those houses were back in the social housing mix they would instantly be filled by the people who currently live in them. It's a transfer of ownership that happened. It didn't impact supply and demand, aside from not being used to build new social housing, which I do entirely agree with you on.

Absolute rubbish

Jon gives you a leathering and back you pop spouting more rubbish thinking you are some kind of intellectual