| Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| The Conservative party discovers socialism!; Osborne's Autumn Statement | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Nov 25 2015, 11:21 PM (522 Views) | |
| Tigger | Nov 25 2015, 11:21 PM Post #1 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
They won't call it that of course but that is what it is, they are planning to spend £7bn on putting up half a million houses! There are some wonderful contradictions here, the private sector has failed once again as it has formed a cartel so the state needs to step in, the houses would by economic logic be kept in taxpayer hands but instead will be sold thus involving the banks reaping the longer term profits, then we have the property owning democracy that Thatcher banged on about, even the French have a higher rate of ownership now thus endangering future Conservatism, and finally will they really follow it through as debt levels among new buyers are already at dangerously high levels? This is going to be one to watch........ |
![]() |
|
| Affa | Nov 25 2015, 11:41 PM Post #2 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
A surprising Budget Review today ...... and another U-Turn as has followed virtually every Budget Report under GO. It does for once appear that he is serious about deficit reduction (finally), but personally I doubt his ability to deliver it. |
![]() |
|
| skwirked | Nov 25 2015, 11:43 PM Post #3 |
|
On Enforced Vacation
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Absolute joke he just found the money laying around. This govt just make it up as they go along, fairytale economics.
|
![]() |
|
| Steve K | Nov 25 2015, 11:45 PM Post #4 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Hooray finally a discussion on Osborne's announcement http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34908612 A fiasco imho showing he will invent money from thin air when his charmless nature has got him in a bind That link covers the main points but not sure where you get £7B from on building. They say
But the tax credit retreat and no cuts to police budgets has to be good imho |
![]() |
|
| skwirked | Nov 26 2015, 08:13 AM Post #5 |
|
On Enforced Vacation
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/autumn-statement/12017278/Autumn-Statement-A-27-billion-windfall-but-George-Osborne-will-still-borrow-more.html "That decision was criticised by some economists, who noted that the OBR’s projected windfall was based on the assumption that economic growth will stay strong and interest rates extremely low for the rest of the decade." The OBR has fucked up so many times and has been called 'discredited' by right wing economists. I have proven this to be the case before. |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Nov 26 2015, 08:13 AM Post #6 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I was away for most of yesterday and as a consequence not yet seen any of the reviews. My initial reaction was "future music" again, if tuneful then OK, but if, as is likely, dissonant then come 2020 we will still be running a deficit. A clever political tactician who gets himself out of the current bad odium with panache, but gambles far too much for my liking. I would like to have seen him stick to his guns and only spend further once the surplus is banked. The claim that what he offers can be classed as Socialism is very silly, but Osborne definitely sits at the lhs of the Tory table. So does Cameron. In fact you could accuse them of being Brownblair-ite as those two were also reckless and gambled with future's music. |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Nov 26 2015, 08:19 AM Post #7 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I did see the shadow chappy just before lights out and he was right with one thing, the deficit should, according to promises, be behind us now. But he did not mention the hypocrisy of such a statement by those that had objected to each and every cut. Why he quoted Chairman Mao's Little Red Book is beyond me, just a series of vacuous soundbites that made him look foolish. He to made claims, but again without one iota of substance. The lack of a real series opposition to Cameron and Osborne is self evident, even the BBC said such. |
![]() |
|
| papasmurf | Nov 26 2015, 08:22 AM Post #8 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
But not 1/2 a million social homes. All he has done is make house prices rise. |
![]() |
|
| Lewis | Nov 26 2015, 08:26 AM Post #9 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Well you can't pin any trust on what the OBR or this extremist right wing government has to state. We all should know by now that the so-called deficit is here to stay. Nothing Giddie will alter that and the budget statement is the clearest admission we will get to that effect. |
![]() |
|
| disgruntled porker | Nov 26 2015, 08:33 AM Post #10 |
|
Older than most people think I am.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Well, this how how I see it. He's pulled out of the tax credits cuts. The rest of the welfare budget is going to suffer for this with the 12b cuts to be made somewhere there. I reckon a goodly number of people at the upper end of the scale, who in my opinion could survive quite well without tax credits, will still get them, while some people on the bottom end of the welfare recipients ladder will be pushed to the absolute limit and beyond. I also fear that care of the elderly will suffer too. All pretty broad statements. I reckon the devil will be in the detail. It always is with Ozzie. |
![]() |
|
| papasmurf | Nov 26 2015, 08:59 AM Post #11 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Not quite. Yes, the Chancellor ditched the two main elements of the £4.3bn reform. But that isn’t the same as a full U-turn. Families will still be barred from claiming child tax credits for more than two children, exactly as was planned before. That rate is worth £2,780 per child. Multiple births will be protected. The ‘family element’ of £545 a year is also still being scrapped. In theory, the ‘third child rule’ only applies to children born after April 2017. If you have four children already you’re in the clear. But if you want to keep claiming for big families after 2017, you must continue claiming child tax credits without a break . If you stop claiming for more than 6 months , then go back to a low wage, you’ll only be paid as if you have two children – because it counts as a ‘new claim’ . Anyone who claims for the first time after April 2017 will also count as a new claim , regardless of when their children were born. The ‘income rise disregard’ will still be halved as planned. Currently your income can rise by £5,000 within the year you’ve claimed for, without you having to recalculate and pay your tax credits back. From April 2016, that amount is being halved to £2,500. Tax officials will pay hard-hitting private debt collectors to target families who owe the government more than £3,000. During his speech the Chancellor said: “Tax credits are being phased out anyway as we introduce universal credit.” The one-size-fits-all benefit is being rolled out slowly over the next few years and will replace tax credits anyway. (That will be £1000 less than tax credits for able bodied people and £2500 less for disabled people.) All working-age benefits including tax credits are being frozen for 4 years – longer than the 2 years previously pledged by the Tories. This means the amount paid will gradually lose its value as prices go up with inflation.” |
![]() |
|
| AndyK | Nov 26 2015, 09:20 AM Post #12 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
^ Not to mention, tax credits are being scrapped in 2018 anyway and being replaced with universal credit. An opportunity to set the levels much lower. So its just being deferred. |
![]() |
|
| disgruntled porker | Nov 26 2015, 09:50 AM Post #13 |
|
Older than most people think I am.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Long time between now and 2018. Plenty of time for several u turns. |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Nov 26 2015, 09:52 AM Post #14 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Indeed like the promise of running a surplus in 2020, in my view now an unlikely outcome. Pity the coming generations as they will have a very large Millstone tied to their ankles. |
![]() |
|
| Ewill | Nov 26 2015, 05:57 PM Post #15 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I reckon a goodly number of people at the upper end of the scale, who in my opinion could survive quite well without tax credits, will still get them, while some people on the bottom end of the welfare recipients ladder will be pushed to the absolute limit and beyond. I've recently returned from Ecuador They have a welfare benefits system there too- however the criteria for eligibility is logical It's judged on monthly electricity usage , those below a particular usage per month (adjusted for household makeup) are eligible to claim , those using more electricity to run fancy gadgets are not |
![]() |
|
| Affa | Nov 26 2015, 08:21 PM Post #16 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I have an in-law that is in Qatar right now ...... fulfilling part of his desire to visit countries from the alphabet. I might spend an evening quizzing him about what he has learnt, and gleen his perspective on how his experiences have help form his opinions on 'what is the best place to live'. You two (Ewill) would of course have a better exchange than I could - my input modest at best. I've only visited A, C, E, F, G, S, and T. ....... and know nothing of the welfare systems of any of them. |
![]() |
|
| papasmurf | Nov 26 2015, 08:27 PM Post #17 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Universal Credit is being rolled out so slowly, most of the people currently on Working Tax Credit will have reached retirement age before the rollout is complete. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/474720/universal-credit-statistics-to-29-oct-2015.pdf |
![]() |
|
| Tigger | Nov 26 2015, 10:47 PM Post #18 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Not silly at all textbook socialism is the state intervening where the private sector has failed, a bit like Cameron's £10m personal jet if you hadn't noticed............ Bottom line the state is going to spend billions building houses = SOCIALISM, but obviously with some Tory corruption thrown in somewhere for £ood measure. |
![]() |
|
| disgruntled porker | Nov 27 2015, 08:05 AM Post #19 |
|
Older than most people think I am.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The state may be going to build them, but it doesn't mean they will be directly responsible for renting them out. I reckon they will be immediately flogged off to associations and private landlords. |
![]() |
|
| Tigger | Nov 27 2015, 08:55 PM Post #20 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
They are being built with the alleged intention they will be sold to "strivers" under the age of 40 (debt serfs), no one has yet to explain in detail how this will work in practice with the government, ie us the taxpayer, putting up the cash and the building firms doing the actual work. One hint of how it might work is revealed by a jump in the share price of all the big developers..... |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Nov 28 2015, 11:48 AM Post #21 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I do not think George is going to turn his hand to bricklaying or DIY. I think the State only wishes to assist in the provision of finance and reduce or pull down planning barriers. I do not think the State will at any time actually own any of these properties. |
![]() |
|
| AndyK | Nov 30 2015, 01:52 PM Post #22 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Maybe if the baby boomers died a bit quicker, there would be enough houses passed on to their children to mitigate the crisis. I blame it on do-gooders forcing people to quit smoking. |
![]() |
|
| Tytoalba | Nov 30 2015, 02:56 PM Post #23 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Market forces {House prices} are dictated by supply and demand. Build more homes and increase the supply and the prices reduce, allow the population to rise and the demand increases creating shortages and the prices rise. Builing more home means an increase in demand for labour, and the manufacture of bricks, cement, and all the other things that goes to build a home, down to cups and saucers, white goods and furniture the sale of which generates more taxes for the government. Its very much a catch 22 situation for any government |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Nov 30 2015, 04:38 PM Post #24 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
We are doing our best, but the buggers keep on pushing pills down us in order to keep us going for few more years. |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Nov 30 2015, 04:47 PM Post #25 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yep but why are the lowest cost versions going to be sold at ~£250,000? Is that the lowest cost unit that architects can design? If the average wage is ~£25,000 PA then that price tag after a 20% discount is still 8x average earnings. I think we need to see the building industry build units at much lower costs. Maybe high rise will make a comeback? I am against using this situation to subsidise purchasers no matter how rich or poor, other mechanisms should be used to transfer incomes and wealth. It is also wrong to entice individuals into taking on very long term commitments that they may not, even in the near future when interest rates rise, be able to afford. Looks like we need a lot of unsubsidised cheaper units for rent |
![]() |
|
| Tigger | Nov 30 2015, 09:30 PM Post #26 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Er......... no. If houses were all priced at one million quid there would be very little demand, it is the amount of money available to borrow that is the main driver of house prices and always has been. This government was faced with a problem, if it let house prices reflect the amounts people could afford on ordinary wages prices would come down, this is true market forces, however the downside (?) is the banks and several other areas of the economy would probably collapse, so the government is now subsidizing house prices with taxpayers money. A couple of other points to indicate that this is a cartel and has bugger all to do with market forces, the big six developers have enough land banked to build houses at more than twice the current rate for the next five years, in addition we are still waiting for these revised planning regulations. There has even been a downturn in build rates in the last quarter! And if I'm not mistaken you gloated over the fact that developers manipulate public opinion to get their own way and build what they want and not what local communities need. ![]() So in short market forces my arse. |
![]() |
|
| papasmurf | Dec 1 2015, 07:27 AM Post #27 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The demand is for social housing. The private sector will not supply that.
|
![]() |
|
| RJD | Dec 1 2015, 08:20 AM Post #28 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Adjust your sentence from "will" to "have not supplied sufficient". Then try and understand why not. Just a tip; builders will look at market demand in the area where he has land to build upon and then attempt to get planning permission for the style of units that will maximise profits. Quiet rightly so as he is no extension of social services and has no duty of care to anyone other than his employees and family. Such a duty, such as it is, rests with Local Gov. The power exists with Local Authorities to negotiate with Builders to include a portion of social housing in the mix. They have been doing this in Wales for years, sadly insufficient. |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Dec 1 2015, 08:29 AM Post #29 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
IP:
The Gov. do not have such a problem and will not have such a problem as it is not responsible for setting house prices, this is done by owners and their advisors. If the Gov. set rules such as; "you cannot borrow more than 80% of the market price for the property" and/or "you cannot borrow more than 4x combined earnings", then demand to buy would reduce and rentals increase. There might be fewer units built than currently planned, but the Banks would not collapse, the "buy to rent boys" would move in. You see the Posters forgot one fundamental and that is that people will still want to live in a house somewhere even if they do not own it. So demand actually does not reduce. If regions want more affordable houses to buy or rent then those that give the permissions to build need to be more demanding. The central Gov. can do little other than facilitate finances and attempt to bully Planning Authorities, in a capitalist democratic country anyway. |
![]() |
|
| Tigger | Dec 1 2015, 10:04 PM Post #30 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
You've just given us the perfect reason why housebuilding should NOT be in the hands of the private sector and the state should start building itself. Thank you for reminding us why the private sector is failing to meet the needs of the country. ![]() Oh and one last thing, under the Housing and Planning Act 2015 developers are no longer obliged to include affordable housing in any planning proposals. |
![]() |
|
| Rich | Dec 1 2015, 11:07 PM Post #31 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
But that does not mean that the LA's will let them build without doing so, therefore it is now down to those authorities to put there foot down with the building fraternity and only grant permits on condition that........ |
![]() |
|
| Tigger | Dec 1 2015, 11:16 PM Post #32 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
No, under the new rules they can't block developments if the builder refuses to have a percentage of affordable houses, that is one of the provisions of the Act I mentioned, additionally a bod at the BoE who's name escapes me at the moment has told us what we in the trade already know, ie the building conglomerates simply don't have the capacity to build enough houses, they have the land but not the inclination. You have to laugh really at this situation, the Tories continually bang on about competition and a market economy but do everything to stop that happening with housebuilding! The traditional route is to deregulate and let in foreign competitors, no chance of that happening here! Can you think why no one else seems to notice this conundrum?
|
![]() |
|
| RJD | Dec 2 2015, 08:55 AM Post #33 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Actually the "profit motive" is the reason that house building must be in the private sector. What is allowed to be built is a question that has social implications and therefore Local Gov. must have it's say. If you want high costs of building then let the public sector become builders. I think that alone would adds ~20% to the cost of every new build. I do not buy the obvious clap-trap that public sector works, not subject to the strictures of the profit motive that results in close cost control will do anything efficiently. History and all such evidence shows otherwise. |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Dec 2 2015, 09:00 AM Post #34 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
So what? The removal of such an obligation does not mean that they are inhibited from taking on any social responsibilities they as local Politicians feel is their duty for their local. There is nothing stopping Planning Depts of Local Gov. reviewing each application to build, on a case by case basis, and demanding a portion of low cost dwellings within the stock. Here in Wales it is par for the course. Me thinks the Poster is looking to excuse his ignorance of how the market actually works. |
![]() |
|
| skwirked | Dec 2 2015, 09:09 AM Post #35 |
|
On Enforced Vacation
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
"So what"
|
![]() |
|
| RJD | Dec 2 2015, 10:15 AM Post #36 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
No we do not as the claim put no limit on time. What we do know is that Socialism, no matter how much the monkeys bang on about it, has a negative effect on the standing of the average UK man and there has been sufficient time and sufficient substance to make such a claim and sign it off with QED. Socialism is or should be dead a best we embrace Welfare Capitalism and make it work for us. Seeking to refight lost battles, long lost, is a complete waste of time and efforts. |
![]() |
|
| skwirked | Dec 2 2015, 10:36 AM Post #37 |
|
On Enforced Vacation
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yes the monkeys bang on about socialism, terrorism, spite and envy etc all the time without knowing what they are talking about. It is a better idea to drop ideological constraints and focus on what works. Fact: we have a big shortage of housing in this country and we need more quickly, we need subsidised housing.."so what"? Edited by skwirked, Dec 2 2015, 10:36 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Pro Veritas | Dec 2 2015, 11:17 AM Post #38 |
|
Upstanding Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
This shows just how silly "state-reductionsim" really is. Apparently it is bad for the state to provide funds, or assist with funding, to build state owned "social" housing - that is the state funding something that the state owns. But it is, apparently, good for the state to provide funds, or assist with funding, to build privately owned "social" housing - that is the state funding something that the state doesn't own, but will then have to pay even more for to use. I can't be the only one that thinks this is beyond stupid, can I? All The Best |
![]() |
|
| disgruntled porker | Dec 2 2015, 11:23 AM Post #39 |
|
Older than most people think I am.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
You are not alone. |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Dec 2 2015, 04:31 PM Post #40 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
But is your thinking correct. The State is not seeking to put up the full cost of building such properties, nowhere near, so why should you expect the State to have ownership? The only loss to Taxpayers is the amount of subsidy or part thereof for new house purchasers. Now how you are therefore, because of this subsidy/incentive able to claim that the STate should therefore have title is beyond reason. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
|
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2




![]](http://z5.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)





8:28 AM Jul 11