Snap General Election called

[Son of Mathonwy]

I've only just become aware of something positive about the budget! Something I actually agree with. So credit where credit is due, Reeves did something good.

The "right to buy" for tenants of council properties has been seriously reduced. Previously, the maximum discount available was £136k in London and £102k outside. Now, the amounts vary across the country but are mostly less than £30k, and a tiny £16k in London. So, while I'd rather see this scheme ended completely (and hope this is the first step on that road), this is a welcome thing, and something (as far as I could see) not raised by the press.

[Mellsblue]

I read about it in the press and Rayner got most of the credit.

[Mikey Brown]

I've only just become aware of something positive about the budget! Something I actually agree with. So credit where credit is due, Reeves did something good.

The "right to buy" for tenants of council properties has been seriously reduced. Previously, the maximum discount available was £136k in London and £102k outside. Now, the amounts vary across the country but are mostly less than £30k, and a tiny £16k in London. So, while I'd rather see this scheme ended completely (and hope this is the first step on that road), this is a welcome thing, and something (as far as I could see) not raised by the press.

What’s the logic here? Not arguing, I just haven’t ever considered it.

[Stom]

I’ll post a video as to why it’s important. A very good watch:

Simply, the right to buy makes building new council homes a loss maker for many councils, so they just have not been doing it since thatcher.

Hence the boom in house prices since then.

Removing right to buy would be a wonderful thing for the UK, though this is a good start.

[Mikey Brown]

Cheers. Will give that a look.

[Son of Mathonwy]

I’ll post a video as to why it’s important. A very good watch:

Simply, the right to buy makes building new council homes a loss maker for many councils, so they just have not been doing it since thatcher.

Hence the boom in house prices since then.

Removing right to buy would be a wonderful thing for the UK, though this is a good start.

Exactly! Great video.

[Son of Mathonwy]

I've only just become aware of something positive about the budget! Something I actually agree with. So credit where credit is due, Reeves did something good.

The "right to buy" for tenants of council properties has been seriously reduced. Previously, the maximum discount available was £136k in London and £102k outside. Now, the amounts vary across the country but are mostly less than £30k, and a tiny £16k in London. So, while I'd rather see this scheme ended completely (and hope this is the first step on that road), this is a welcome thing, and something (as far as I could see) not raised by the press.

What’s the logic here? Not arguing, I just haven’t ever considered it.

Stom beat me to it! Basically it stopped councils from building houses because it would be financial madness to do it (because of the losses the huge discounts would cause). It also transferred huge assets of the state to individuals who were lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time - enriching them and their descendants but leaving out poorer people who came along later. Obviously the government needs to make a big investment in housebuilding, and it can't rely on the private sector to do so (because they will just drip feed properties to the market to prevent prices from falling), but getting rid of the right to buy is an essential step towards solving the housing crisis.

[Mellsblue]

There’s nothing to stop local authorities building homes if they wish to. Off the top of my head, Bradford, York, Norwich/Norfolk, N. Yorkshire all do it.
I set up a working group to look into doing it as a joint venture between the town and district council where I live but a change in Cllrs after elections lead to it being canned. Ironically, it was a loss of Conservative Cllrs and an increase in Labour Cllrs that lead to its demise. There was even seed funding from the Conservative government in the pot should it have gone forward. Building to rent is more complicated than building to sell but it is possible.

[Mellsblue]

I’ll post a video as to why it’s important. A very good watch:

Simply, the right to buy makes building new council homes a loss maker for many councils, so they just have not been doing it since thatcher.

Hence the boom in house prices since then.

Removing right to buy would be a wonderful thing for the UK, though this is a good start.

Will watch this when I have time this evening but did a little digging on the presenter prior to that. He’s not exactly politically neutral (not that anyone is).

[Stom]

I’ll post a video as to why it’s important. A very good watch:

Simply, the right to buy makes building new council homes a loss maker for many councils, so they just have not been doing it since thatcher.

Hence the boom in house prices since then.

Removing right to buy would be a wonderful thing for the UK, though this is a good start.

Will watch this when I have time this evening but did a little digging on the presenter prior to that. He’s not exactly politically neutral (not that anyone is).

He's not, and there's obviously a case of me finding voices that also fit mine.

But outside of the current/recent state of affairs, it's true that there was a massive shortage of high-standard new builds between the mid 80s and the 2010s.

It comes down, in my opinion, to the question of whether government should be involved, or if the market will set standards. Because the market does not set standards for essential goods and services, it drops standards. For non-essentials like phones, TVs, high-end clothing, etc., it does: quality has gone up. For housing...new builds have gained a rep of being utter garbage.

This does seem like a step in the right direction, to me, though it's very late for many who I know, and it'll only really have an impact on house prices once boomers have already sold/died.

[Mellsblue]

I’ll post a video as to why it’s important. A very good watch:

Simply, the right to buy makes building new council homes a loss maker for many councils, so they just have not been doing it since thatcher.

Hence the boom in house prices since then.

Removing right to buy would be a wonderful thing for the UK, though this is a good start.

Will watch this when I have time this evening but did a little digging on the presenter prior to that. He’s not exactly politically neutral (not that anyone is).

He's not, and there's obviously a case of me finding voices that also fit mine.

But outside of the current/recent state of affairs, it's true that there was a massive shortage of high-standard new builds between the mid 80s and the 2010s.

It comes down, in my opinion, to the question of whether government should be involved, or if the market will set standards. Because the market does not set standards for essential goods and services, it drops standards. For non-essentials like phones, TVs, high-end clothing, etc., it does: quality has gone up. For housing...new builds have gained a rep of being utter garbage.

This does seem like a step in the right direction, to me, though it's very late for many who I know, and it'll only really have an impact on house prices once boomers have already sold/died.

As part of my MSc, I undertook a study of social housing, post war through to end of the 1970s, and the quality of some of that housing ain’t great, albeit there were obvious mitigating factors in the 40s, 50s and, to a lesser extent, the 60s. Having worked in the public sector for 10 years I can tell you that there’s as much effort to keep costs down in that sector as in the private sector, albeit for very different reasons.

The government is very involved in setting standards, eg Building Regulations, and, possibly surprisingly, I don’t think they are stringent enough in this area. There are some acceptable reasons for this and some unacceptable reasons, imo. An area in which government actively impinges on quality, albeit indirectly, is the planning system. It’s so labyrinthine that it makes it a massive commitment, in time and money, and for self builders and smaller builders is therefore a huge barrier.

Ultimately, as with all markets, you need as many players as possible and as much supply as possible to drive up quality via competition, along with sensible and proportionate govt regs, and a lot of laws around the U.K. housing market actively hamper that.

[Stom]

Will watch this when I have time this evening but did a little digging on the presenter prior to that. He’s not exactly politically neutral (not that anyone is).

He's not, and there's obviously a case of me finding voices that also fit mine.

But outside of the current/recent state of affairs, it's true that there was a massive shortage of high-standard new builds between the mid 80s and the 2010s.

It comes down, in my opinion, to the question of whether government should be involved, or if the market will set standards. Because the market does not set standards for essential goods and services, it drops standards. For non-essentials like phones, TVs, high-end clothing, etc., it does: quality has gone up. For housing...new builds have gained a rep of being utter garbage.

This does seem like a step in the right direction, to me, though it's very late for many who I know, and it'll only really have an impact on house prices once boomers have already sold/died.

As part of my MSc, I undertook a study of social housing, post war through to end of the 1970s, and the quality of some of that housing ain’t great, albeit there were obvious mitigating factors in the 40s, 50s and, to a lesser extent, the 60s. Having worked in the public sector for 10 years I can tell you that there’s as much effort to keep costs down in that sector as in the private sector, albeit for very different reasons.

The government is very involved in setting standards, eg Building Regulations, and, possibly surprisingly, I don’t think they are stringent enough in this area. There are some acceptable reasons for this and some unacceptable reasons, imo. An area in which government actively impinges on quality, albeit indirectly, is the planning system. It’s so labyrinthine that it makes it a massive commitment, in time and money, and for self builders and smaller builders is therefore a huge barrier.

Ultimately, as with all markets, you need as many players as possible and as much supply as possible to drive up quality via competition, along with sensible and proportionate govt regs, and a lot of laws around the U.K. housing market actively hamper that.

Thank you for the insight.

Yeah, that all passes the sniff test and I completely agree that the UK has a big problem with regulations: way too lax in some places, way too strict in others.

I still think it was a worthwhile watch, but as with any media, you should take it with a pinch of salt and not as gospel.

[Mellsblue]

He's not, and there's obviously a case of me finding voices that also fit mine.

But outside of the current/recent state of affairs, it's true that there was a massive shortage of high-standard new builds between the mid 80s and the 2010s.

It comes down, in my opinion, to the question of whether government should be involved, or if the market will set standards. Because the market does not set standards for essential goods and services, it drops standards. For non-essentials like phones, TVs, high-end clothing, etc., it does: quality has gone up. For housing...new builds have gained a rep of being utter garbage.

This does seem like a step in the right direction, to me, though it's very late for many who I know, and it'll only really have an impact on house prices once boomers have already sold/died.

As part of my MSc, I undertook a study of social housing, post war through to end of the 1970s, and the quality of some of that housing ain’t great, albeit there were obvious mitigating factors in the 40s, 50s and, to a lesser extent, the 60s. Having worked in the public sector for 10 years I can tell you that there’s as much effort to keep costs down in that sector as in the private sector, albeit for very different reasons.

The government is very involved in setting standards, eg Building Regulations, and, possibly surprisingly, I don’t think they are stringent enough in this area. There are some acceptable reasons for this and some unacceptable reasons, imo. An area in which government actively impinges on quality, albeit indirectly, is the planning system. It’s so labyrinthine that it makes it a massive commitment, in time and money, and for self builders and smaller builders is therefore a huge barrier.

Ultimately, as with all markets, you need as many players as possible and as much supply as possible to drive up quality via competition, along with sensible and proportionate govt regs, and a lot of laws around the U.K. housing market actively hamper that.

Thank you for the insight.

Yeah, that all passes the sniff test and I completely agree that the UK has a big problem with regulations: way too lax in some places, way too strict in others.

I still think it was a worthwhile watch, but as with any media, you should take it with a pinch of salt and not as gospel.

Yep, I will def watch.

[Mellsblue]

Pop quiz:
Is the following quote attributable to Rachel Reeves or Liz Truss?
“The demand is there but there are far too many supply-side constraints...”

[Puja]

Pop quiz:
Is the following quote attributable to Rachel Reeves or Liz Truss?
“The demand is there but there are far too many supply-side constraints...”

There are always quips about opportunistic Labour politicians being indistinguishable from Tories, but this lot appear to be taking the piss. They've looked at the last 14 years of economic failure and stagnation through austerity and pandering to supply side economics and appear to be thinking, "Maybe it'll work if **we** do it cause we're the good guys!"

It's made worse when you think about Starmer's leadership bid was around keeping the popular leftist policies from the 2017 and 2019 manifestos and presenting them with a not-Corbyn persona. In related news, I understand John McDonnell is due to have his suspension, that he got for voting against keeping the 2 child benefit cap, extended into a possible expulsion from the Labour party because he won't [checks notes] promise not to vote for left wing policies in the future. Incredible.

Puja

[Mellsblue]

Pop quiz:
Is the following quote attributable to Rachel Reeves or Liz Truss?
“The demand is there but there are far too many supply-side constraints...”

There are always quips about opportunistic Labour politicians being indistinguishable from Tories, but this lot appear to be taking the piss. They've looked at the last 14 years of economic failure and stagnation through austerity and pandering to supply side economics and appear to be thinking, "Maybe it'll work if **we** do it cause we're the good guys!"

It's made worse when you think about Starmer's leadership bid was around keeping the popular leftist policies from the 2017 and 2019 manifestos and presenting them with a not-Corbyn persona. In related news, I understand John McDonnell is due to have his suspension, that he got for voting against keeping the 2 child benefit cap, extended into a possible expulsion from the Labour party because he won't [checks notes] promise not to vote for left wing policies in the future. Incredible.

Puja

All minor stuff compared to the fact that Banquo may be able to catch the train to Bedford at some point in the next decade or two.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Pop quiz:
Is the following quote attributable to Rachel Reeves or Liz Truss?
“The demand is there but there are far too many supply-side constraints...”

There are always quips about opportunistic Labour politicians being indistinguishable from Tories, but this lot appear to be taking the piss. They've looked at the last 14 years of economic failure and stagnation through austerity and pandering to supply side economics and appear to be thinking, "Maybe it'll work if **we** do it cause we're the good guys!"

It's made worse when you think about Starmer's leadership bid was around keeping the popular leftist policies from the 2017 and 2019 manifestos and presenting them with a not-Corbyn persona. In related news, I understand John McDonnell is due to have his suspension, that he got for voting against keeping the 2 child benefit cap, extended into a possible expulsion from the Labour party because he won't [checks notes] promise not to vote for left wing policies in the future. Incredible.

Puja

Every word true

[Banquo]

Pop quiz:
Is the following quote attributable to Rachel Reeves or Liz Truss?
“The demand is there but there are far too many supply-side constraints...”

There are always quips about opportunistic Labour politicians being indistinguishable from Tories, but this lot appear to be taking the piss. They've looked at the last 14 years of economic failure and stagnation through austerity and pandering to supply side economics and appear to be thinking, "Maybe it'll work if **we** do it cause we're the good guys!"

It's made worse when you think about Starmer's leadership bid was around keeping the popular leftist policies from the 2017 and 2019 manifestos and presenting them with a not-Corbyn persona. In related news, I understand John McDonnell is due to have his suspension, that he got for voting against keeping the 2 child benefit cap, extended into a possible expulsion from the Labour party because he won't [checks notes] promise not to vote for left wing policies in the future. Incredible.

Puja

All minor stuff compared to the fact that Banquo may be able to catch the train to Bedford at some point in the next decade or two.

why on earth is that a good thing


Its a great test of sweeping away obstacles though, and cunningly cuts very few labour seats- all the Cambridge/Oxford stuff Reeves announced today is already in planning (lol).

[Mellsblue]

There are always quips about opportunistic Labour politicians being indistinguishable from Tories, but this lot appear to be taking the piss. They've looked at the last 14 years of economic failure and stagnation through austerity and pandering to supply side economics and appear to be thinking, "Maybe it'll work if **we** do it cause we're the good guys!"

It's made worse when you think about Starmer's leadership bid was around keeping the popular leftist policies from the 2017 and 2019 manifestos and presenting them with a not-Corbyn persona. In related news, I understand John McDonnell is due to have his suspension, that he got for voting against keeping the 2 child benefit cap, extended into a possible expulsion from the Labour party because he won't [checks notes] promise not to vote for left wing policies in the future. Incredible.

Puja

All minor stuff compared to the fact that Banquo may be able to catch the train to Bedford at some point in the next decade or two.

why on earth is that a good thing


Its a great test of sweeping away obstacles though, and cunningly cuts very few labour seats- all the Cambridge/Oxford stuff Reeves announced today is already in planning (lol).

Makes it easier for you to watch some winning rugby

Yep, they are making a lot of noise about stuff (not just this) that was already in the pipeline.

[Puja]

Wes Streeting declaring that NHS diversity programs are "anti-whiteness" and talks about "ideological hobby horses" that "have no place in the health service."

I knew we were planning on cozying up to Trump, but I didn't realise it was going to be quite that overt. Streeting really does seem to be a nasty bit of work.

Puja

[Son of Mathonwy]

Wes Streeting declaring that NHS diversity programs are "anti-whiteness" and talks about "ideological hobby horses" that "have no place in the health service."

I knew we were planning on cozying up to Trump, but I didn't realise it was going to be quite that overt. Streeting really does seem to be a nasty bit of work.

Puja

It doesn't sound quite so bad in this article (although I don't know what the whole interview was like). Having said that, Streeting is such a centre-right bag of wind the benefit of the doubt is probably wasted on him.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... -streeting

[Puja]

Wes Streeting declaring that NHS diversity programs are "anti-whiteness" and talks about "ideological hobby horses" that "have no place in the health service."

I knew we were planning on cozying up to Trump, but I didn't realise it was going to be quite that overt. Streeting really does seem to be a nasty bit of work.

Puja

It doesn't sound quite so bad in this article (although I don't know what the whole interview was like). Having said that, Streeting is such a centre-right bag of wind the benefit of the doubt is probably wasted on him.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... -streeting

Okay, that context makes a fuck of a lot of difference. My apologies for sounding off without having done my research - I don't like the prick (apart from anything else, the fact that what I thought he'd done was eminently plausible and entieely on brand for him), but I have clearly unfairly maligned him here.

Apologies for the fake news; please ignore and carry on your normal lives amidst the end of days.

Puja

[Stom]

Wes Streeting declaring that NHS diversity programs are "anti-whiteness" and talks about "ideological hobby horses" that "have no place in the health service."

I knew we were planning on cozying up to Trump, but I didn't realise it was going to be quite that overt. Streeting really does seem to be a nasty bit of work.

Puja

It doesn't sound quite so bad in this article (although I don't know what the whole interview was like). Having said that, Streeting is such a centre-right bag of wind the benefit of the doubt is probably wasted on him.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... -streeting

Honestly, I like pretty much everything said there…

[Donny osmond]

Wes Streeting declaring that NHS diversity programs are "anti-whiteness" and talks about "ideological hobby horses" that "have no place in the health service."

I knew we were planning on cozying up to Trump, but I didn't realise it was going to be quite that overt. Streeting really does seem to be a nasty bit of work.

Puja

It doesn't sound quite so bad in this article (although I don't know what the whole interview was like). Having said that, Streeting is such a centre-right bag of wind the benefit of the doubt is probably wasted on him.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... -streeting

Honestly, I like pretty much everything said there…

One would have to be working very hard to take offence at any of that

[Son of Mathonwy]

It doesn't sound quite so bad in this article (although I don't know what the whole interview was like). Having said that, Streeting is such a centre-right bag of wind the benefit of the doubt is probably wasted on him.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... -streeting

Honestly, I like pretty much everything said there…

One would have to be working very hard to take offence at any of that

The headline was a bit clickbaity but the article more measured, although Streeting might well have been trying to appeal to Farage's voters with his choice of words.