I wonder what Julia Reynolds thinks as she reads the daily papers, sated with pictures of the tented ‘99%’ busily focussing media attention on the in tents debate regarding corporate greed and those companies that form the London Stock Exchange?

Does she appreciate the irony as she prepares to spend another day as Chief Executive of a lsx listed company that is struggling to maintain sales in the present economic crisis?

Does she wonder whether the latest whiz bang wheeze of the Coalition Duo will help to boost sales? I refer of course to their wonderful idea of arm wrestling the tax payer to lend 95% of the purchase price of a house to those whose finances are so rocky they cannot afford to save, say, another 5% of the purchase price?

I am told, by those whose maths is better than mine, that if interest payments rise by 1%, the unlucky 5% owners will have to find another £83 a month from a budget that could spare nothing for further savings…

What will happen to them when they are repossessed; when their new home is sold at a discount to allow others to buy it at auction and rent it out to, to whom?

Will they rent their old house, or someone else’s old house, on housing benefit provided by the tax payer, or will they turn to Julia as a solution to their problem?

Will they join the @occupylsx crowd in their discount tent campaigning against the corporate greed of those such as Julia, struggling to maintain the jobs of her employees?

Employees whose main function is to flog – discount tents to the discontented.

Welcome to the rabbit hole down which you will find Julia Reynolds, the new Chief Executive of Millets.

Remember Millets, in business for 130 years; where we used to go to buy our Levi jeans, bath, sitting in, use of; back in the 60s when we were just pretending to be skint share croppers?

They are on the bread line now; forced to renegotiate a 35 million bank loan with Royal Bank of Scotland, you know, that happy institution owned by the unhappy tax payer, to lend them money to flog cheap tents to those who would see them out of business.

Verily must Ms Reynolds head spin on mornings like this.

Truly must the conversation with the people traffickers be a wonder to behold.

No, no, no Iqbal, you don’t have to worry about being an illegal immigrant now, I know you heard that you had to be legal to get housing benefit and work, but now nice Mr Briton give you money to buy house, no questions asked. You buy house, rent it out to asylum seeker, come back here and give us rent, simples?

6079SmithW November 27, 2011 at 18:57

They should all be arrested for loitering within tent.

Winston Smith

Climate Change
Denier November 25, 2011 at 12:21

“What will happen to them when they are repossessed; when their new home is
sold at a discount to allow others to buy it at auction and rent it out to, to
whom?”

To whom ? Why, to VAT-avoiding, tax-dodging, grasping, Pakistani slum
landlords, that’s who….

GildasTheMonk
November 23, 2011 at 07:52

We need a complete revolution in housing policy and design. And this wins
the best Blog headline award

2Mac November 22, 2011 at 22:57

Similar schemes have been operating for over a decade.

There is profit to be made for Councils if they work in joint partnership
with builders on a profit sharing scheme and there are many ways to minimise
risks.

How I would do this: Use Council Land Assets, Zone them for development and
allow builder streamlined planning process. Insist firms employ people local
to the region administered by council thus spending the money in the same
place council tax was collected.

Create an joint venture 50% owned by Council / Builder. Use Land value to
leverage borrowing from banks at low rate, build variety of property types
from 2 bed flats to 4 bed detached.

Sell 50% onto existing property owners market at small profit but at price
than makes them desirable,

Provide 25% to first time home owners via 10% deposit scheme and mortgage
from one of State owned banks. Provide 25% for rent with option to make
increased rent payments to start saving for deposit with a view to taking
ownership via a mortgage in future. Use very small proportion for housing
benefit claimants with a history of work.

10 year deposit repayment plan with the difference to be repaid by sale of
property back to Council at value if any deposit is still outstanding at year
10. If properties rise in value the owner will be able to borrow when
switching mortgage or sale prior to that date.
If not repaid, property must
be sold to council at value, any residual money from sale after deposit is
repaid will be returned to original owner giving them some savings towards a
deposit in open market.

The property is available at social housing rents to the person who failed
to repay the deposit. If there is money outstanding the person can rent at a
higher rate to repay the balance.

You would be stimulating construction industry, improving housing
conditions and giving people something to work for.

Benefits
Social Housing Rents plus Deposit repayment scheme are still
much cheaper than a Private rents. Therefore people will be able to engage in
scheme within current private rental budget where they achieve no long term
benefit.

Stimulating local firms by spreading the work over many firms, not making
millionaires of a few of the councillors mates. (Docherty Types)

Dealing with future population growth and improving housing stock

Making a return for Council Tax payers and council and therefore creating
money to be spend in local area to the benefit of all.

Removing the need to put Housing Benefit claimants into Private Landlord
properties at way above market rents and wasting residents money due to lack
of social housing options.

Creating housing that is Energy efficient, insulated and desirable will
transform the view of Social housing as it will be affordable to buy and
cheaper to run

Social assistance will be channelled to those who are making a contribution
to the society they are being supported by.

Disadvantages:
A couple of hundred property firm owners will no longer
become millionaires of the back of social housing projects.
Several hundred
thousand private landlords will not longer become rich renting out slums at
high rents to councils to house economically inactive people.

I have not given thus much thought, it is simply pointing out that Social
money can be put to good use and returned to where it came as it should do in
a stable economic flow of income.

The Government should be spending money tax paying society, not foreign
aid, stupid wars, asylum seekers, immigrants, bankers bonuses, public sector
pensions, high speed rail, Euro Bail Outs.

It is our money and these are our kids trying to get a house, trying to get
a job and trying to survive in the world we fucked up for them by electing the
numpty fuckwitts of ZaNu Labour and the Cuntservatives who ruined in 40 years
what took generations to build.

Ian Thorpe November 22, 2011 at 18:47

UB40 used to sing “I am the one in ten” or maybe I misheard the lyric and
it was the one in tents, now it seems the malcontents are the nine and a nine
tenths in ten.

Pompey Cowboy
November 23, 2011 at 09:36

Judging by the state of the tent area they should be singing ” There’s a
rat in me kitchen”

carol42 November 22, 2011 at 17:39

When we bought our first house in 1976 we only had a small deposit and had
to take out an insurance indemnity which would pay the difference if the house
had to be sold for less than the mortgage, can’t remember what it was called.
Why can’t they do that now? as rents are so high it is often impossible to
rent a place and save up for a high deposit even if you can afford a
mortgage.

2Mac November 22, 2011 at 22:17

It is called a Mortgage Indemnity Guarantee. (MIG) a one off premium was
paid and added to your mortgage to purchase this product.

If your house was repossessed and the bank lost money in the process of
throwing you out. They would make a claim on the MIG policy you paid for in
order to reclaim any losses incurred while evicting you.

If I remember correctly then Insurance Company could also chase you for
the cost of the loss. Not sure about this detail on all policies.

These products are still sold within the Mortgage sector but as the Banks
are now insurance companies as well they call this a High Loan to Value fee.
It is detailed in the depths of the Key Facts about your Mortgage product.
If you borrow more than 85% Loan to Value it would apply.

Pompey Cowboy
November 22, 2011 at 17:38

Redistribution of wealth from the middle classes. The really rich wont be
touched and the financial boyz’n@girlz wont suffer— more sales / on target
bonuses. The middle classes will pay for this.

I do voluntary work– feeding the homeless, along with a full time paid job.
This weekend I spent a long time talking to one of our regulars who is a
violent and difficult heroin addict, he is living in a tent in a car park. He
was in a bad state and realises that what he has done is wrong, he said ” Its
the worst thing I could have ever done started heroin, at first it seems to
sort all my problems out, but now I’m locked in this terrible world, its so
cold at nights and I’m terrified when I get arrested and stuck in a cell”
I
know he shouldnt have started in the first place, but who hasnt taken a wrong
turn in their lives— some of us get punished and some dont

Saul November 22, 2011 at 14:11

It will certainly help to hike up Millets’ profits they have been pegged
back of late. If these protesters can help prop up the company then woolly
hats off to them.

Ed P November 22, 2011 at 13:49

A few more protests (& therefore tent sales) should help Millets
recover from their poor financial position. Which would be a satisfying
juxtaposition: the tills ringing vs. the increased shouting outside.

Engineer November 22, 2011 at 12:45

Actually, maybe Saul is onto something. We can’t afford to build houses
using public money, and the private housebuilders want to build big, expensive
houses, so there is a bit of an impasse.

We could, however, nationalise and re-site the St Paul’s tents, and rent
them out. Might even catch on.

Council Yurts, anyone?

Saul November 22, 2011 at 12:23

Why not just build houses and rent them out?

Council Houses anyone?

Engineer November 22, 2011 at 12:42

Good idea, except that we haven’t got any money to build them with.

ivan November 22, 2011 at 14:22

No need to build them, just roll ‘em in and stack ‘em high.
http://www.tempohousing.com/

Antisthenes November 22, 2011 at 11:07

As much as I agree whole heartedly with your article I must point out that
it contains some fiction which I normally expect to find in Fleet street rags.
I thought and hoped that the right wing/libertarian blogosphere were above
such things, I know the left are not, and find feeding misinformation
abhorrent. I allude to; “tax payer to lend 95% of the purchase price”. When in
fact the government is as I understand it are only guaranteeing the deposit
proportion of the loan about 10% in partnership with the developer. Still a
nonsensical thing to do think Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac.

Anna
Raccoon November 22, 2011 at
11:55

I agree with you on my terminology – but the government are also lending
the developers tax payer’s money to build the damn things in the first
place. Looks pretty much to me as though the tax payer will own everything
except the land…….

Dioclese November
22, 2011 at 10:48

So much more eloquently put than my poor offering on the same subject : http://dioclese.blogspot.com/2011/11/money-for-nothing-and-your-house-for.html

Well done!

Mjolinir November 22, 2011 at 10:27

If the ‘occupy’ campaign lasts a few more months – they could move north to
the Cathedral of Dr John Sentamu?

For a slum of York, made inglorious by the spring of discount tents.

Anna
Raccoon November 22, 2011 at
11:03

Ouch……!

Mjolinir
November 22, 2011 at 18:29

Thank you, Anna. All compliments gratefully received.

Single Acts of
Tyranny November 22, 2011 at 11:43

Brilliant!

Caedmon’s
Cat November 22, 2011 at 13:24

Oddly enough, this has already happened..
http://caedmonscat.blogspot.com/2011/11/in-tents-speculation.html

Mark November 22,
2011 at 09:45

It really is quite priceless. Irony anyone?

Barry Sheridan
November 22, 2011 at 09:07

Anna, it is depressing to see government homing in on the very policies
that turned the world upside down by establishing a new, albeit smaller,
version of the sub-prime scam here. It is not that I am personally surprised,
I long ago realised that Mr Cameron is really a socialist and as such he would
prove incapable of identifying those ideas that would help turn the tide on
our economic decline.

It is equally unfortunate for the world as a whole that the old democracies
are in the grip of similar folk, none of whom are up to the job of assembling
a set of workable policies, never mind selling them to the general public. The
mind set of this crowd of third raters, OK, I am being generous here, could be
seen clearly in the recent assertions of the Church of England which protested
about welfare reform, not for them any understanding of how the wealth is
created in the first place. For them it is like the creation, it just comes
out of nothing, although funnily enough isn’t that how science sees it, which
might explain a lot more!