Is Shapps a Secret Communist?
Gawd Luv ‘em. It’s like Psittacosis; the squawking parrots may have fallen off the top perch, but the disease lingers on and infects the new arrivals.
Grant Shapps is the latest Tory to fall victim to the Fabian disease of delimiting private ownership under the guise of being ‘helpful’. He plans to paint a virtual cross on the door of three and four bed-roomed privately owned homes and shuffle the occupants off to a one bed-roomed box in a ‘wrinkly tower’ where they will be subject to council health and safety rules – no smoking, no overnight guests without permission, only fire proofed carpets allowed, all cookers must be electric and warden will be round to make sure you have your lights off at ten – so that he can accommodate large ‘local’ families in their homes at a subsidised ‘council rent’.
It’s not enough that the Labour government devised a way in which the government could control how long you lived if you became a bit absent minded – now they want to control where you live whilst you still have your marbles. You should feel guilty that you still have room to accommodate your family when they come to stay; you are no longer economically active, and that nice Mr Abdul and his seventeen children qualify as ‘local’ and should be billeted in your four bed-roomed mock Tudor palace that you spent years getting just the way you like it.
Mrs Abdul finds it difficult to get in and out of the bath, so that bathroom suite you saved up for will have to come out, and a walk in bath installed. The youngest Abdul has special needs, so the conservatory will get ripped out, and your husband’s greenhouse, to make way for the ramp and the loading bay for the bus that takes him to ‘school’ every day – but never fear, it will still be your house, and if there’s any money left over after converting the house to their needs, it will eventually make its way to you – to pay for the on site warden that you didn’t need or want.
That’s the plan at the moment, but by the time it reaches fruition, they will probably have devised a special ‘bank’ to help the elderly by only allowing withdrawals on the third Thursday of every leap year, but only once during your lifetime. ‘Assisting you to save’ they will call it. Of course, now that you have an ‘increased income’ from that rental, you won’t be entitled to any means tested benefits.
Why not go the whole hog, Shapps? Why pay pensions at all? The elderly only squander it on Crimbo presents for their children, why not give them food vouchers, or better still, install a feeding station where you can portion control the tinned tomatoes on toast; government issue matching blue denim trousers and jackets, preferably collarless, cheaper to manufacture, will be next on the cards.
Who is living in these one bed roomed wrinkly apartments at the moment? What are you going to do with the present occupants? Gas them? ‘Assist them’ to enter your voluntary euthanasia programme?
Why just the elderly, Shapps? Do MPs need second homes?
Is this the same Shapps who just last week wanted to sell off council housing stock at 50% discount? Is this the same Shapps who wanted to evict council tenants who earn more than £100,000 per houshold? I do believe it is. So these new tenants moving into the homes of the elderly will be on a low income, yes? Subsidised rent by the tax payer? Subsidised by the elderly who bought and paid for the house in the first place? Think on too – what happens when the elderly owner dies, and the children ‘inherit’ the house, with a massive inheritance tax bill that they can’pay because Abdul and his family refuse to move?
Ye Gods, the UK is turning into North Korea.
January 21, 2012 at 15:09
-
@Chefdave
Have you considered looking for property in areas where prices
are lower.
A South African friend of mine said that you can buy a very
comfortable house in Jo’burg for what it would cost you in stamp duty in the
UK.
January 20, 2012 at 14:41
-
Again with the state-and-media-sanctioned Gerontophobia : “If it wasn’t for
the wrinklies you’d all be able to live in bigger houses!” “If it wasn’t for
the wrinklies there’d be more care available from the NHS!” “If it wasn’t for
the wrinklies there wouldn’t be global warming and no polar Bears would have
had to die!”
You can even find increasing insinuations that the wrinklies, as a
demographic, are more likley to be raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaycist than younger people:
the ultimate accusation, and the ultimate incitement.
Interesting, isn’t it? They say a revolution devours its children, and it
would be so lovely to see Polly Tonbee et al asset-stripped and sent to live
in Nelson Mandela Towers but, of course, it won’t work out that way, will
it?
Of all the things that make me fear for the future, this anti-OAP
undercurrent is the most chilling.
January 18, 2012 at 17:42
-
SBML, you think of yourself as ‘libertarian’ but scratch the surface as
I’ve done and you’ll find a snarling, home-owner-ist who’ll happily sacrifice
free markets so the lucky few can trouser gargantuan house price increases
What you actually believe in is absolute liberty for landowners and a
contingent form of liberty for everyone else, they’re allowed freedom as long
as they meet the rent first.
January 18, 2012 at 18:56
-
A snarling home-ownerist replies:
Thanks for giving the clue to what
you’re on about by citing Mark Wadsworth. No need to follow the link because
he’s a one trick pony I’ve come across his donkey theory before (though
apologies for mix equines).
In the Wadsworth world nobody owns anything outright even while they’re
alive. IHT already deals with what happens when you die so the incentive to
die a pauper is considerable but Wadsworth and you want to improve on this
so that the only way that you can dispose of your disposable income in such
a way that the state has no control over it during your lifetime is through
consumption.
Brilliant.
Well crypto-communist and nulabour stooge that I am (according to you), I
bought the house I still live in in 1976 when my salary was £1,800 pa. I
have every intention of living here for as long as I’m spared. My children
won’t be able to afford the IHT without selling it which is a shame but at
least I know it’s a very nice house which I enjoy to the full and if that
makes you jealous, then good.
(There’s a car I’ve had even longer than the house. It’s been restored
over many years and is also worth a few quid. You’re not having that
either.)
January 18, 2012 at 20:02
-
DDDDD
-
January 18, 2012 at 20:04
-
That’s right Mick no need to follow the link and engage with what’s
being said, just set up a few strawmen arguments and beat down on them
with all the effort you can muster.
In Wadsworth world we ask the landed oligarchs to pay the full market
price for any services they’re consuming and in return allow the
productive portion of the economy to generate wealth tax free. I know this
philosophy doesn’t sit well with the rent seekers among who rely on a
government mandated redistribution of wealth to subsidise their own paltry
output, but I have no objection to rustling a few feathers if it means an
end to the madness of New-Labour-onomics.
January 18, 2012 at 13:11
-
There’s enough of this sort of crap appearing in the MSM these days, that I
begin to wonder if it is actually an EU regulation they haven’t yet admitted
to, which is about to be foisted on us.
Any ideas, Dr. North?
- January 18, 2012 at 10:52
-
At first I thoughts was an idiot but he may be being rather clever. There
is a problem with housing for families in this country that has been caused by
politicans (via complex web of policies, spinelessness and the law of
unintended effect). Rather than actually do the difficult stuff, Mr Shapps is
saying its all ‘their’ fault – old people, people on £x pa in council houses,
immigrants, the list goes on.
A long, long time ago councils had housing stock and a lot of people rented
them. This was a pretty good idea. It made for a mobile population and most
(not all) neighbourhoods were a mixture of socio-economic groups.
Then a
conservative governement had a look at the books and decided to out-source
accommodation to the private sector. Maintaining these houses cost money.
There was state capital tied up in these properties that could be released. It
would also boost the private housing sector if they made more people
home-owners. Let’s dress it up as an ideology to put a bit of sparkle on it –
Home Ownership for all!! And the rest is history – people didn’t really stop
to think that it had never bothered them before that they didn’t own their
home but thats a whole other discussion.
Some effects were as intended:
capital was released to central government and the ambition of the population
to own their own houses boosted construction, banking, legal and insurance
industries. And people did get to own their own home and they felt good about
that, it gave them a goal to aim for and they worked hard and saved
accordingly.
But here are some unintended effects:
People in council
houses bought the best stock and left the pups on the state books.
The pups
cost more to maintain and only the poorest people stayed in them, creating
sink estates, making the pups worse and so on. Although there are respectable
people in them, they are outnumbered. All the dregs that private landlords
don’t want are herded in.
Councils had no incentive to build better stock
to replace that lost because a) the money from sales was taken by central
government for ‘re-distribution’, b) it would just get snapped up by new
tenants at less than market rate c) land prices and construction costs were
through the roof because of the intended consequences.
‘I live in a council
house’ became a badge of shame instead of just a statement of fact.
And so
a complex web of housing associations, private landlords with barely
maintained dismal little flats and houses and B&B’s were utilised to
correct the unintended consequences of the original decisions.
Throw in
general spinelessness of politicians in freeing up land for construction, the
ROI model of house builders that says green field and blocks of flats delivers
a better profit not family houses on brown field, councils not building
housing, a population that views renting as second rate and renting a council
house as positively shameful, an increase in single households and look where
we are………… Mr Shapps.
Newsflash – we live on an island so we have limited
land. Government AND voters need to make some decisions that relieve the
pinch. Bouncing a few OAP’s out of their homes is NOT a solution, it’s a
headline.
- January 18, 2012 at 10:53
-
At first I thought Mr Shapps was …. etc….. (cordless keyboard
apologies)
January 18, 2012 at 13:03
-
Newsflash – we live on an island so we have limited land that can get
planning approval. Planning restricts the availability of land and therefore
increases the price of it. A large proportion of UK land is set aside for
green stuff when the green stuff is not actually productive green stuff.
Other than that, spot on.
-
January 18, 2012 at 15:45
-
Newsflash – every country only has a finite land mass. That’s why they
should use it efficiently and not gift the lot to a bunch of old wrinklies
that have no intention of using it properly.
January 18, 2012 at
15:51
-
What an utterly ridiculous comment – how is the state ‘gifting’ the
lot to a bunch of old wrinklies?
Silly boy!
-
January 18, 2012 at 16:24
-
Anna, house price inflation = a state brokered transfer of wealth
from the landless to the landed, or in the UK’s case from the young to
the old.
I don’t think it’s Shapps who’s the secret Communist here. You may
want to look a bit closer to home.
-
January 18, 2012 at 16:33
-
Perhaps chefdave, you would care to submit an article to the Landlady
with your proposals for equitable living space for all?
-
January 18, 2012 at 16:36
-
She’s asked for my contributions before (I suspect she doesn’t
remember though) because I pointed out a couple mistakes in an
economics post.
You can read an excellent rebutal here though if you’re keen:
http://markwadsworth.blogspot.com/2012/01/grant-shapps-said-it-not-me.html
-
January 18, 2012 at 16:23
-
I agree SBML, the decisions are not easy. Planning is part of that
comnplex web od cause and effect. I honestly can’t talk about planning cos
everytime I look at it as a subject my brain screams in fright and runs
and hides. There is an argument for not paving over paradise i.e. that
green spaces represent an indirect economic benefit to the country.
January 18, 2012 at 16:34
-
The big private housebuilders have land with planning permission for
300,000 homes, which is twice the current annual build from all sources,
so effectively at least three years worth for them. They do not want
permissions too far ahead.
Between 1919 and 1939, some 4 million homes
were built in GB, and 1.22 million were built in 1952-55, both periods
when the population was much lower and there were fewer bigger households.
In each period modest subsidies were provided from general taxation and
both private and public sectors built.
Incidentally, large swathes of
the most fertile food-growing land in the Cambridgeshire area are being
built over at the moment, so that does not seem to be a bar.
January 18, 2012 at 08:37
-
chefdave said….Cascadian, I understand all about the “pernicious effect of
inflation” unlike my chum Engineer. Well then, bear with me because I don’t
think you do.
Engineers parents bought their home in circa 1965 for the princely sum of
GBP 3,500. Now without getting into endless discussion about the amount of
down-payment and interest rates throughout the amortized period it is a
reasonable assumption that the cost of that mortgage over it’s life is some 3
or 4 times the initial mortgage amount, so somewhere between GBP 10500 and GBP
14000 was repaid to the bank for the mortgage. Most of that amount was paid in
pounds that were actually worth something.
Now lets look at the pernicious effect of inflation. This site shows a
pretty graphic of the value of a GBP related to its value at 1971 (obviously
in 1965 it would be worth more but lets not quibble)
http://dollardaze.org/blog/?page_id=00024
Scroll down to
GBP, see what has happened? A pound in 1971 is now the equivalent in 2009 to
approx 5p a ratio of 20:1. So inflate that house payment 20 times, Engineers
parents paid the equivalent of between 20×10500=GBP 210000, and
20×14000=GBP280000 so lets say GBP245000. Apparently it is now worth
GBP250000. Nobody stole anything, she is lucky to get out what was invested.
Engineers parents have been prudent and will see their investment returned
without interest, in the intervening years that have assisted the economy and
should be congratulated.
Perhaps an apology is in order?
- January 18, 2012 at 16:33
-
All you’re demonstrating is that the boomers managed to benefit from a
self imposed -unless you’re trying to blame that on your kids too –
systematic devaluation of sterling by capturing the value in hard assets and
then inflating the debt away to nothing. Nice.
Oh and that graph shows a 10:1 ratio at best (clue, look on the right
hand side) so even you massaged figures need to be cut in half. So a minimal
tax free capital gain of £150k with a state subsidised house your entire
adult life. Now where are my Communist freebies?
-
January 18, 2012 at 19:00
-
100p:5p = 20:1 in the old math, your mileage may vary at chefskool.
It might also be time for an eye checkup and remedial reading class the
pertinent information is on the left hand axis.
-
January 18, 2012 at 19:31
-
No you twonk. The axis is on the left hand side but you need to look
over to the far right for the 2009 data, it clearly shows a ratio 10:1
not 20:1. Where 1971 = 100 2009 = 10. ( a bit more by the looks of it)
Nice try though, grandad. Another economics fail.
January 18, 2012 at 19:56
-
Chefdave – Cascadian is quite correct in his interpretation of the
graph. The right-hand axis shows ‘money in circulation’ (not value or
purchasing power) and relates to the wiggly red line. (This, for our
purposes, is irrelevant). The left-hand axis shows ‘purchasing power’,
and relates to the pound-note coloured bit of the graph. That’s the
bit he’s talking about.
- January 18, 2012 at 20:36
-
chefdave, here is the graph with some lines drawn on it to
highlight the appropriate bits.
The important bits are the dark red horizontal lines extending the
labels on the left across and the very dark red wiggly line which
shows the “purchasing power” of the pound as it drops from 100p to
5p.
The axis on the right has nothing to do with the purchasing power
nor 2009 and all to do with the pale red line that is rising from left
to right from 1971 to 2009. This shows the amount of money in
circulation nationally.
And while I’m on it, inflation does not increase the value of an
object. Inflation has increased the price of property from a few
thousand to hundreds of thousands. The relative value, when compared
to wages is about the same.
Don’t get fooled into thinking that because a property is now worth
200K the increase in profit is purely the difference between £3K and
£200K. When you take into account inflation, then the £200K you have
now will have been worth £3K in 30 or 40 years ago.
And as always, the value of a property is only realised when it’s
sold. Until then it is all pie in the sky.
-
January 18, 2012 at 21:03
-
chefdave, I admit to twonkery I interpreted the graph incorrectly
and must retract my comment at 19:00. It is I who needs an eye test,
and thank you for being so sympathetic when making your point.
However, lets get back to the original idea, Engineers parents
invested something like GBP12250 in 1965-1990 currency assuming a 25
year amortization. The current value of that investment using this
site
http://www.measuringworth.com/ppoweruk/
is
over time that would have been worth GBP 185k or GBP 383k in 2011
pounds (depending whether you use CPI or average earnings as a guide),
the house is reportedly worth GBP 250k. There are no intergenerational
transfers or ill gotten gains.
That is not an economics fail, and to repeat my original
premise-blame the government for failed policies not the people who
lived under those failed policies (that would include yourself).
-
January 18, 2012 at 22:09
-
SBML, I think you’re confused. If you follow the line you’ve drawn
over to the left hand axis you’ll notice that it’s smack bang in the
middle between 0 and 20, i.e 10, not 5.
You assertions about inflation are just as accurate. You say that
“inflation does not increase the value of the object” well sorry but
that’s complete nonsense. Inflation in (free market) theory and in
practice acts as a price signal instructing market participants to
create more of whatever is inflating in price. This doesn’t work with
homeownership of course. Because owners become rather attached to
“their” house price gains they do everything in their power to
artificially restrict building plots and keep prices high. It’s a
market in reverse.
- January 18, 2012 at 22:26
-
So you do agree that the left hand axis is the correct axis then,
and that you were incorrect in using the right hand axis in your
previous arguments. As to whether the value of a 1971 pound is 5p or
10p or 7.5p is hard to tell from the graph and my very thick
line.
- January 18, 2012 at 22:42
-
No, I said “look at the right hand side” i.e look over to the
far right and trace it back to the left hand axis.
In this context the difference between 5p and 10p (it looks
more like 11/12p to me) is significant because it’s an increase of
100%. Thanks for the inclusion of the graph though, it’s handy to
have it on thread.
- January 17, 2012 at 22:31
-
Chefdave’s knowledge of the economy is flawed, he apparently does not
understand the pernicious effect of inflation, housing supply and demand
created by governments unwillingness to release land for development, nor the
sacrifices past generations made to afford basic shelter. In fairness his gaps
in education seem no worse than a man entrusted with government
policy-Shapps.
- January 18, 2012 at 00:14
-
Cascadian, I understand all about the “pernicious effect of inflation”
unlike my chum Engineer, who’s a bit of an inflation apologist by all
accounts: “oh my mum’s house has inflated by a quarter of a million quid but
it’s not her fault and she’s worked hard all her life” etc etc. Pass me the
violin.
Who’s up for a bit of house price deflation?
-
January 18, 2012 at 07:47
-
chefdave said, “Who’s up for a bit of house price deflation?”- not in
your lifetime sunshine, at least not anywhere that has nearby employment,
which come to think of it could include a large swathe of yUK in the
future, but then you would still not be able to afford a mortgage.
I note you addressed only one of three points I made. Refer to the
second point to understand why prices will not be reduced soon.
Like others here I have some recollections of the risks taken by my
parents (who were of Engineers mothers generation) when buying their first
house, and the scrimping required to pay the bills through the early
seventies when inflation reached 21% iirc.
I have some sympathy for your generation, but your implicit belief that
you are the first and only generation to encounter a tough economic
situation is unfounded and your foolish remarks to Engineer do not help
you to gain sympathy.
I suggest you aim your ire at the real culprits-the politicians of all
stripes, who have served your country so poorly over the last sixty
years.
-
January 18, 2012 at 16:06
-
“Not in your lifetime sunshine”
So let me get this straight, you complain in the first post about the
disastrous consequences of ramapant inflation but when I call for the
antidote -deflation- you attempt to explain why it’s an
impossibility.
I think you need to sit down and have a think about these terms
before you arrogantly dish out the economics lectures.
-
January 18, 2012 at 10:44
-
House price deflation was something we “enjoyed” during the early ’90s
recession. Quite a lot of people found that they were in negative equity –
paying a mortgage for far more than the house was valued at. There were
many examples of families being evicted because they could not meet
mortgage payments, and the providers were not prepared to extend the
leeway they had extended.
House price deflation just brings another set of social evils.
The ‘best’ solution to high house prices is for values to hold for a
fairly extended period, whilst inflation works to increase average
earnings. Increasing supply of houses would also help. I note that the
current government (Shapps) has expressed their wish to see the first, and
is trying to improve planning regulations to make the latter easier. As
with all intentions and policies of all governments, there are
difficulties. Events may derail the first, and the second faces
considerable opposition from those wishing to avoid uncontrolled
development of prime agricultural land and areas of beauty – points that
have some merit.
-
January 17, 2012 at 22:16
-
Chefdave:You cannot contain the fact that the young are expected
to pay record house prices and tax in excess of 45% of GDP.
I could be mistaken but I don’t think that means anything, does it?
- January 18, 2012 at 00:06
-
Mick, having 45% of your productivity stolen with little or no
corresponding benefit is quite a big deal, actually. I take it you’re one of
those Labourite tax’n’spend fanatics with a very shakey grasp of the notion
of property rights.
-
January 18, 2012 at 11:15
-
That means nothing as well.
You do spout the most unutterable tosh but you seem to be having
fun.
-
January 18, 2012 at 15:56
-
I suppose penal levels of taxation are okey-dokey for the closet
communists among us.
- January 18, 2012 at 16:06
January 17, 2012 at 21:52
-
As a possible thought. Us oldies could cut the throat of the next righteous
who comes . And then we could look forward to be well looked after in prison
where there are rules that protect you.
Yes we are not all feeble. Weight
lifting gets you ready.
January 17, 2012 at 23:37
-
Bit unfair: the deluded creatures are only following, er; oh, perhaps the
signs of creeping fascism are never apparent until almost too late. Despite
the parlous state of care for the elderly right now, these
proposals/intentions provide no actual improvement. The problems may have
begun with the knock-on effects of the last century’s gradual change from
extended family to nuclear unit – almost a formula for childcare &
geriatric service requirements – but now they are up against an attitude of
unconcern unrivalled in human history. People just don’t care. Try
motivating some friends to take part in a project or outing – if you’re not
careful, the frustration will make you ill. So why do you think they care
about their relations? Most of us have this idea of family ties and loyalty
to your kin, so why are there now groups of loosely-related people who are
not behaving as a family group, or even conscious of being in one. How
lonely are they going to get as they age?
The future belongs to the
intelligent, not the strong. Study
January 17, 2012 at 21:04
-
I shall say *my* piece on this, I don’t comment often on here although I
read this blog regularly, but Shapp’s idiotic proposal has me so annoyed that
I’m moved to hit the keyboard. I own my properties, I achieved that by dint of
hard work and doing without – they are mine, MINE and no matter how much
surplus space I may end up with in my dotage I will not be handing any of them
over so that the “needy” can be provided for. Of course, if Mr Shapps was to
set us all an example and move out of his home into one containing the minimum
space he could possibly raise his family in, then I might be persuaded to take
a more accepting view of his proposal – I can’t see that happening though.
January 17, 2012 at 20:23
-
“The oldies own 83% of the nation’s wealth … ”
I cannot check that figure, as I’m not British. However, how do you think
these “oldies” got to own money at all?
They worked hard, maybe … ? They
didn’t spent it all, maybe …?
The major part of them wasn’t born with a
silver spoon in their mouth, I guess.
So what has happened to youngsters,
who can only dream ?
I hope I misunderstood your comment.
- January 17, 2012 at 20:39
-
No, they looted the state.
-
January 17, 2012 at 21:01
-
Don’t talk rubbish.
My old mum is 80. When she and my Dad bought their house in 1965, it
cost the princely sum of £3,500. They worked damned hard to pay the
mortgage on it. It’s now worth £250,000 (apparently), but given that Mum
lives in it, that’s hardly useful dosh. The fact that she has an asset of
that value is down to the absurd levels of growth in house prices during
the late ’90s and early part of last decade. That ‘wealth’ was not looted
from the state – the house was bought and paid for the hard way, and
subsequent rises in value are not her doing, or that of anybody else of
her generation. They are down to the ridiculous ease with which credit was
dished out in the last decade, before the bubble burst in 2008.
To accuse my Mum and people like her of being ‘looters of the state’ is
grossly offensive and plain wrong.
-
January 17, 2012 at 21:21
-
So but dint of our absurd tax and tenure system they’ve been gifted a
£250k tax-free capital by the state, i.e more than the entire sum of
taxation they’ve paid in their lives, but that shouldn’t be viewed as a
state sanctioned transfer of wealth from the young to the old?
I find your stupidity grossly offensive, I thought engineers were
supposed to be capable of logical thought?
January 17, 2012 at 21:40
-
My father built the family house with the help of his brothers and
mates in construction, this was in the early fifties when you had to
go through all sorts of hoops to buy land and build on it, not to
mention finding the money to pay for it. He was an ordinary working
man and spent his life in quite low paid jobs, neither he nor my
mother who still lives in that house have exploited anyone and I’m
buggered if I can work out where they’ve been subsidised or given a
tax free hand out. Your comments are an example of the repellent
essentialism of the anti home ownership fanatic, everyone who owns
their own house can be dismissed as some sort of parasite and policies
that are both illiberal and almost certainly unworkable ( yeah LVT
nuts that includes you ) are lauded. Your comment about “demanding
your fair share” further up the thread is a give away, a completely
worthless concept that is little more than envy pretending to be
justice.
-
January 17, 2012 at 22:01
-
Chefdave – may I request that you consider your own comments before
accusing others of stupidity?
How, precisely, has my Mum been ‘gifted’ a £250,000 tax-free
capital handout, given that her house was – and I repeat my original
comment – bought and paid for the hard way?
Perhaps you might consider the ‘guilt’ of those who failed to
properly regulate the banking industry in the late ’90s and early
’00s. By making credit too easily available, and by failing to act to
reduce the ease with which credit could be obtained (5 times salary
self-certified mortgages?) they created the bubble in the housing
market from which we all still suffer. How, precisely, is my Mum to
blame for that?
The problem continues because interest rates are still at
historical lows – no need for current house-buyers to cope with the
12% rates i paid on my mortgage in the late 1980s (and there wasn’t
much money left over at the end of the month in those days, I can
assure you).
- January 17, 2012 at 22:41
January 17, 2012 at 22:48
-
I take it that our “absurd tax and tenure system” when translated
into English means the law’s archaic belief that if you pay for
something you own it?
January 17, 2012 at 22:28
-
Engineer, Iagree entirely with you. What about the 2 .5% interest
rate that my Mum gets on her savings when inflation is 4.8 -20%because
the Bank of England has cut its interest rate to enable younger people
to afford their mortgages on over-priced housing because house prices
can only ever rise in the medium to long term. That’s a transfer back
from the old to the young in my book. I remember paying 15% when Soros
was making a killing on the pound in the ERM.
-
January 17, 2012 at 23:46
-
Errr, no. The bank of England slashed interest rates to buoy up the
housing market and ringfence the capital gains of ‘hard pressed
homeowners’ (old people, mainly) to the detriment of everyone that
doesn’t own a house. So that reduction of 2% interest has been
necessary to save the Engineer’s mum for example from losing £100k in
equity. Young people on the other hand recieve no such subsidy as that
added £100k actively works against them.
I see the bleedin’ heart home-owner-ists are out in force tonight,
they don’t like it when their very special form of welfarism gets
attacked for the socialist farce that it is.
January 18, 2012 at
04:11
-
What utter bollocks you spout Chefdave.
You think people don’t work all the hours God sends and speculate on
the capital they accrue to make more? They worked hard. You just want to
help yourself to what other people have sweated a lifetime for.
No ‘looting of the state’ required. Unless it’s by people demanding
what they haven’t worked for as a ‘right’.
-
January 18, 2012 at 15:48
-
No, you work hard for WAGES, capital gains worth quarter of a million
pounds by definition aren’t worked for. In the case of house prices
they’re a free gift from one generation to another brokered by the
state, i.e SOCIALISM.
Why is Communism suddenly ok when we channel it through the back-door
and pretend it’s a housing market?
- January 17, 2012 at 20:02
-
The intergeneration war that has so far been debated mainly on the internet
is starting to spill over into the mainstream. You cannot contain the fact
that the young are expected to pay record house prices and tax in excess of
45% of GDP while the oldies – according to a recent report- own 83% of the
nation’s wealth and live a lifestyle youngsters can only dream about.
Demanding you fair share does not make you a Communist. It’s just another
example of Labour’s guiding principle of soaking the productive and handing
the fruits of their effort straight into the hands of the economically idle.
Sorry, but you cannot expect to run a country like that.
- January 17, 2012 at 22:42
-
You don’t ‘demand’ your fair share – you earn it. I had to, through the
economically hard times of the ’80s. My parents had to, through the hard
times of the ’70s (and they grew up in the war years, dodging bombs and
living on rations).
During your lifetime, there will be good times and bad. Get on with it.
Everybody else has had to.
-
January 18, 2012 at 00:33
-
So how does a tax free capital gain of £250k fit in with your ethos of
only pocketing money that you’ve earned?
With backhanders like that you needn’t do a day’s work in your
life.
-
January 18, 2012 at 10:13
-
How do you pay the mortgage on a house unless you work?
-
January 18, 2012 at 15:55
-
Thay didn’t answer my point.
How have your parents WORKED to increase the value of their propery
from £3.5k to £250k?
Answer: they didn’t, they just enriched themselves off the back of
house price inflation and then stitched up planning system to keep the
value of their property artificially high.
I’d personally tax the living daylights out them. LVT @ 5% minus
the house = £10k p/a. Then we’ll see if they really want the
house.
-
January 18, 2012 at 20:51
-
Cascadian has given you the answer to your question below.
A house worth £3500 in 1965 is now worth £250,000 thanks to the
decrease in purchasing power of money over the intervening period of
time. The house was bought out of wages earned by my parents. The
effects of inflation are not their responsibility.
If you start with nothing (as my parents did, as I did, and no
doubt as you did), and then you earn and save, you will accumulate. If
you earn and spend, you won’t. If you rack up credit card debts, you
will have to earn far more to pay for depreciating assets obtained
with said card. If you incur debt for a decent qualification, you
increase your earnings potential, thus making the risk in incurring
the debt worthwhile.
It’s up to you if you want to earn and save. If you don’t, that’s
your lookout, and not the responsibility of anybody else, including
home-owners.
January 17, 2012 at 20:00
-
The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from
pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which (party) was
which.
January 17, 2012 at 19:42
-
A very good post Anna.
I don’t watch/read the MSM. I come to blogs such as yours and WFW, JuliaM,
Orphans of Liberty (to name drop a few) to get an informed & intelligent
perspective on real stories.
Ps: Let loose the trolls of spite…
January 17, 2012 at 19:24
-
Shapps is either incredibly stupid or just plain evil.
I am having
difficulty making up my mind?
January 17, 2012 at 21:52
-
Hint: he is a politician, so that should give you a clue.
- January
17, 2012 at 22:19
-
Aha! Both.
- January 18, 2012 at 01:15
-
Dear “Oh Well”, he is neither.
In spite of what Sad but Mad lad says,
there is a tremendous gross shortage of housing in England (not everywhere
but overall). It is probably the biggest long-term issue for families and
the economy and the Minister of Housing has to be seen to be tackling
it.
But he has no money to build new homes and cannot persuade developers
to build anything like enough. So he has to come up with all manner of
schemes to show he is “doing something”.
The “bedroom blockers” scheme is
just the latest in a series that include selling council homes to finance
new ones and dealing with the “scandal” of empty homes.
Altogether, they
do not add up to a row of beans but they allow the minister and the
government to claim they are taking umpteen energetic measures to “solve”
the problem.
Bring back Harold Macmillan. Churchill told him that his
political future depended on building more houses and he managed, as memory
serves, almost 400,000 a year. Can’t see Mr Shapps becoming Prime
Minister.
January 18, 2012 at 10:36
-
If the housing shortage is so acute – is it because of all those seek
free handouts and accommodation – then why isn’t this minister looking at
alternatives something like http://www.tempohousing.com/ or maybe he is just too
thick to do so.
January 17, 2012 at 19:07
-
This is not racist. The scenario is from Tower Hamlets that’s all. I used
to be a member of a housing cooperative there which housed single people and
Bengali families, two groups that were difficult to house, one because it
required a whole flat for one person and the housing need was superseded by
couples with a baby, and the other because the families were so large and the
council didn’t have flats big enough. It closed down membership once existing
members were housed bar two. Funded by Maggie I believe.
- January 17, 2012 at 18:43
-
The most terrifying words in the English language, ” I’m from the
government and I’m here to help you” thus said Ronald Reagan.
But of course we must make allowances Grant Shapp must be so much smarter
than the old actor.
If Shapp’s proposal does not strike terror into homeowners then you are
comatose, this is an Orwellian proposal.
People coming here and screaming racism only wish to silence the
conversation, they are beneath contempt.
-
January 17, 2012 at 19:34
-
“People coming here and screaming racism only wish to silence the
conversation, they are beneath contempt.”
Exactly.
- January 17, 2012 at 21:50
-
I cn remember a lecturer starting a lecture with, “There are three great
lies in life. No. 1, ‘The Cheque is in the post’; No2 ‘Of course I’ll still
respect you in the morning’; and No 3 ‘I’m from the government and I’m here
to help you.’”
There are all still as true now as they always have been.
- January 17,
2012 at 17:59
-
There will be no room for pensioners in their garden sheds and cabins as
they will be allocated as accommodation for illegal workers that the UK Border
Agency can’t deport because they have lost their passports. Mind you there
will be no room for sheds because the gardens will be requisitioned as
Travellers transit sites. Then again, the houses will be compulsorily
purchased to enable Granny to save thirty minutes when she goesto London on
Haitch Ess Two. The State hates anyone who is not its client.
January 17, 2012 at 18:47
-
AITCH spells Haicht. As I persistently remind my children. There is no
such word as Haitch.
God knows why they keep on getting it wrong. It must
be something to do with the lost years that they spent in State Schools
before I beggared myself sending them away to Boarding School. And can you
blame me?
January 17, 2012 at 20:03
-
‘Ow wrong you are, ‘Elena! Durncha know the Inglish langwidge is
develluping? Keep up, girl! There are new rules, dontcha know? If you
pronounce an aitch you call it aitch; a dropped aitch is now called an
haitch. Seemples!
‘Ere’s an hexample of : ‘Ow d’yer spell ‘andcart? HAITCH – A – N – D –
C- A – ‘ etc., etc., etc..
- January
17, 2012 at 22:14
-
Indeed. Are any letters of the alphabet pronounced Feff, Lell, Memm,
Nenn, Rarr, Sess and Ksex? So why did the emphasymic haitch come about?
There’s no logic to it.
- January 17, 2012 at
22:22
-
The process began when the Personnel Department became Haitch R
- January 17, 2012 at 22:44
-
My argument exactly. Let’s celebrate by belting out a modern
rendition of “Message in a Bottle”: Halltogethernow – “Sending out a
Sess O Sess, sending out a Sess o Sess, sending out a Sess…” (ad
nauseam)
-
January 17, 2012 at 23:16
-
Hates-schhh?
Wot’s ‘appening t”glish? It’s changing rather fast,
innit?
January 17, 2012 at 17:37
-
Now listen to me, you geriatric capital-hoarders. When did I ever overtly
mention my intention to throw you out on the street? Anyway, I am always ready
to compromise and insofar as garden cabins and sheds offer ideal accommodation
for the elderly, you can see the real compromise for yourselves.
The State is not unreasonable and you will enjoy the new privileges of
reduced community charges on each converted chez-shed together with generous
grants towards the cost of State-assisted euthanasia. Now here comes the real
bonus: – for as long as you wrinky Scrooges don’t frighten billeted children,
you may continue the monopoly on your bloody silly garden until we come up
with some new ideas.
- January 17, 2012 at 16:30
-
If an elderly person wants to downsize and sell or rent their house, why
get the government involved.
I think I would rather trust an estate agent!!!
-
January 17, 2012 at 16:20
-
In France all children of the family inherit by Law, absolutely. And quite
right too.
However, the children of the family are expected to support
their elderly people. if it is necessary for them to go into sheltered
housing. This is also entirely fair since the children will ultimately
benefit.
I would not be forced to sell my house, and it would be for me and
my children to rent out my house to help to cover the cost, if we wish. If we
do not wish then either my children would be expected to pay, or the cost
would be recovered by The State on my death when my children
inherit.
Basically children have no right to abandon their parents, and
parents have no right to leave their money where ever they wish. Everybody is
well served without any great interference from The State.
Just as a matter of interest, during The Big Drought when certain families
bogged off on their Grand Vacance and left their old people to cope alone,
they got a bill from The State when they got back. They were allowed to pay
that bill at the time, or it will be recovered when their parents die.
This
is just one of the things I most love about France. No one gets to be
abandoned.
January 17, 2012 at 16:55
-
and that nice Mr Abdul and his seventeen children qualify as ‘local’
A canard? Really? Well I inferred something different.
- January 17, 2012 at 18:39
-
Mr. Abdul’s children can see to him in that case. Except that Mr. Abdul
never seems to have anything worth inheriting.
Too many iPhones and
flat screen tellys, perchance. Not to mention his credit card
bills.
Where I come from we paid for what we bought, but that is so old
fashioned these days.
-
January 18, 2012 at 10:14
-
oh dear, sorry Elena but you jumped straight in to the great big trap
awaiting you. Why would you think that Mr Abdul spends his money on
iPhones and flat screen tellies? In this particular argument MrAbdul is
the piggy in the middle – it isn’t his idea!
-
January 17, 2012 at 19:04
-
raccoonshite, you may infer whatever you may. We have no control what
happens between your ears, however to immediately think that a reference
to Mr Abdul is racist speaks volumes about your immaturity.
Mature conversation often deals with subjects that the hard-of-thinking
section of society finds difficult because it is reality-based and not as
they often wish it would be.
-
January 17, 2012 at 15:44
-
Sorry: the PA quote should end before the par beginning: “There’s
nothing…”
-
January 17, 2012 at 15:42
-
Thus the Press Association as carried by Yahoo:
Elderly homeowners
are to be encouraged to move into smaller properties under Government-backed
plans, enabling councils to rent out their homes to families.
The scheme – announced by Housing Minister Grant Shapps – is intended to
ease pressure on young families at a time when many are struggling to find
affordable accommodation.
Under the plans, local authorities would offer to help pensioners living in
family homes to find more suitable places to live.
The councils would then take over responsibility for maintaining the
property and renting it out at affordable rates, returning any profit to the
elderly person or their estate.
Officials stressed the scheme was purely voluntary and no one would be
forced to move.
There’s nothing in Anna’s piece that is hysterical. The proposal is for a
bit of extremely distasteful social engineering with an inherent conflict of
interest between what is good for the owner (and heirs), what is good for the
prospective tenant and what is expedient for the local authority.
A voluntary arrangement between owner and tenant requires no involvement by
the state and for the state to involve itself here has a whiff of coercion to
be exercised by the state upon the vulnerable but modestly well-to-do.
The racism accusation is a bit of a canard. The housing shortage can at
least in part be laid at the door of politicians who have winked at
unrestrained immigration.
January 17, 2012 at 17:21
-
“Elderly homeowners are to be encouraged to move into smaller
properties under Government-backed plans, enabling councils to rent out
their homes to families.”
Isn’t this ageist? If the objection is to people occupying more than one
bedroom per person, why don’t they encourage any single person with a house
to move out and go to a 1-bed flat? Why not simply ban couples from buying a
house with more than two bedrooms, refuse to show single people a 4-bed
property. Furthermore, make it illegal to convey to anyone who has an
existing family a house at all – they must stay in a studio flat until they
can show a certificate to say their new partner is eligible for a house, and
then only allow them to expand one bedroom at a time.
Why not refuse to convey any house to a purchaser who cannot show a
family member per room? So if you want an 8 bedroom house, the family will
have to prove that it has at least 7 members, and if this number drops they
must move out.
I don’t see what being elderly has to do with it. You either accept that
people have purchased their exclusive right to occupy a piece of land, or
you don’t.
January
17, 2012 at 18:09
-
“Isn’t this ageist? “
Yes. Yes, it would indeed appear to be. Be a shame to hang them on
their own petard, wouldn’t it?
-
January 17, 2012 at 19:36
January 17, 2012 at 15:30
-
Have linked to you Anna whilst posting a few thoughts of my own.
- January 17, 2012 at 15:42
January
17, 2012 at 15:21
-
A lot of leasehold retirement flats are currently on the market and proving
difficult to sell. Certain major donors to the Conservative Party own lots of
the freeholds in such properties. One reason oldies are reluctant to move from
their old homes is that the service charges in such places have rocketed
because the property people have racked up every charge they could. They are
going to levels that exceed pensions. So Grant Shapps wants to help the
property people two ways. One is filling up the retirement flats, the other to
allow them to buy the former homes and draw down all the housing benefit
subsidy.
- January 17, 2012 at 15:43
January 17, 2012 at 14:41
-
This site is going downhill. Hysterical and ill-thought out article with
unpleasant rascist undertones.
- January
17, 2012 at 18:08
-
Oh, give it a rest!
January 18, 2012 at 20:28
-
What Race does someone called Abdul belong too? I allege in your
politically correct middle class bubble any valid point that negatively
reflects on a minority is deemed automatically racist whether true or
not.
Social housing is awarded on ‘needs’ based point system. Unemployed
immigrants with large families tick all the boxes and therefore get a
disproportionate allocation of council housing.
The constant inbreeding with cousins and within family groups also
compounds genetic flaws. A recent report on Pakistani children claimed as
much as 25% had special needs. This too would increase social housing
allocation priority.
Having upto 4 wives & multiple children when UK average is 2.5 approx
creates overcrowding based on social housing policies and thus the
allocation of larger houses goes disproportionately to ethnic minorities.
If you wish to pretend away reality as it us in preference for
politically correct la la land that us your choice but do not throw about
accusations of ‘Isms when it is scientifically factual.
I am sure if the example had been Ginger, pale skinned paddy from Ireland
we would not be having this little chat.
Racism is the believe that people are unequal at birth or from different
species that do not have same value as humans. To argue all cultures and
practices do not add value to society is just reality.
Eg. Forced
marriage of little girls, honour killing, female circumcision, Etc are all
cultural practices that disgust me but they are culturally learned not
genetically inherited characteristics of race.
In this blog entry the point being made is a reflection of the fact that
some cultures are positively preferred by our social housing system not
discriminated against.
January 17, 2012 at 13:56
-
Anagram corner: Grant Shapps + U = Push past Gran
(I know, it’s pathetic, but you can’t do much without the extra vowel.)
-
January 17, 2012 at 13:01
-
Old Age Pensioners are living too long. That’s the real problem. This
particular bunch are used to being starved and frozen.
They might have more
luck with the next lot.
- January 17,
2012 at 12:53
-
The party logic is that old people will not switch their votes and will
stop voting soon for us anyway. What is needed is new voters, hence let’s bend
over backwards to attract the pink vote or the ethnic vote. Politics is like
the utility industry, there’s no principles just a marketing strategy that
lures in large volumes of floating voters. So what if they soon become
disenchanted and change their votes? Another dollop will arrive with the next
dog-whistle. It’s called churn and it churns my stomach.
Why aren’t
homeless families billeted in spare rooms in the minimum two homes of MPs?
January 17, 2012 at 11:52
-
Great site. I’ll be back.
Shapps a communist? I thought perhaps he was a
Liberal. Obviously can’t be a Conservative.
January 17, 2012 at 11:33
-
Another measure proposed from a member of a Conservative Party which isn’t
conservative, but simply another variant of the statist Fabianist model. Let’s
hope this one gets shot down in flames.
- January
17, 2012 at 11:49
-
And not just the plan, either. I wouldn’t mind seeing flames licking up
Shapp’s legs while he writhes on the stake.
- January 17, 2012 at 19:25
-
“…licking up Shapp’s legs while he writhes…”
Oooh Err Missus!!! Sorry JuliaM! I blame the late (great) Frankie
Howerd for my corrupted mind…
January 17, 2012 at 10:40
-
Next step: force them to sell the house to the council and then use any
profit to pay for the social care. (Or do you think they have thought of that
already?)
January 17, 2012 at 10:15
-
From your link:
“…returning any profit to the elderly person or their estate. Officials
stressed the scheme was purely voluntary and no one would be forced to
move…”
Doesn’t sound very compulsory to me. Didn’t you once blog lyrical about the
French scheme where care of the elderly could be financed by a lien on the
estate of the caree if there was no family support? Is there much difference
here? Except perhaps somehow in your mind the French state is benign but the
British one is malign?
Mon dieu.
- January 17, 2012 at 10:29
-
The French scheme is designed to keep the elderly in the home they have
known all their lives – not move them out to make way for a larger
family!
- January 17, 2012 at 13:24
-
You mean like a kind of equity release? Tell me, is that prevented in
the UK? Tell me, under Schapps’ plan would someone be barred from raising
money from whatever way they fancy to fund their own care if they don’t
fancy renting their house out to the council?
As so often, hysterical ill-informed bollocks chez Raccoon.
- January 17, 2012 at 13:53
-
And that’s without taking into account the slightly racist overtones
designed to appeal to the bigot who resides in all of us.
-
January 17, 2012 at 15:43
-
Since when has it been government’s (any government’s) prerogative
to tell people how to live their own lives, or what to do in their own
homes?
This Shapps proposal (if I understand it correctly) raises the
spectre of Council prodnoses knocking on the doors of elderly
relatives and making assessments of how much space said residents are
using in their own homes. If it’s their own home, then it’s no
business of the Council, the government or anybody else what they’re
doing in it, provided it’s legal.
-
January 17, 2012 at 15:44
-
…..doors of elderly residents…..
- January 17, 2012 at 18:06
-
‘As so often’..?
BE, have you been reading Anna Raccoon in the ‘Evil Spock’ universe,
or something?!?
-
January 17, 2012 at 18:46
-
Give him a little slack, he is SO unbelievably polite and well
behaved for so much of the time that every now and then he explodes.
Luckily in the company of friends rather than at work or in Subway.
{ 111 comments }