Forums
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Dr Crippen
27 Apr 17 10:55
Joined:
Date Joined: 16 Apr 02
| Topic/replies: 47,407 | Blogger: Dr Crippen's blog
Half of them council Houses.
Ready to satisfy demand from Labour's intended recruitment drive of Middle Eastern economic migrants no doubt.
And they actually think the British public would vote for that.
Pause Switch to Standard View Labour would build a million new homes.
Show More
Loading...
Report MartinK April 28, 2017 7:38 AM BST
To argue that we shouldn't build council housing because they will all go to immigrant workers which our muddled Doctor proposes is to cut your nose off to spite your face.

We either need new housing or we don't and this briefing paper from the House Of Commons Library starts with the sub heading - Successive Governments have failed to ensure housing supply matches demand - indicates we do.

https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/key-issues-parliament-2015/social-protection/housing-supply/

I applaud the Labour governments target of AT LEAST a million new homes over the next 5 years, half of them council/social housing. Funding them is the easy part. You're creating a rent yielding appreciating asset and funding could range from borrowing against exist social housing stock, creating housing bonds, or since we're leaving the the EU and the fiscal grip of the Maastricht Treaty we could fund it directly from Central Bank reserves - you know printing money.

The more important question is do we have the trained manpower to actually build that many new houses - probably no. We'll have to train new workers so it's important to have a long range plan which guarantee's there will be work for 10 - 20 years
Report MartinK April 28, 2017 7:42 AM BST
For a more detailed look at the problem this Shelter report fills in many of the gaps

https://england.shelter.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/689447/Solutions_for_the_housing_shortage_-_FINAL.pdf
Report moisok April 28, 2017 7:57 AM BST
your favourtie community go to the head of the queue

get 4 or 5 children too and in go the immigrants - councils bending over backwards to get them in

they live in garages around our way too

tens of thousands all over west london

but there's only a few bad eggs
sorry I haven't got a link
and its all ray cyst anyway
Report moisok April 28, 2017 7:58 AM BST
favouritie  new word
Report PorcupineorPineapple April 28, 2017 8:21 AM BST
of course Moisy (seems apt) doesn't have a link. It's not true. But don't break the news to him; he's not ready for it yet.
Report moisok April 28, 2017 8:25 AM BST
GOOD NEWS

there's only a few bad eggs

a few hundred thousand

sorry I haven't got a link but you can hear the gun shots and see the arrests

but only a few bad eggs
Report PorcupineorPineapple April 28, 2017 8:47 AM BST
Struck me earlier how very "brexit britain" moisy is.


Got a firmly held opinion but cannot produce a shred of evidence to back it up. Instead of being y'know adult and maybe questioning if his opinion is well-founded or not he goes the other route and simply glories in the fact that he's got no evidence but will keep on spouting the nonsense anyway. You should ask May for a job, looks like you'd fit in well.
Report moisok April 28, 2017 8:52 AM BST
UGOTTALINK?
Report PorcupineorPineapple April 28, 2017 9:07 AM BST
y'see. We've turned thinking, facts and reason into something to be sneered at. So much easier to sit in our homes, shut the curtains and blame "the other" for why we're not more successful instead of looking in the mirror.


And someone queried yesterday why I laughed at the idea of patriotism! This country's full of morons, that's why, and I feel embarrassed to be associated with them never mind feel a sense of shared belonging.
Report Dr Crippen April 28, 2017 9:09 AM BST
It's a shame we can't see PP's face.

It might explain a lot.
Report PorcupineorPineapple April 28, 2017 9:19 AM BST
Curious as to what you mean there doc
Report MartinK April 28, 2017 9:33 AM BST
The fact are there has been no census to determine the level of over occupancy and illegal building of temporary accommodation. It's happening, but the scale is conjecture.

What it does point to though is a massive housing problem which multiple governments - Labour and Tory - have ignored. Both parties need deliverable polices to address this problem since we're unlikely to be expelling millions of foreign worker whether anyone want to or not!
Report Dr Crippen April 28, 2017 9:34 AM BST
One million homes eh?
With half of them council homes built by the state.

How are they going to get private builders to build the other 500,000?

I'm sure PP can supply a link to explain that, considering how important it is.
And with him being so fond of asking other people to supply links for every tiny detail.
Report PorcupineorPineapple April 28, 2017 9:41 AM BST
Still wondering why you want to see my face doc
Report impossible123 April 28, 2017 9:55 AM BST
Labour will never build one million homes even if the hugely unlikely event happens ie they win the June election - there is just no funds to support the scheme with Brexit in the pipeline - unless the illegal conversion and occupation of household garages is included in their calculation. A more just, inexpensive and immediate way to alleviate the housing crisis is to restrict multiple ownership of properties by a single individual (including buy-to-let) or fake companies set up to exploit this.
Report MartinK April 28, 2017 10:02 AM BST
There were over 150,000 housing starts in the last 4 quarters, so 200,000 a year is an increase of 33%. There will be an expansion of the House building market required which is why it might take a few  years to get up to 200,000, but it doesn't need to stop at 200,000 a year.

In the 1960 we had a peak of over 400,000, but many of those were tower blocks, so 200,000 to 250,000 a year over time is an achievable target.
Report impossible123 April 28, 2017 10:15 AM BST
These million houses need to be nearer to where people would like to live and where the jobs are eg near London and the City of London. And even if so, the present owners of existing properties will not support it (they are investors too) as a scheme like this will not only impact negatively on their returns but also the value of their investment ie properties. As the big builders are inextricably linked with investment from the City and politics this is a non-starter, in my book.
Report moisok April 28, 2017 10:18 AM BST
porky has vested interests - you can guess what they are because of his defensive attitude to all immigrants who want to come here - you work it out
anyway
there are only a few bad eggs and even the brits do it
sorry there are no  links
Report CLYDEBANK29 April 28, 2017 10:21 AM BST
More likely that Trump will build his Mexican wall (and the Mexicans will pay for it)

I don't know what the exact rules on getting council properties are, other than it's a huge problem in London and there are priority criteria.  But I would hope that length of living in this country is near the top of that set of criteria.  I don't think it is anyway, but I'm sure that had a part to play in the BREXIT vote.

I fear that Corbyn would use the housing an influx of third world refugees, many of whom would hold allegiance to Sharia Law and other fundamentalist principles.  Never mind the fact that he is totally incompetent, he can't be trusted one bit.  What we'd likely end up with is a load of new housing in places like Rochdale, where no one wants to live, there are no jobs, and are filled by refugees living off the state.
Report Dr Crippen April 28, 2017 10:34 AM BST
Absolutely CLYDEBANK29, we know who'd end up in these council builds.
Qualification for council housing isn't based on length of residency in the UK at all.

Like I said earlier straight off the plane or boat and into a council house.

Socialism at it's worst.
Report MartinK April 28, 2017 10:38 AM BST
It should be up to the local councils to decide where to build the new Council housing, since they are responsible for the house waiting lists.

The right to buy will need to be suspended at the very least to make sure the new housing stock doesn't find it's way into the Ring To Buy merchants.

As I wrote earlier financing should't be a problem -

You're creating a rent yielding appreciating asset and funding could range from borrowing against exist social housing stock, creating housing bonds, or since we're leaving the the EU and the fiscal grip of the Maastricht Treaty we could fund it directly from Central Bank reserves - you know printing money.
Report moisok April 28, 2017 10:53 AM BST
who was it in the guardian who said

'don't talk to me about 'community' when all the flats around here are owned by chinese'


an investigation showed that the flats in one large block were nearly all empty but owned by
people from the far east.!!  from the guardian
and no I am not putting up a link Porky - go and look for yourself
Report 1st time poster April 28, 2017 10:57 AM BST
RoSS KEMPS BRITAN

to quote ross doing a docu on migrants living and working in the uk,

THERES A PARALLEL WORLD GOING ON IN MY COUNTRY THAT I DIDNT NO ABOUT

relief for porky your not the only one, LaughLaugh

email ross porky and has him if he has any links for his docu, Laugh
Report PorcupineorPineapple April 28, 2017 10:58 AM BST
christ, you almost came close to providing some evidence there. Go and have a sit down for god's sake.
Report moisok April 28, 2017 11:02 AM BST
porky obfuscating as fast as he can go

a real lazy contributor

can't be bothered to keep up with current affairs or news

but happy to deny any negative immigrant news

I wonder why - do you think he has a particular vested interest??
Report PorcupineorPineapple April 28, 2017 11:06 AM BST
What kind of vested interest?

Moisy and doc seem to be insinuation-crazy this morning. Anyone brave enough to actually say what they're thinking?
Report moisok April 28, 2017 11:10 AM BST
UGOTTALINK PORKY?
Report MartinK April 28, 2017 11:46 AM BST
It's interesting that for the last 7 years of the Tory led governments, immigration from non-EU countries have been under our own control.

So with the Tory rhetoric of immigration down to the "tens of thousands" during the 2010 election, we should be able to see a steady reduction in non-EU immigration into the UK  over the last seven years.

With the new PM Mrs T May having been at the helm of the Home Office for most of that time, we should be able to get a preview of what a Tory led Government fulfilling it's election promises looks like.

Would Anyone like to provide a link? - Oh go on then twist my arm ....  https://fullfact.org/immigration/eu-immigration-blame-missing-net-migration-...
Report lfc1971 April 28, 2017 12:12 PM BST
you can't compare those who come here to study with those who come to work.
There is no point in comparing eu immigration and free movement of labour with the thousands who come to study
Report lfc1971 April 28, 2017 12:15 PM BST
The most important thing for the economy and jobs is to stop the free movement of people from the EU
Report lfc1971 April 28, 2017 12:19 PM BST
Migrants who come to study, and this is a large percentage of those from outside the eu are lucrative to the country
The free movement of labour is something completely different , that is why you can't do a simple comparison
Report lfc1971 April 28, 2017 12:29 PM BST
As well as students Britain allows workers from foreign companies, and managers etc from outside the eu.
and people who are granted asylum and sometimes family members.
This is all different , and will and should continue , after leaving the eu
This is why it is pointless to look at the numbers, unless you understand the numbers.
Report impossible123 April 28, 2017 12:51 PM BST
Post Brexit UK plc can pick and choose the best of the best from a bigger pool of candidates and this can only be good; the EU is/has been in decline because of its size and layers of unnecessary bureaucracy. I've little doubt given time UK plc will be better off away from the EU - the present net migration number is a testament of that already.
Report MartinK April 28, 2017 2:12 PM BST
The non-EU immigrants are not all students - just 41% are students (13% from the EU are also students) - https://fullfact.org/immigration/eu-migration-and-uk/
Report bongo April 28, 2017 7:56 PM BST
What's the basis for the claim that new council houses will appreciate in value?
The only reason they appreciate at the moment is because of under-supply and people put their own money into improving them.
We're bringing in some market controls over immigration shortly - if you want to come here with a large family you pay for it yourself now. We will stop funding the destruction of jobs in eastern europe after 2019. We're expanding the medical school places etc
Go further and get rid of the under-supply of housing and the incentive to spend your own money improving and maintaining your own bricks and the appreciation will end.

I notice that Labour's plan has as much detail as Sadiq Khan's plan for more London housing - i.e. none
Report moisok April 28, 2017 8:05 PM BST
who used to do all these low income jobs before?

How did we harvest spuds without all these lucky lovely immigrants?
Report ufcdan April 28, 2017 9:13 PM BST
I agree with building council estates for those that can't afford to buy their own house, in the same way that I agree with building houses for those that can afford to buy a house. What I don't agree with is that all new builds have to have a percentage of social housing within the estate unless it was reserved for emergency services workers only. Living in Sussex you either have £300,000 for starter home or you don't ! I'd like a Bentley but can't afford one.............same principle Mischief
Report enpassant April 28, 2017 10:14 PM BST
Yeah ! Sometimes a well heeled fella needs to have his shoes removed by a minimum wage pleb and then use the pleb as a foot stool for his tired feet to rest on. But wait a minute : if the pleb cannot afford to live in that area on such low wages and  he can't afford the fare to work, who will take care to the feet of the the chap ? Perhaps he might get consider picking up and dropping off the pleb in his Bentley.
Report ufcdan April 28, 2017 11:27 PM BST
Not on my leather seats.......pleb free zone Cool
Report akabula April 28, 2017 11:58 PM BST
enpassant
If someone is a nonce, mugger, burglar or any other repugnant low life scum - that will be what I judge them on. The same would apply to a good person. Not the colour of skin, the country they were born in or if they believe in some sort of divine entity.if you see the issues as pitting one faith against another,  then that is a matter for you. II do not believe in such things nor do I take a mans misguided (imo) beliefs into account if he wrongs me or mine.


What if their belief tells them that it's okay to beat your wife or okay to kill a nonbeliever? Could go on of course.
Report MartinK April 29, 2017 12:27 AM BST
Bongo Asks:
What's the basis for the claim that new council houses will appreciate in value?
...............
Go further and get rid of the under-supply of housing and the incentive to spend your own money improving and maintaining your own bricks and the appreciation will end.


History my dear boy history.
Over time ( 10 - 20 year timeframe) most if not all the housing stock in this country has appreciated in value. Even at 200,000 new builds a year we won't fix the historical under-supply of housing any time soon.

https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/key-issues-parliament-2015/social-protection/housing-supply/
Report bongo April 29, 2017 1:57 AM BST
..
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/206552/nfa-annual-fraud-indicator-2013.pdf
Check out page 38

"There are nearly 4 million social housing properties in England, with an estimated asset value of more
than £180 billion. Over one-half of all social housing in England is managed by housing associations."
This is broad brush assessment but the average social housing unit in England today is worth about £45k according to the NFA's figures. The NFA may be mistaken but it looks like social housing which remains social housing does not appreciate in value. And that's on historical data.
And Corbyn now wants to end the under supply. Doesn't say where he'll get the land and the planning permission though.

Government in general ( there might be specific exceptions in London ) is not very good at building houses that appreciate in value - why should this be?
Report lfc1971 April 29, 2017 7:55 AM BST
There is no profit on anything unless you sell it .
Report MartinK April 29, 2017 8:58 AM BST
lfc1971

There is no profit on anything unless you sell it .


You had better tell that to the countless people who having paid £40-50K for their House in the 1990's and have re-mortgaged over the years to release a little of the stored equity in their property.
Report lfc1971 April 29, 2017 9:04 AM BST
That's more debt, not profit.
Report lfc1971 April 29, 2017 9:32 AM BST
The idea of building council housing can be a good one, in theory. However in todays world, as it is in Britain today and outside Britain it has very many dangers,
It is likely to lead to lower wages, and have dangerous economic and social consequences...in Britain as it is today, in todays world.
When council house were built in previous generations, and in a different world, and in a different set of circumstances they had a part to play in a stable and good society, in theory....
however even then the fundamental underlying dangers were there, it was time that was missing.
Only over time have the problems, very great problems, become evident..they would be inevitable now we are here, where we are.
Report MartinK April 29, 2017 9:35 AM BST
Bongo - thanks for the link - to the 2013 - Annual Fraud Indicator - from the now defunct "National Fraud Authority".

In 2013 the average house price was £250,000 - ranging from over £400,000 in London to a little over £150,000 in the North East. - http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/hpi/house-price-index/january-2014/sty-regional-house-prices.html

With all due respect to the National Fraud Authority, I'm going to need to understand what exactly what they mean by "estimated asset value", because it surely doesn't mean the average market value of a Social Housing freehold property. I expect the average land value of the property to exceeds that!
Report Dr Crippen April 29, 2017 10:11 AM BST
The largest housing associations were £75 billion in debt according to this report last year.

http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/housing-associations-increase-debt-to-75bn/7014582.article

Typical public sector stuff, and they continue to compare council house rents with private rents.

It's pretty clear why authorities are reluctant to build more council homes.

All that debt has been added to the national debt.
Report MartinK April 29, 2017 10:22 AM BST
lfc1971 wrote

That's more debt, not profit.


Point taken - I've no problem fessing up when I say something which is wrong.

The point is that the rising asset of their property allowed them to go further into debt, but without the rising private debt mountain (in lieu of wage rises), we would not have had any sort of recovery for the last 7 years.

We need investment to boost productivity to allow wage rises to fuel consumption, and that hasn't happened over the last 7 years

http://www.lse.ac.uk/researchAndExpertise/units/growthCommission/documents/pdf/2017LSEGCReport.pdf

Page 16 - figuer 1.3 - shows relative UK investment
Page 19 - figure 2.1 - show's productivity
Page 20 - figure 2.2 - productivity and wages

A damning indictment of the economy under Tory led governments for the last 7 years
Report MartinK April 29, 2017 10:31 AM BST
Bongo - smoke and mirrors my friend - why do you give the full facts!

http://www.socialhousing.co.uk/housing-associations-reclassified-to-public-sector-63bn-of-debt-to-move-onto-national-balance-sheet/7012513.article#

English housing associations registered with the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) have been reclassified to the public sector in a move that is set to bring £60bn of debt onto the national balance sheet.

It also means the sector’s asset base comes onto the public balance sheet as well. The global accounts recorded a net book value of £78bn in 2014, which is a mixture of assets at cost and valuation.

[Doesn't this give a net balance of PLUS 18 billion on to the public accounts ?
Report MartinK April 29, 2017 10:33 AM BST
Sorry - then should be the - deadly Doctor - not Bonoo - apologies
Report MartinK April 29, 2017 10:35 AM BST
**Bongo
Report Dr Crippen April 29, 2017 10:48 AM BST
Growth has been far stronger from a lower point since Labour were kicked out as the figures clearly show.

Isn't that an even stronger damning indictment of the economy under Labour?
And Labour had the benefit of the period including what were known as the golden years at that!


MartinK is really trying it on here, we were in recession during the early years of the coalition.

As for wages - what does he think high immigration is supposed to be for if not to keep wages down?

So where does that leave Labour's cast in stone policy to maintain high levels of immigration?
Report Dr Crippen April 29, 2017 11:00 AM BST
I supplied a link where's yours?

It's quite startling to see assets against debts so close as even those that MartinK claims.

That's after taking money from the government for years.
And those are the fiddled figures.

I wonder what horrors the true figures would tell?
Report Dr Crippen April 29, 2017 11:09 AM BST
Here we go.

Housing Association assets:

''The Housing Acts of 1985 and 1988 facilitated the transfer of council housing to not-for-profit housing associations. The 1988 Act redefined housing associations as non-public bodies, permitting access to private finance, which was a strong motivation for transfer as public sector borrowing had been severely constrained. These new housing associations were also the providers of most new public-sector housing. By 2003 36.5% of the social rented housing stock was held by housing associations.''

How much of those assets quoted by MartinK were simply transferred originally from councils?

That's like somebody giving you a house. You renting it out. Then showing a loss at the end of the period.

Nice try again MartinK.
I wouldn't trust you as far as I could throw you,
Report MartinK April 29, 2017 11:33 AM BST
We need to see the balance sheet of the Housing association once those council houses were transferred. Was the an accompanying Debt taken onto the Housing association books? Without that knowledge you assertion is just that, an assertion. 

We would need to look where the money to build the council houses came from - was it borrowed locally, from central government on the back of gilt sales, or from central bank reserves. Wherever it came from there would be an accountancy entry on a balance sheet both of the asset (house) and debt.

When you transfer the assets, there will be an accompanying liability on the balance sheet which would also need to be transferred.
Report bongo April 29, 2017 11:35 AM BST
"In 2013 the average house price was £250,000 "

Martin - that's not the average value of houses though. It's based on the prices of houses that change hands i.e. that people are willing to buy, usually risking their own money. So they buy the nice ones. And it's a reflection of private sector sales overwhelmingly.
The price of social sector sales will be far lower
And the value of the average social housing unit will be lower still, as it includes the ones people would not want to touch due to neighbourhood, and renovation costs.

The claim that I'm trying to debunk is that government can make money by building houses. Their record is appalling, and you want to stack things against even that by increasing supply at a greater rate than family formation, just as the best immigration control of all time has come in ( the 2 child rule ).
There's a system for making money from building houses - it worked really well in the 1930s before someone invented Green Belts and National Parks - it's called the free market and a liberal planning system.
Report Dr Crippen April 29, 2017 11:36 AM BST
Using MartinK's figures.
Housing associations have turned assets of £78 billion and given to them, (less the debt of £60 billion) into 18 billion.

That's a loss of £60 billion.

And they've had a steady flow of government money all along the way.

One question for MartinK - where did all the money go?
Report MartinK April 29, 2017 12:04 PM BST
Bongo:
The value of a house is what you can sell it for - it's sale price, but you would need to be careful about the sale price of social housing because the social housing sale price is artificially depressed by government policy (right to buy discount). The RTB can be removed (as it has been in Scotland).

What you appear to be saying is that if a government entity builds a house, that it's value over time will actually drop below this build price (plus financing/maintenance  cost). I find this difficult to believe, but if you have some research that backs this up I'm prepared to change my mind
Report MartinK April 29, 2017 12:07 PM BST
Dr Crips:
Using MartinK's figures. - Housing associations have turned assets of £78 billion and given to them, (less the debt of £60 billion) into 18 billion.

That's a loss of £60 billion.


   ....  OMG  ........  I don't even know where to start with this one!!!!!
Report Dr Crippen April 29, 2017 12:19 PM BST
[b] ....  OMG  ........  I don't even know where to start with this one!!!!![/b]


Multiple dots, capital letters in bold and underlined, ending with multiple exclamation marks. All done for effect is not an answer MartinK.


Again - where did all the money go?
Report enpassant April 29, 2017 12:27 PM BST

Apr 28, 2017 -- 5:58PM, akabula wrote:


enpassant If someone is a nonce, mugger, burglar or any other repugnant low life scum - that will be what I judge them on. The same would apply to a good person. Not the colour of skin, the country they were born in or if they believe in some sort of divine entity.if you see the issues as pitting one faith against another,  then that is a matter for you. II do not believe in such things nor do I take a mans misguided (imo) beliefs into account if he wrongs me or mine. What if their belief tells them that it's okay to beat your wife or okay to kill a nonbeliever? Could go on of course.


The answer to that is stated clearly in my post, or at least I thought I had made that point clear.

Report MartinK April 29, 2017 12:37 PM BST
The Doctor writes: Again - where did all the money go?

This presupposes that some money went somewhere.

You've taken the calculated net book value of an asset (78 billion), and subtracted the 18 billion net balance - which gave 60 billion, and called this a loss of 60 billion.

The 18 billion was a number I calculated - 78-60 = 18
To get to the 18 billion net balance, I took the net book value of 78 billion and subtracted the 60 billion associated debt to get that 18 billion

The 60 billion you're referring to isn't a LOSS, it's the value of the debt.

I do hope that answers your query - please come again.
Report Dr Crippen April 29, 2017 12:50 PM BST
So a debt of £60 billion becomes a value of £60 billion?

Whichever way you look at it they've lost £60 billion.

Glad you agree.
Report MartinK April 29, 2017 2:05 PM BST
In the sense that they lost £60 billion in cash but gained 78 billion in assets - then yes I agree.

A different way of explaining the same numbers are

They borrowed £60 billion to buy housing worth 78 billion - sounds like a good deal to me.

Each to their own.
Report Dr Crippen April 29, 2017 2:29 PM BST
They borrowed £60 billion to buy housing worth 78 billion

Well you've clearly made that up.

No mention about the council houses they took over in that 78 billion worth of assets.
Report MartinK April 29, 2017 2:33 PM BST
That's because I don't know what came along with those assets. I would have expected some debt to have been transferred as well.

Do you know that ONLY the housing stock was transferred ?
Report Dr Crippen April 29, 2017 3:01 PM BST
Now you're admitting to telling lies.  And making excuses for telling them as well.

You seem to think that telling lies on here is quite acceptable.

Like I said earlier.  ''I wouldn't trust you as far as I could throw you.''

And now you've shown that my comment was completely justified.
Report MartinK April 29, 2017 3:29 PM BST
No I haven't admitted to telling lies, only to not having the fell facts. Lets put that right shall we.

I've done a bit of digging and I can see that the council stock is NOT transferred without cost, and the Council will also share in any  Right To Buy proceeds:

http://www.molevalley.gov.uk/media/pdf/q/2/HousingStockTransferReport_1.pdf

Summary of Financial Implications (Capital Receipt)
5.42 The proposed housing transfer is projected to produce net capital receipts of £34.1m over ten years following transfer. This is made up of the transfer receipt, estimated as £19.6m, which would be available as soon as the transfer takes place and additional receipts from preserved RTBs and from a VAT Shelter Scheme, estimated at £14.5m, which would be received over the ten years following transfer
Report bongo April 29, 2017 4:12 PM BST
@Martin
"social housing because the social housing sale price is artificially depressed by government policy "
Can you think of anything else that might depress the value?
If you can't you are gloriously innocent about human behaviour and your belief in government intervention to solve problems knows no bounds.

Milton Friedman brilliantly described the four ways that money is spent.

The first and most common way in the private sector is people spending their own money on themselves. In this case, the buyer is interested in both quality (the best product or service that he can afford) and value (getting it at the best price) because he is both the producer of the wealth being spent and the consumer of the good or service being procured.

The second way is when people spend their own money on others (such as gifts). Here they are still concerned about value (it's their money), but less concerned about service quality as they are not the consumer.

The third way is spending other people's money on yourself. Think of the rich man's girlfriend who buys herself the nicest dresses in the store on his credit card without even looking at the tag. She wants quality, but value is irrelevant since she sacrifices nothing.

The fourth way is when people spend other people's money on other people. In this case, the buyer has no rational interest in either value or quality. Government always and necessarily spends money in this fourth way. This guarantees inefficient public spending because the spenders have no vested interest in efficiently allocating those funds.


And that's before we've got to improvements and the behaviours of the tenants.
Report MartinK April 29, 2017 4:41 PM BST
Bongo - I have some sympathy with his analysis. The problem I have is how wealth is allocated. If wealth was more evenly distributed (still via earning wages) such that everyone had enough to afford the basics and could choose which products to buy, there free market approach MIGHT work. So I would have a nurse earning more than a bond trader, but that isn't the world we live in, and until it is I'll happily consign Mr Friedman's views to the back burner.
Report Dr Crippen April 29, 2017 4:46 PM BST
They borrowed £60 billion to buy housing worth 78 billion

Which was simply an outright lie.

We can't believe a word he says.
Report Dr Crippen April 29, 2017 4:58 PM BST
Bongo basically he doesn't understand what Friedman was getting at or he wouldn't have gone off at a tangent.
Report Dr Crippen April 29, 2017 5:01 PM BST
He also admits in his last sentence that he's basically a communist.

He'd have us all working for nothing and shot for protesting.
Report MartinK April 29, 2017 5:08 PM BST
They borrowed £60 billion to buy housing worth 78 billion

I made the mistake of trying to simplify things to help you understand assets and debt since you seemed to having trouble with the concept as evidenced by your earlier nonsensical post - I won't bother in future.

Dr Crips post:

Using MartinK's figures.  -- Housing associations have turned assets of £78 billion and given to them, (less the debt of £60 billion) into 18 billion.

That's a loss of £60 billion.

And they've had a steady flow of government money all along the way.

One question for MartinK - where did all the money go?


I couldn't understand why you thought there had been a 60 billion loss. Could you explain what you meant.
Report Dr Crippen April 29, 2017 5:17 PM BST
I made the mistake of trying to simplify things to help you understand assets and debt since you seemed to having trouble with the concept as evidenced by your earlier nonsensical post - I won't bother in future.

No you didn't you simply set out to deceive us.

You clearly don't know what you're talking about, get into a mess, then try and lie your way out of trouble.
Report MartinK April 29, 2017 10:58 PM BST
I noticed you ignored the question

I couldn't understand why you thought there had been a 60 billion loss. Could you explain what you meant.

Maybe because there was no loss: #LookWhosLyingNow
Report bongo April 30, 2017 9:39 AM BST
You're right Dr C - we are debating a communist
Let's say Martin wants nurses to earn more and fund managers to earn less (or bond traders, although it's the programmers who are really doing the work now ). It's a valid opinion. In a free market health system like NL, BEL, GER, SWE, DEN, SWI etc you can use your own money in support of that ( or govt voucher if on a low income ) - you take out your plan with the company that pays its nurses the most.
But Martin seems to want a system where this value is imposed, under threat of taking people to court

For info: We have 1.5 million a year of generally the lower income people summonsed to court each year just for council tax - number one and two items in council budgets are adult social care and children's services.
Only government can achieve this kind of feck up.
Report MartinK April 30, 2017 11:24 AM BST
Yes comrades from my bunker here in Moscow where we've been engineering Labour recent rise in the polls from 24% to 31% with our cyber warfare department and will be continuing to push comrade Corbyn over the next 5 weeks.

I do like the idea of Labour's wage ratio policy of 20:1 in the public sector and companies bidding for public contracts – because it cannot be right that wages at the top keep rising while everyone else’s stagnates - it's only fair.
Report Dr Crippen April 30, 2017 11:43 AM BST
I notice lying MartinK has twisted the facts to try to put me on the spot over something which is as clear as day if anyone cares to look back.

You can't trust a commie is a good slogan, and reinforced here by MartinK's antics.
Report MartinK April 30, 2017 4:10 PM BST
Lets see what Dr Crippen wrote (I've included the whole post something he didn't do when smearing me):

Using MartinK's figures.
Housing associations have turned assets of £78 billion and given to them, (less the debt of £60 billion) into 18 billion.

That's a loss of £60 billion.

And they've had a steady flow of government money all along the way.

One question for MartinK - where did all the money go?


I was quoting a report

http://www.socialhousing.co.uk/housing-associations-reclassified-to-public-sector-63bn-of-debt-to-
move-onto-national-balance-sheet/7012513.article#

which indicated that the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) when it was moved onto the government books has assets of 78 billion and debt of £60 billion.

I couldn't work out how the sector having a debt of 60 billion tuned into a loss of 60 billion as asserted by the good doctor. I still can't and I was hoping for an explanation, but all I got was abuse, which I returned in kind.
Report Dr Crippen April 30, 2017 5:15 PM BST
What's this from MartinK - a porky ever post now is it?

What abuse from my good self?
Report MartinK April 30, 2017 6:29 PM BST
You wrote
They borrowed £60 billion to [i]buy housing worth 78 billion

Which was simply an outright lie.

We can't believe a word he says.[/i]

Where was the lie?
Report MartinK April 30, 2017 6:30 PM BST
You wrote
They borrowed £60 billion to buy housing worth 78 billion

Which was simply an outright lie.

We can't believe a word he says.


Where was the lie?
Report Dr Crippen April 30, 2017 6:51 PM BST
That's it right there in bold.
Report MartinK April 30, 2017 6:58 PM BST
Ah, but you didn't reproduce the full quote did you:
In the sense that they lost £60 billion in cash but gained 78 billion in assets - then yes I agree.

A different way of explaining the same numbers are

They borrowed £60 billion to buy housing worth 78 billion - sounds like a good deal to me.

Each to their own.


It was Illustrative not literal ... but you knew that didn't you Wink
Report Valiant April 30, 2017 7:33 PM BST
"We need to see the balance sheet of the Housing association once those council houses were transferred. Was the an accompanying Debt taken onto the Housing association books? "

About 15 years ago a lot of old council housing was being transferred into Housing Association ownership, sometimes at £200 a unit!

Let's face it. What was an old council house REALLY worth if you could only sell it to one person in the whole of the world. The tenant.
Report MartinK April 30, 2017 8:16 PM BST
Only £200 - I hope that isn't representative.
I did post this earlier:

I've done a bit of digging and I can see that the council stock is NOT transferred without cost, and the Council will also share in any  Right To Buy proceeds:

http://www.molevalley.gov.uk/media/pdf/q/2/HousingStockTransferReport_1.pdf

Summary of Financial Implications (Capital Receipt)
5.42 The proposed housing transfer is projected to produce net capital receipts of £34.1m over ten years following transfer. This is made up of the transfer receipt, estimated as £19.6m, which would be available as soon as the transfer takes place and additional receipts from preserved RTBs and from a VAT Shelter Scheme, estimated at £14.5m, which would be received over the ten years following transfer
Report Dr Crippen May 1, 2017 9:33 AM BST
All this digging from MartinK, and all he's established is that the housing associations even with the benefit of receiving loads of stock from the councils at £200 a time in some cases, still went into debt/lost £60 - £75 billion.
Depending on where and when you're getting the information from, and that debt was transferred to be paid by the taxpayer.

Which proves that social housing is subsidised housing and best left to the private sector.

Yet the only figures that aren't fiddled is the cost of LHA paid to private landlords. I'll bet the true cost of social housing if it were to replace the private landlords would far exceed what is paid out to them in LHA.

Which is the reason both Labour and Conservative when in power go down the private landlord route.
Report MartinK May 1, 2017 10:38 AM BST
Both the debt and assets were transferred to the public balance sheet and since the assets were 78 billion and the debt 60 billion, there is nothing for the taxpayer to pay.

So it doesn't prove anything
Report Dr Crippen May 1, 2017 10:59 AM BST
Well who will have to pay off the debt if the stock isn't sold.

Are they about to sell off the stock to clear the debt? I don't think so, the debt will disappear into the big black hole that is the public sector. It will be written off.

All paid for by the taxpayer.

Readers should take note of how projects such as the housing association mess are bailed out by governments to make debts disappear.
Report MartinK May 1, 2017 11:05 AM BST
This is purely an accountancy activity, nothing changes in the real world.

The housing stock is still being used and generating revenues to service the debt like any other business.
Report Dr Crippen May 1, 2017 11:26 AM BST
This is purely an accountancy activity, nothing changes in the real world.

Except for who is responsible for the debt the housing association got themselves into.
Report Dr Crippen May 1, 2017 11:33 AM BST
Same old procedure.

Privatise the profits.

Then when it all goes wrong - Nationalise the debts.
Report MartinK May 1, 2017 1:34 PM BST
The Housing association are responsible for their 60 billion of debt, but they get revenue from their 78 billion of assets which they use to service that debt.

If you think the 60 billion debt from the Housing association has been nationalised, you've misunderstood what has happened.
Report 1st time poster May 1, 2017 3:02 PM BST
martink serious question if we rely 80% on service industries how do you measure productivity,serve the coffee quicker,get your nails done quicker,all you can do is charge people more for the same service and in most services your already charging the price the market will accept in any case if wages are shrinking its the same amount or less money going into the coffers whatever you charge just spread more thinly among different service providers, reading the recent data its all built on sand any way record credit card debt,store card debt,remortgaging houses etc,etc
Report MartinK May 1, 2017 6:38 PM BST
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/507081/2904936_Bean_Review_Web_Accessible.pdf

look for "Measuring services" 2.4 onward
Report moisok May 2, 2017 12:59 PM BST
nearly 5 million foreigners working here

1.5 million illegals

no pressure

no pressure at all

hope this helps
Report Dr Crippen May 2, 2017 1:32 PM BST
When our soldiers returned from WW1, they were met with the promise - ''a land fit for heroes.''

Fast forward nearly a century, and labour's election cry regarding their council house building promise might be ''a land fit for immigrants.''
Report moisok May 2, 2017 3:28 PM BST
and many more pouring into the country

its not as if dear dianne or Tereason May seem to want to do anything about it

in fact May wants to incorporate sharia into ~English law  ho ho!!  good luck with that one
Post Your Reply
<CTRL+Enter> to submit
Please login to post a reply.

Wonder

Instance ID: 13539
www.betfair.com