The Queen's Jubilee

[amateur51]

http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html

The second time his name has been invoked today, js

[amateur51]

That doesn't necesarily follow; If councils can't afford any longer to maintain the social housing for which they're responsible as owners and they can't get enough tax and borrowings to do so, what are they supposed to do? In any case, some of the social housing that's sold off is sold by its tenants rather than the local authorities.

It's usually sold off at a substantial discount in this maddest of all worlds whereas private sector tenants are expected to pay 80% of the market rent charged by private landlords (and when those tenants are poor part of this sum will be paid for by ... yesm, you've guessed it, Housing Benefit. Social policy at its maddest

[JohnSkelton]

The Thatcher government passed legislation prohibiting local authorities building new public housing with the revenues raised from selling existing council housing.

We now have a consequent situation, as in London, where a new rentier class has emerged who can inflate rents beyond the reach of those who in the old days would have found social, council, housing. Then housing benefit gets capped, sensible people write columns and editorials decrying the notion that 'we' should pay these parasites to live in the nice bits of town, people are displaced because they can't afford rent in particular areas, councils start 'busing' tenants miles away to locations with lower rental costs, etc.

[Serial_Apologist]

It's usually sold off at a substantial discount in this maddest of all worlds

PreCISEly!!!

When, for "political" reassons, governments can swing it in their ideological favour, they do so. In this particular instance, the Thatcher government balked at "the market" and started the pernicious process of selling off the publicly owned housing stock at discounted rates. It's the same wherever governments chose to implement liberal capitalism: the system is ready made - as was shown in the case of E German firms being sold off to rich western capitalists for 1 Deutchemark.

An alternative, proposed back in the 1980s, was for eg local authorities to use their financial clout to mass purchase the services of construction firms at discounted rates, by which time, with Jo Public "sold" on the idea of home ownership - in the main because of the sub-Stalinist way in which uniformity had been imposed in the postwar reconstruction period on council estate tenants - it was all too late.

In a way it was inevitable that discussing the Jubilee would proliferate into all the interrelated factors that it has; but we're only tinkering within the system in terms of what a government committed to righting all the growing inequalities and associated social injustices should be undertaking.

[amateur51]

The Thatcher government passed legislation prohibiting local authorities building new public housing with the revenues raised from selling existing council housing.

We now have a consequent situation, as in London, where a new rentier class has emerged who can inflate rents beyond the reach of those who in the old days would have found social, council, housing. Then housing benefit gets capped, sensible people write columns and editorials decrying the notion that 'we' should pay these parasites to live in the nice bits of town, people are displaced because they can't afford rent in particular areas, councils start 'busing' tenants miles away to locations with lower rental costs, etc.

Most pithily put, js

And within five years (two years?) the supply of private housing in those areas will have dried up and ... that's the market for you!

[amateur51]

PreCISEly!!!

When, for "political" reassons, governments can swing it in their ideological favour, they do so. In this particular instance, the Thatcher government balked at "the market" and started the pernicious process of selling off the publicly owned housing stock at discounted rates. It's the same wherever governments chose to implement liberal capitalism: the system is ready made - as was shown in the case of E German firms being sold off to rich western capitalists for 1 Deutchemark.

An alternative, proposed back in the 1980s, was for eg local authorities to use their financial clout to mass purchase the services of construction firms at discounted rates, by which time, with Jo Public "sold" on the idea of home ownership - in the main because of the sub-Stalinist way in which uniformity had been imposed in the postwar reconstruction period on council estate tenants - it was all too late.

In a way it was inevitable that discussing the Jubilee would proliferate into all the interrelated factors that it has; but we're only tinkering within the system in terms of what a government committed to righting all the growing inequalities and associated social injustices should be undertaking.

Blimey O'Reilly S_A I remember that plan, a chap called Sir Christopher Benson who was Chair of The Housing Corporation (now defunct) was very keen on it

[Serial_Apologist]

Blimey O'Reilly S_A I remember that plan, a chap called Sir Christopher Benson who was Chair of The Housing Corporation (now defunct) was very keen on it

I can't help feeling that now that the tabloid press is being exposed by Leavison for all - not just the left - to see as the ideological bully for the very nasty brand of capitalism that has now been around in this country for 30 + years, it is maybe time for some of those emerging ideas that were shelved to be brought out once more and given due consideration, Ams.

[french frank]

The Thatcher government passed legislation prohibiting local authorities building new public housing with the revenues raised from selling existing council housing.

Yes, that too. I'd forgotten that point. Logical, though, given that the whole purpose of introducing the right to buy was to get rid of local authority housing.

[Serial_Apologist]

Yes, that too. I'd forgotten that point. Logical, though, given that the whole purpose of introducing the right to buy was to get rid of local authority housing.

The Tories' idea was to deliberately trap working class people into the risks of home ownership - which, by focussing aspiration on the nuclear family unit, buttressed by all the surface accountrements of "belonging" - the latest rapidly obsolescing this, that and the other - over the community, they - the Tories - would know from their Adam Smith - would thenceforth enslave people to working longer hours and hostility towards the idea of taking joint collective action to defend and improve wages and conditions. The house was a house of cards on which negative equity was writ, but not large enough to counteract the accompanying ideological barrage.

[Lateralthinking1]

The Tories' idea was to deliberately trap working class people into the risks of home ownership - which, by focussing aspiration on the nuclear family unit, buttressed by all the surface accountrements of "belonging" - the latest rapidly obsolescing this, that and the other - over the community, they - the Tories - would know from their Adam Smith - would thenceforth enslave people to working longer hours and hostility towards the idea of taking joint collective action to defend and improve wages and conditions. The house was a house of cards on which negative equity was writ, but not large enough to counteract the accompanying ideological barrage.

That may well be true after 1979 s_a but it was a far less risky opportunity with Keynesian economics. In the last 30 odd years, the conditions which made it easier for home ownership to be possible have systematically been eroded. It's half time btw.

[Serial_Apologist]

That may well be true after 1979 s_a but it was a far less risky opportunity with Keynesian economics. In the last 30 odd years, the conditions which made it easier for home ownership to be possible have systematically been eroded. It's half time btw.

Yes, Keynsianism combined with economics of a mixed economy. The trouble was always the ability of big business - in whose fortunes all are gripped - to export capital, to start up in places with cheap sources of labour power which would then undercut wages at home. This, putting it bluntly, is what class struggle means. The assumption that in a system where not just inequality but the power it invests matters, were the employed to stop fighting to defend or improve living and working standards all would be hunky dory happy co-existence, is a myth whose lessons are hard won. The metaphorical bot is either on one foot or the other. It is in the interests of our rulers, be they banks, bosses or politicians, that the chickens come home to roost when "nothing" can be done about it. But with a common enemy fighting on many fronts - poverty, homelessness, crime, climate change - this is just the time when alternative thinking has to be encouraged.

[ahinton]

Wasn't the right to buy introduced by Thatcher to divest local authorities of the housing and financial responsibility for maintaining it? The price was set so low that it was the equivalent of giving away public money to people to allow them to buy public property.
How can tenants do that - legally?

Under that very right to buy!

[amateur51]

The Tories' idea was to deliberately trap working class people into the risks of home ownership - which, by focussing aspiration on the nuclear family unit, buttressed by all the surface accountrements of "belonging" - the latest rapidly obsolescing this, that and the other - over the community, they - the Tories - would know from their Adam Smith - would thenceforth enslave people to working longer hours and hostility towards the idea of taking joint collective action to defend and improve wages and conditions. The house was a house of cards on which negative equity was writ, but not large enough to counteract the accompanying ideological barrage.

Lovely analysis S_A ;ok:

And what did Nigel Lawson do in 1988?.

He abolished Multiple MIRAS

From wiki:

"Mortgage interest relief at source, or MIRAS, was a scheme introduced in the United Kingdom by Chancellor of the Exchequer Roy Jenkins in 1969 [1] in a bid to encourage home ownership; it allowed borrowers tax relief for interest payments on their mortgage.

In the 1983 Budget Geoffrey Howe raised the tax allowance from £25,000 to £30,000; unmarried couples with joint mortgages could pool their allowances to £60,000 and this remained unchanged until in the 1988 Budget, when Chancellor of the Exchequer Nigel Lawson ended the option to pool allowances (a provision that had been known as Multiple Mortgage Tax Relief) from August 1988, a decision he later publicly expressed regret at not having implemented with effect from the time of the budget, as it is generally accepted that the rush to beat the deadline from the time of the Budget up until it was ended fueled a sharp increase in house prices.[2]

MIRAS was completely abolished in April 2000 by then Chancellor of the Exchequer (now retired Prime Minister) Gordon Brown who argued it had become a middle class perk.

Receiving MIRAS was one of the justifications given by mortgage advisers when selling endowment mortgages.[citation needed]

With house prices slumping and the British economy going into recession, there are many[who?] arguing for the return of some kind of similar scheme to help those in negative equity and encourage a revival in the housing market."

Do we really get the politicians we deserve?

[Flosshilde]

The Tories' idea was to deliberately trap working class people into the risks of home ownership - which, by focussing aspiration on the nuclear family unit, buttressed by all the surface accountrements of "belonging" - the latest rapidly obsolescing this, that and the other - over the community, they - the Tories - would know from their Adam Smith - would thenceforth enslave people to working longer hours and hostility towards the idea of taking joint collective action to defend and improve wages and conditions. The house was a house of cards on which negative equity was writ, but not large enough to counteract the accompanying ideological barrage.

& the Conservatives still talk of a 'property-owning democracy', as if democracy was impossible in a society where people rented. Perhaps they want to restrict the franchise to those who own their homes?

[handsomefortune]

It's not that difficult a concept: if you have something specific in common with other people and you are at a specific disadvantage in society - you work in an unsafe factory for poor wages while the factory owner / s make profits, you have some disability which means you need state benefits to subsist etc. - you are more likely (though the likelihood is, admittedly, reducing year after year) to get your voice heard, to put pressure on those who have a vested interest in not paying you a living wage, in not making safety improvements which will reduce profits; who want to cut benefits and privatise services so they can generate profit for people like themselves and for themselves, if you assemble together to take collective action of one kind or another. It's not like it's some vague theoretical notion - the history of Trades Unions provides plenty of examples of the advantages of acting as a group rather than as scattered individuals. As do the histories of various Civil Rights movements.

Perhaps being a fascinating individual with a fascinatingly individual life history is in practice in society as it has generally been constituted the preserve of nice, reasonable and amiable people who are quite content to make the most of their perfectly OK lives as they are and just wish other people wouldn't make a fuss (and if they do make a fuss suddenly stop being so nice and amiable and centrist and moderate and demand the police turn up armed to the teeth with teargas, rubber bullets and water cannon).

some might think themselves 'fascinating', but try telling supposed 'individuals' that they're actually part of an interdependent human race though eh! let alone that far from 'fascinating', they're tediously predictable socially, as a rule of thumb.

or, try mentioning that 'charity' a4e appears increasingly dubious for that matter....spends govt tax exceedingly unwisely....in fact on themsel(f)ves. scottycelt posted that peter day, of r4 'in business' would say this.... because he's supposedly 'an old man' .....yev gorra laff tbh.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...de?INTCMP=SRCH (the comments in response cheered me no end)

even with an expensive brand new make over, (allegedly courtesy of max clifford, and lady diana's lawyer), even the heavily spun story of 'the jubilee steward kidnap and en-slavery epidemic' keeps resurfacing, with all the buoyancy of a cork, in a filthy canal.

rule britannia, britannia rules the waves, ...then the next couple of lines become veritable codswallop if the queen doesn't intervene surely?

a 'property-owning democracy'.....maybe this chap needs to see a prison psychiatrist?

http://politicalscrapbook.net/2012/06/tory-councillor-force-seriously-ill-people-out-to-push-up-house-prices/

'vote with your heart' we're told ....if that doesn't work, try donating another vital organ to your party of choice ....labour, or con! if true, the councillor's alleged 'memo' is not that far off mr swift's tales of prejudice, greed and eating a baby as a 'delicacy'? you can't get much more 'individual' or 'consumerist' really.

personally, it makes my thoughts return (once again) to the precise distinction between a homicidal sociopath and a supposedly modern 'individualist careerist' approach? obviously, the bankers illustrated the distinct similarities - typically at our expense! rationally, we should heed the warning signs, and ideally those who cross certain boundaries may need to curb their careerism via a stay at her majesty's prison. if it was up to me, i'd definitely lock up 'tomorrow's people' today....why wait? (and all of those like them). i sincerely hope john prescott reveals typical tactics, including cunning media spin, in suddenly adopting bizarre expressions like 'muster point'; and people claiming to employ 'hundreds of staff' - when clearly nothing of the sort is actually true! neither does 'operations manager' fit the chaotic 'training' scenario that the brave but jobless 'security stewards' described at the jubilee celebrations. to cap it all, properly trained and qualified staff have been displaced, for fear that they'll whistle blow, which leaves 'trainees' at the mercy of some very seedy 'individualists'. though they are mere pawns of the current coalition, and it's their offshore bank accounts that brim with uk tax. i wonder could things be more unfair, or more annoying for decent citizens, in particular, since dickensian times?