Maggie was right

[Tarquin Farquhar]

I will add that this so called "care" (paying people to not work) does the people themselves no good whatsoever. The only people it serves are guilt ridden liberals who make themselves feel better by supporting this false notion of "care" (manifested by voting for labour) and those who work in and administer welfare.

We all know at least someone who through no fault of their own cannot work (illness/old age) and cannot get the state help that they genuinely need because most of the money is being squandered on the welfare industry.

I do think that that kind of "care" creates dependency. The people who "care" are rewarded not only by having their guilt eliminated, but by taking control over other people's lives.

There are people who need help in some form or another. But mostly they need help to get on with their own lives, not to be turned into long-term career dependants.

(my fear is that Labour wants to help and create dependency, but the Conservatives don't want to help at all).

[threaded]

It is worth commenting if 70% of the population have been made property owners not for the freedom that gives them but for the freedom that it takes away.

Exactly.

It is also the reason for student loans.

Make people dependant and they become willing slaves.

Arise workers! You have nothing to lose but your chains, and your good credit record.

[DodgyAgent]

No, I don't.

No, I don't. Except insofar as I do not hold with the implications of this phrase "right to strike", which implies to me that people have to get permission for what they do. They don't, there is no power on earth that has the right to give permission. To forbid, when necessary and justified, OK, but that is not really the other side of the same coin.

Nothing. What is disputable is the right or wrong of creating a large property-owning class not for the property-owning but for the politics and psychology that goes with it, or is thought to go with it. It is worth commenting if 70% of the population have been made property owners not for the freedom that gives them but for the freedom that it takes away.

No. I'm not sure that's two different classes anyway.

Creating a property owning class is entirely politically desirable. Along with ownership goes responsibility, whether that be in the form of simply maintaining the property or owning something that you might lose if you behave irresponsibly.

[AtW]

Creating a property owning class is entirely politically desirable. Along with ownership goes responsibility, whether that be in the form of simply maintaining the property or owning something that you might lose if you behave irresponsibly.

So the Labour did good thing with house price boom that got this country into huge debt that now costs savers and renters?

[Mich the Tester]

So the Labour did good thing with house price boom that got this country into huge debt that now costs savers and renters?

People chose to take on large debts for themselves. At the same time the Labour government took on large debts. The first is a matter of individual responsibility. The second is bad government.

[AtW]

People chose to take on large debts for themselves. At the same time the Labour government took on large debts. The first is a matter of individual responsibility. The second is bad government.

I think these 2 things are linked.

Nobody owns a house until mortgage was paid off - prudent (not Brown style) finances is what makes people responsible, it does not matter if they rent or "own" a house.

[Mich the Tester]

I think these 2 things are linked.

Of course they are linked, in that the government should set a good example in managing public finances. Labour have dramatically failed to do so.

[DodgyAgent]

I think these 2 things are linked.

Nobody owns a house until mortgage was paid off - prudent (not Brown style) finances is what makes people responsible, it does not matter if they rent or "own" a house.

If you want to see an example of responsibility go and look at a rented property and then go and look at a property that is "owned". I think you will find that people who rent do not bother with the upkeep of the house whereas those who own it do.

Presumably you are following your own doctrine by building your business organically and not going cap in hand to the banks to borrow money to build it.

[AtW]

I think you will find that people who rent do not bother with the upkeep of the house whereas those who own it do.

Well I do - otherwise landlord would sue me and get lots more money!

External upkeep is a matter for landlord though. And this is where common fail is - despite "owning" this house many landlords don't like putting money into them, meaning tulipy stuff on all levels. Now I don't say all of them do it, however plenty do.

Owning a house does not make one responsible, just like graduating from University does not guarantee job.

Presumably you are following your own doctrine by building your business organically and not going cap in hand to the banks to borrow money to build it.

Yes, that's correct - I grown my business organically until the time was right to get investment from long term understanding shareholder, who isn't a bank or VC. It's capitalism innint? Seems like I know about it better than you

[Tarquin Farquhar]

Creating a property owning class is entirely politically desirable. Along with ownership goes responsibility, whether that be in the form of simply maintaining the property or owning something that you might lose if you behave irresponsibly.

That is a political statement. I might well agree, but I am drawing attention to what is involved in it - and it isn't the "freedom" that owning your home supposedly confers.

If you want to see an example of responsibility go and look at a rented property and then go and look at a property that is "owned". I think you will find that people who rent do not bother with the upkeep of the house whereas those who own it do.

It is not as simple as that. Tenants do "not bother with the upkeep" of their house for the same reason as homeowners do not bother with the upkeep of other homeowners' houses: it is not their responsibility. It is the owner's responsibility.

I rented for a year recently after moving back to the UK and before buying a house. The outward effect was exactly as you describe, but the cause was not my fecklessness as a tenant. The cause was the owner's disinclination to perform maintenance and repair on his property, regardless of whether he was obliged to, or would lose by its deterioration if he didn't. I did some of his repairs for him, but I was not about to do them all.

Incidentally, why not also look at countries like Germany or Switzerland, where renting is common? The housing stock there does not seem to me to be dilapadated.

And there is nothing wrong with the word fekless, grr.