Reply to: psst wanna buy a cheap council house?

[Flashman]

Another Thornberry Tweet Lands Her On Front Page*-* Guido Fawkes

Labour's Emily Thornberry caught out again?

Champagne Socialists. Gotta love 'em.


Mail's running with the story now
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...rents-out.html

[TheFaQQer]

So if the government is so keen on people owning their houses, why don't they just give ALL tenants the right to buy at a discount?

Because that would affect Tory-voting landlords rather than housing associations who (I presume) are less likely to support the Conservatives.

[expat]

The Tory plan is to force houses that are privately owned to be sold off to the renter.

A council house is owned by the state, a housing association house is in private hands.

So if the government is so keen on people owning their houses, why don't they just give ALL tenants the right to buy at a discount?

[SpontaneousOrder]

Exactly.

Hmm... i seem to have misread almost every post i've replied to over the last few days. I think. I'm not sure. I might need a holiday.

[d000hg]

Do they? Ours already has a lodger in it, I hope they'll be friends.

[MarillionFan]

Help to Buy
ZIRP
Free council houses
Bungs to large property developers

That pretty much sums up Tory policy

Labour wants you to put a dole scrounger in your spare bedroom. You're lucky though, as it's a bedsit you won't be caught.

[DodgyAgent]

I.e. in order to continue serving it's original purpose, council housing needs to be continuously replenished.

Exactly.

[d000hg]

What makes you think Lab would vote against a Tory Queens speech if that scenario was to unfold ?

Surely if they could - if Lab+SNP is a majority of seats - they would automatically, rather than concede? I rather took it as a given, or is there an element of tradition and sportsmanship about it?

Council houses?

They still support a lot of jobs - architects, builders, tradesmen, etc.

[jamesbrown]

If you believe what they have said so far...

SNP won't go into coalition with the Conservatives or with Labour. The SNP won't prop up a minority Conservative government in a confidence and supply deal, but they would prop up a Labour one under certain conditions.

The Lib Dems won't go into a coalition with UKIP. UKIP won't go into a coalition with Lib Dems, even if they wanted to.

None of the recent polls give any way for a two party coalition involving the Lib Dems. For a two party coalition the only viable options (according to the polls) are Lab-SNP or Con-SNP and all three of those parties have ruled that out.

Personally, I think it's going to be a confidence and supply deal with Lab-SNP - I don't think the Lib Dems will rush into coalition again, because they need to try and convince people that they have their own identity still.

And unless the Conservatives are the biggest party after the election, Cameron is done.

There's a big difference between confidence and supply and a vote-by-vote arrangement. The former requires a set programme and agreement upfront across a range of issues. This is highly unlikely in almost all of the above scenarios. The latter is, well, vote-by-vote, beginning with all the left-wing parties voting against any Tory-led Queen's Speech. While I don't believe Lab/SNP have completely ruled out confidence and supply, it's highly unlikely given their differences on a range of critical issues. Any agreement is likely to be vote-by-vote, allowing the SNP to vote against Trident etc. (not that it will help them, because Labour would have Tory support). In addition, I believe I heard the Lib Dems ruling out any relationship with SNP (I could be wrong), so a Lib/Lab/SNP arrangement isn't going to happen. Otherwise, the same caveats apply. Read my lips. No ifs, no buts. etc. etc. On Cameron, he needs more than the largest number of seats. He needs an agreement that can give him a majority, because all the left-wing parties will vote against a Queen's Speech led by Cameron.

[SpontaneousOrder]

So keeping houses in public ownership will somehow magic them away?

I would assume (maybe wrongly) that DP is suggesting that as council houses are meant for the most needy and less economically mobile. Considering that people tend to start off less economically mobile and become more mobile over time - the vast majority of the top 20% started life off in the bottom 20% - then allowing people to purchase their council houses on the cheap transfers that resource away from the most needy & least economically mobile demographic, and into the hands of people less vulnerable.

I.e. in order to continue serving it's original purpose, council housing needs to be continuously replenished.

[DodgyAgent]

400,000 immigrants arriving every year, and that's just the ones that are on official lists?

So keeping houses in public ownership will somehow magic them away?

[SpontaneousOrder]

Plus, all this house-building is great for the economy.

Council houses?

[TestMangler]

informal Lab/SNP with Tories the biggest party seems most likely - certainly SNP will vote with Labour to bring down a Tory Queen's Speech at the very least. It seems the Tories will be the biggest party but will struggle to find enough friends to get what they need which, in my view, stinks.

What makes you think Lab would vote against a Tory Queens speech if that scenario was to unfold ?

[SueEllen]

They don't need a house each though. Plus, all this house-building is great for the economy.

Households are getting smaller due to demographic changes i.e. more old people.

So there is a need for more small properties with home office space.

[minestrone]

400,000 immigrants arriving every year, and that's just the ones that are on official lists?

They don't hand out a set of keys as soon as they jump off the truck at dover.