Government acts on housing shortage

[Odds]

Thatcher started the rot but every government since, including blair's new labour, who I think was as tory as the tories, has carried it on. Starmer is new labour so if he gets in nothing will change, it will probably get much worse.

Despite right to buy being so destructive to public finances that it has been abolished in Scotland and Wales, Labour has announced it will keep Thatcher’s policy if it wins the next general election. This U-turn, backtracking on the party’s previous two manifestos, which promised to suspend sell-offs, has bitterly disappointed many local politicians who are desperate for change.

“Housing is getting worse and worse,” Steve Hilditch from Labour Housing Group tells me. “Council housing should be part of the solution, but because of right to buy and the loss of social homes, it hasn’t been. Social housing is our greatest housing asset, and we’ve been frittering it away.” Leo Pollak, a Labour councillor in Southwark, south London, agrees. “Ask anyone in social housing and they’ll tell you it’s ridiculous,” he says. “Right to buy constantly depletes the country’s social housing stock with each sale. While a perfectly rational choice for the buyer, it makes our housing system even more dysfunctional.”

The real objective behind right to buy is ideological. Like the privatisation of water and rail and 38 other formerly nationalised industries, the 1980s Tory government’s true goal was eroding public ownership. If Thatcher had merely wanted to help Britons buy homes, she could have simply made government grants available to buyers – but instead she created a policy cleverly designed to drain public coffers. Speaking in the House of Commons, her former secretary of state Michael Heseltine made the root agenda of right to buy bluntly clear: “No single piece of legislation has enabled the transfer of so much capital wealth from the state,” he said.

Phineas Harper@the Grunadia

 

[ajohn]

Britons buy homes, she could have simply made government grants available to buyers – but instead she created a policy cleverly designed to drain public coffers. Speaking in the House of Commons, her former secretary of state Michael Heseltine made the root agenda of right to buy bluntly clear: “No single piece of legislation has enabled the transfer of so much capital wealth from the state,” he said.

The Thatcher aspect went by the name of the sell off of short term housing stock. Odd term but I suppose that at some point they would have to be fitted with new roofs FOC with the money coming from the rent take. Rental charges on council houses can relate to votes. A side issue about increasing them. Same with bus fares and some other things.

Most of her policy on sell offs of say utilities were down to making the countries books look better. Debt increases went to the companies that owned them rather than to the gov. The govs total expenditure figures get lowered as well. Similar effect in some areas on councils. Instead of paying taxes to support things the charges get shifted to the various bills we get. The gov then gets a return due to corporation tax plus money gained from the sell off but once taken that it as they have nothing else to sell other than in some cases licencing, say the air waves.

So say a new reservoir is needed. The company borrows the money not them. Say BT needs to extend the areas it works in, same again. Upgrades - same again. Want to run a gas turbine and produce electricity - same effect. The gov often helps by guaranteeing the debt to keep interest rates low. Still our debt though.

 

[JohnD]

Unlike the accounts of a business, which, when it sells off assets below their value, has made itself poorer, the government of the time gave the false impression that the country had cut costs and become richer.

All the time they were selling the nation's assets they gained popularity.

Now our public services are run down and the money is gone.

 

[ajohn]

Now our public services are run down and the money is gone.

And the hidden debt levels have continued to increase. The bulk started at zero . May actually be all. BTs viability against their debt levels questioned. I wonder how many others are in the same situation.

Corbyn was asked about sacking etc workers in publicly owned companies if needed, It's an obvious political problem. Is it better to leave them or pay them support. Tricky but any party in power having to do this enshrined in law would solve that problem. They would then be in the same situation as other workers are. Same rules could apply.

Run them at a loss? Tricky but some countries do just that on certain services. A controlled loss just to avoid making a profit.