Next Tory leader

[Tetchytyke]

Are people subjected to the reduction in benefit (not tax ) actively looking for smaller properties, as and when they come available, in your experience?

I don't think there is a simple answer. Sometimes yes, sometimes no, sometimes it depends. The bedroom tax/deduction usually kicks in at a time of change- partner moves out, kids move out, that sort of thing. Sometimes it's bereavement, or kids being taken into care. On top of that, there really isn't the housing stock to move to.

Also remember that council housing isn't the same as private rental. It's not decorated, it's not furnished, they normally don't even come with carpets. If you've spent real money on carpets and wallpaper, do you want to leave it behind with nothing to show for it?

Are there not more restrictions on housing benefit in terms of it will only pay for a property deemed to suit your needs

Yes. Local housing allowance (housing benefit for private tenants) has similar restrictions, and is also linked to the prices at the bottom of the market.

But in terms of pounds and pence, LHA costs more. Where I work, the LHA for a 2-bed is £104/week, and that's based on lower rents, i.e. flats. The council will charge £80-£90/week for a 3-bed house. The council rent goes back into the sysyem. The LHA goes to the buy to let landlord, paying their mortgage, giving them profit. It costs more.

It'd be much cheaper of social housing was less of an artificially scarce resource.

 

[Busaholic]

There's a common misconception that Rees-Mogg is a throwback to the 18th century, largely because of the way he dresses and the antediluvian views he often expresses, not forgetting the studiedly polite way in which he engages in debate, but I would argue that this is mainly a carapace disguising his intense ambitions to become Tory leader and with it (he hopes) Prime Minister. The views are probably genuine, and there may be others that he keeps to himself or to close confidants, but the rest... Even the pinstripe suit is as worn by arch Tory anti-EU MP of a previous generation Bill Cash, and might almost be seen as necessary garb as with Freemasons, not forgetting his Times editor father William who was similarly adorned. He might get his butler to scan all the social media, and perhaps even to type his own entries, but don't doubt that he'll be doing this. Every opportunity is taken to be interviewed, quoted or debated with, all to the one end, his own political advancement. The politesse also gets a bit strained when he's challenged on anything; observe his face, and particularly his eyes.

 

[AlterEgo]

There is an unfortunate lack of civic participation on all levels in this country, and i can't see it getting any better.

Lots of reasons for that, but chief among them is that nobody really understands what Britain is for anymore. It is an amorphous place.

 

[Cowley]

There's a common misconception that Rees-Mogg is a throwback to the 18th century, largely because of the way he dresses and the antediluvian views he often expresses, not forgetting the studiedly polite way in which he engages in debate, but I would argue that this is mainly a carapace disguising his intense ambitions to become Tory leader and with it (he hopes) Prime Minister. The views are probably genuine, and there may be others that he keeps to himself or to close confidants, but the rest... Even the pinstripe suit is as worn by arch Tory anti-EU MP of a previous generation Bill Cash, and might almost be seen as necessary garb as with Freemasons, not forgetting his Times editor father William who was similarly adorned. He might get his butler to scan all the social media, and perhaps even to type his own entries, but don't doubt that he'll be doing this. Every opportunity is taken to be interviewed, quoted or debated with, all to the one end, his own political advancement. The politesse also gets a bit strained when he's challenged on anything; observe his face, and particularly his eyes.

Interesting (and nothing to do with housing policy either ).

 

[Busaholic]

Interesting (and nothing to do with housing policy either ).

Ah, housing policy. I talked myself out of the possibility of quite a good job in the housing sector in the mid 1970s when I criticised Peter Shore, then a government minister, for saying that 'homelessness is over' when patently it wasn't, even though Labour made very significant moves to improve the lot of many private tenants from 1974 and still encouraged the building of social housing. I despaired at the attitude of successive governments that seemingly weren't interested in the housing shortage and how to solve it, meaning that we now never shall. Just look at the deadbeats given the job of Housing Minister - I'm only amazed that Grayling hasn't been handed it yet.

News tonight that Anna Soubry seems to be on the verge of quitting the Tory party if the Rees-Mogg Tendency is allowed to dictate policy.

My prediction - General Election called within next six months.

 

[SilentGrade]

News tonight that Anna Soubry seems to be on the verge of quitting the Tory party if the Rees-Mogg Tendency is allowed to dictate policy.

One can hope that the actual threat of moderates leaving the party will wake up the leadership to how the Conservative party has become completely reactionary, rather than conservative in any way.

In reality it will make no difference unless she can convince others to join her.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

But that would defeat the point - because it was never intended to be a humane way of helping allocate council properties fairly. It was intended to financially punish the poor. As many recent Tory policies have been designed to do.

Can't we debate without needlessly assuming bad intentions by the 'other side'?

I don't like the present Government, and I think it's clear that the 'bedroom tax', although well-intentioned, has been designed without any understanding of the situation of many of families effected by it, resulting in appalling hardship. But do you really think Conservative politicians go around saying 'hey, those people are poor. Let's punish them' - which seems to be implied by your post? Is it so hard to accept that people from other parties are usually well-meaning, but have different understandings of what is likely to be good for most people.

Is it? Is it really?
The housing market in this country is a mess. But nobody will fix it because a) people will be in severe negative equity if they do and b) every bozo with a buy to let mortgage thinks he's some sort of property impresario. Upset the bozos and the gullible and you'll lose a sackload of votes.

And another case of needlessly looking for bad intentions.

If we can leave out the conspiracy theories, more realistically, the housing market is a mess because (a) Too many politicians thought incorrectly that leaving it to market forces would lead to enough houses being built, and with hindsight that hasn't been the case for a long time, (b) Getting enough houses built is a huge problem involving finding/training enough people to build them, finding land that you can build them on that will support all the necessary associated infrastructure in a sustainable way, and actually building that infrastructure. (c) Most times any proposal to build lots of new houses in an area comes up, all the existing residents of that area tend to rise up and demand that their community be preserved and that these environment-destroying new houses get built somewhere else. (d) a mistaken (but genuinely believed by many people) ideology that said that public investment is always less efficient than private lead to Governments putting many legal restrictions on council house building.

No need to assume that there is some kind of conspiracy not to build houses because politicians think it'll lose them votes. (Although I will give you that there may have been some rather dubious political aims behind the original restrictions on council house building in the 1980s).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Can't we debate without needlessly assuming bad intentions by the 'other side'?

I don't like the present Government, and I think it's clear that the 'bedroom tax', although well-intentioned, has been designed without any understanding of the situation of many of families effected by it, resulting in appalling hardship. But do you really think Conservative politicians go around saying 'hey, those people are poor. Let's punish them' - which seems to be implied by your post? Is it so hard to accept that people from other parties are usually well-meaning, but have different understandings of what is likely to be good for most people.

Yes, this. I don't think the Tories seek to punish the poor, they just have a theory about what is good for people that doesn't work for those people.

The trouble with this polarisation is that we don't discuss policies on their merits properly.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

Can't we debate without needlessly assuming bad intentions by the 'other side'?

I don't like the present Government, and I think it's clear that the 'bedroom tax', although well-intentioned, has been designed without any understanding of the situation of many of families effected by it, resulting in appalling hardship. But do you really think Conservative politicians go around saying 'hey, those people are poor. Let's punish them' - which seems to be implied by your post? Is it so hard to accept that people from other parties are usually well-meaning, but have different understandings of what is likely to be good for most people.



And another case of needlessly looking for bad intentions.

If we can leave out the conspiracy theories, more realistically, the housing market is a mess because (a) Too many politicians thought incorrectly that leaving it to market forces would lead to enough houses being built, and with hindsight that hasn't been the case for a long time, (b) Getting enough houses built is a huge problem involving finding/training enough people to build them, finding land that you can build them on that will support all the necessary associated infrastructure in a sustainable way, and actually building that infrastructure (c) Any time any proposal to build houses in an area comes up, all the existing residents of that area tend to rise up and demand that their community be preserved and that these environment-destroying new houses get somewhere else. (d) a mistaken (but genuinely believed by many people) ideology that said that public investment is always less efficient than private lead to Governments putting many legal restrictions on council house building.

No need to assume that there is some kind of conspiracy not to build houses because politicians think it'll lose them votes. (Although I will give you that there may have been some rather dubious political aims behind the original restrictions on council house building in the 1980s).

I am kind of with you there in regards to the meanings. Some of the worst things that have happened in this world were done with the good and well-meaning intentions. Unfortunately though I think a lot of people like to judge some ideas on their intentions rather than their actually results, which can be a serious issue. Not sure if it's always been the case, but I certainly see it in today's world.

 

[fowler9]

I'm not sure that the politicians involved are actually, I am sure they aren't. They along with the electorate have difficult choices to make though. For everyone to succeed someone has to make do with a bit less than they expected. Many of the "Have's" don't want to do this because by their own genius (fate in other words) their house value has increased far more than inflation or wage rises. Sorry but I'm not having it. If that is the best way to run the country we may as well replace Conservative and Labour with Paddy Power and William Hill.

 

[Tetchytyke]

No need to assume that there is some kind of conspiracy not to build houses because politicians think it'll lose them votes.

Who said anything about conspiracy?

The property market is massively overheated, especially in the south east, bearing no resemblance to the wages generally earned. Taking steps to cool the market will damage people who own a house: they'll be in negative equity, they won't be able to move on, they'll find their "buy to let portfolio" dangerously unaffordable. People who own a house tend to be older and wealthier, making them more likely to vote. Those priced out of the south east tend to be younger and poorer, making them less likely to vote. The big building companies, who donate to the Tories, make more money with inflated property prices.

They'd be silly if it didn't enter their minds, look at how Help to Buy (votes) came about.

Whether we build social or private housing doesn't really matter. Increased supply will reduce prices, and too many key stakeholders don't really want that.

I don't think the Tories seek to punish the poor, they just have a theory about what is good for people that doesn't work for those people.

Working in the sector that I do, I genuinely believe the behaviour of this Government cannot be explained in any other way as seeking to punish the poor. The changes to welfare benefit rules can only be explained by either psychopathic indifference or active malice. There is simply no other explanation.

Some welfare reform, e.g. Universal Credit, may come from genuine good intentions. UC should work for a lot of people in unstable employment. As originally designed, I thought it a good idea, if cumbersome to put into practice. It does wonders for people in short-term work, who are otherwise constantly coming on and off benefits, with all the problems that creates.

But with the massive hidden cuts to entitlement, the sanctions schemes, the unlawful decision to exclude people with mental health problems from PIP, these can only be explained through either psychopathic indifference or malice. Given they were driven by Gideon Osborne, my opinion does not soften.

PIP is a great example. The policy intention behind the change from DLA to PIP was to deliberately exclude people from the new benefit, in order to save money. That was in Hansard as the policy intention. If that isn't a deliberate intention to withdraw support from the poorest and most vulnerable people in society, I really don't know what is.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The property market is massively overheated, especially in the south east, bearing no resemblance to the wages generally earned. Taking steps to cool the market will damage people who own a house: they'll be in negative equity, they won't be able to move on, they'll find their "buy to let portfolio" dangerously unaffordable.

That depends how you do it. The best way, with the least bad effects, is in my book to cause the market to stagnate, with no growth in prices for a sustained period, maybe 20-30 years. That would give a correction without anyone actually losing anything, while inflation would correct the prices back down in real terms. (Realistically that means an aim for a price growth in the fractions of a percent above zero, as as with inflation itself zero is hard to achieve and even a small negative could cause problems).

The best way to achieve this is a sustained and continuous programme of housebuilding[1] rather than any "heavy" moves like the unrealistically high interest rates in the 1980s, set for political rather than economic reasons, which caused the crash.

This might have bad sides - for example, I don't think it could be achieved without abandoning the idea of a green belt, particularly in London.

[1] Of the kinds of house that are in highest demand - so lots of 1-2 bedroom flats and "two up, two down plus bathroom" 2 bedroom terraces, and not the more profitable but less in demand 4 bedroom detached homes developers like.

 

[Butts]

I'm not sure that the politicians involved are actually, I am sure they aren't. They along with the electorate have difficult choices to make though. For everyone to succeed someone has to make do with a bit less than they expected. Many of the "Have's" don't want to do this because by their own genius (fate in other words) their house value has increased far more than inflation or wage rises. Sorry but I'm not having it. If that is the best way to run the country we may as well replace Conservative and Labour with Paddy Power and William Hill.

Summed up succinctly....problem is no one wants to including most people in the middle who are neither poor nor rich - despite professing solidarity their largesse does not extend to their wallets.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Summed up succinctly....problem is no one wants to including most people in the middle who are neither poor nor rich - despite professing solidarity their largesse does not extend to their wallets.

It also doesn't help that those at the top encourage those in the middle to blame down rather than up.

 

[Butts]

It also doesn't help that those at the top encourage those in the middle to blame down rather than up.

Are you suggesting those in the middle are incapable of thinking for themselves ? Or perhaps they would rather look the other way to assuage their consciences.

 

[AlterEgo]

Are you suggesting those in the middle are incapable of thinking for themselves ? Or perhaps they would rather look the other way to assuage their consciences.

Imagine if someone suggested those at the bottom are incapable of thinking for themselves.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Are you suggesting those in the middle are incapable of thinking for themselves ? Or perhaps they would rather look the other way to assuage their consciences.

Of course not... but those in power always try to tip the balance in their favour. Since the populace at large became enlightened it's no longer viable to say "we're/I'm in charge because God wills it" so they instead use fear (be it of terrorism, or immigrants, or the old favourite the "Reds under the Bed") to persuade people into voting to maintain the status-quo.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Imagine if someone suggested those at the bottom are incapable of thinking for themselves.

I suggest you both look up the word "encourage". We're all influenced to an extent, by friends/the media/almost anything. It doesn't make us idiots.

 

[birchesgreen]

Propaganda works. Plenty of examples of that in world history.

 

[fowler9]

A lot of the most popular press in the country encourages the people in the middle to blame the people at the bottom. Oddly enough it seems to work. Perhaps not that oddly as people can be selfish swines.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Can't we debate without needlessly assuming bad intentions by the 'other side'?

I don't like the present Government, and I think it's clear that the 'bedroom tax', although well-intentioned, has been designed without any understanding of the situation of many of families effected by it, resulting in appalling hardship. But do you really think Conservative politicians go around saying 'hey, those people are poor. Let's punish them' - which seems to be implied by your post? Is it so hard to accept that people from other parties are usually well-meaning, but have different understandings of what is likely to be good for most people.

So we have the options of either they are all so incompetent that they cannot see what is exactly in front of them, or that they are "evil" (for lack of a better word) and are trying to punish people who they don't like. Doesn't really inspire confidence either way does it?

My opinion is that I don't see how you can introduce some of the policies they have and not be aware of the consequences. And if you are aware of the consequences and still push ahead with some of them - then that does make you responsible and does then give the right for people to question what the true intentions were.

As I said the bedroom tax is a great example - anyone who has any slight idea about social housing in this country knows there are not enough smaller properties, so the idea that financially punishing people would lead to them downsizing is utterly ludicrous because there are not the places to downsize to. So either the Tories knew this and went ahead with it anyway, knowing that it would put a large number of people in huge financial and personal difficulty, or they were so incompetent that they didn't even think to question if there were the properties available for people to downsize to.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As I said the bedroom tax is a great example - anyone who has any slight idea about social housing in this country knows there are not enough smaller properties, so the idea that financially punishing people would lead to them downsizing is utterly ludicrous because there are not the places to downsize to. So either the Tories knew this and went ahead with it anyway, knowing that it would put a large number of people in huge financial and personal difficulty, or they were so incompetent that they didn't even think to question if there were the properties available for people to downsize to.

I'd put it in that middle ground of just being inconsiderate towards such people. It's a step down from deliberately being evil and wishing ill on them.

 

[WelshBluebird]

I'd put it in that middle ground of just being inconsiderate towards such people. It's a step down from deliberately being evil and wishing ill on them.

But surely if you follow a policy that you know will put people in huge financial and personal difficulties, then by the very definition you are deliberately wishing ill on them?

 

[Bletchleyite]

But surely if you follow a policy that you know will put people in huge financial and personal difficulties, then by the very definition you are deliberately wishing ill on them?

No, I see it as more of a continuum between:-

Best: introduce a policy not disadvantaging group X
Middle (but still bad): introduce a policy that disadvantages group X but with good intentions to deliver outcome Y
Worst: introduce a policy with the intention of disadvantaging X deliberately, with any benefit being a useful side effect

An example of this could be:
Best: driving safely (but maybe being a bit late to where you're going)
Middle (but still bad): driving badly in order to get where you are going quickly, but causing an accident resulting in death by dangerous driving
Worst: driving a car into someone and killing them deliberately (murder)

FWIW, my view is that with some tweaks the "tax" is a good policy. But those tweaks are essential - primarily that the "tax" should not apply where the tenant has placed a request for a move, regardless of how long that move might take, and secondarily that there is not a requirement to move substantially out of area to find a suitable property. I rather suspect their omission was just incompetence or a lack of forethought.

 

[AlterEgo]

I suggest you both look up the word "encourage". We're all influenced to an extent, by friends/the media/almost anything. It doesn't make us idiots.

It depends to what extent you are influenced and the willingness you have to fact-check and consider alternative points of view.

There are a lot of idiots about. And also a lot of people who aren’t idiots.

 

[47802]

If we end up with a hard core Brexiteer such as Rees Mogg leading the tory party then I think it will be a bleak choice facing this country between that and Corbyn especially for someone like myself in the centre, both of those options would be a disaster for this country in my view. As in America they didn't have a great choice between Clinton and Trump, you could argue the choice between May and Corbyn isn't great, but between Rees Mogg and Corbyn would almost certainly hand power to Corbyn, similarly Boris, at one time I didn't dislike Johnson but he seems to become more and more hard core Brexit by the week, and while many Politicians may be ambitious I think he has been swallowed by his own ambition.

 

[AlterEgo]

If we end up with a hard core Brexiteer such as Rees Mogg leading the tory party then I think it will be a bleak choice facing this country between that and Corbyn especially for someone like myself in the centre, both of those options would be a disaster for this country in my view. As in America they didn't have a great choice between Clinton and Trump, you could argue the choice between May and Corbyn isn't great, but between Rees Mogg and Corbyn would almost certainly hand power to Corbyn, similarly Boris, at one time I didn't dislike Johnson but he seems to become more and more hard core Brexit by the week, and while many Politicians may be ambitious I think he has been swallowed by his own ambition.

I wouldn’t vote for either of them.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I wouldn’t vote for either of them.

I'd go for Corbyn out of the two (though accept it's rather a Hobson's choice), but personally would rather see a genuine European style centre-left (but only just left of centre) social democrat party for the future.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

I'd go for Corbyn out of the two (though accept it's rather a Hobson's choice), but personally would rather see a genuine European style centre-left (but only just left of centre) social democrat party for the future.

What was your take on Labour's manifesto in 2017? I think it was kind of close to Social Democracy from what I remember (though my memory isn't the best), and they seemed like the kind of promises you'd hear be made in Sweden. Unfortunately I am do not entirely expect to see that kind of style a second time, since the Corbynistas cheered at him doing better than expected, even despite the fact Labour still lost the election. Nobody sees Jeremy Corbyn as un-electable anymore though, instead they seem him as a formidable opponent.

Much as I'm not that fond of him, he's certainly good at holding his own, especially against Jeremy Paxman. He won in that round against Theresa May without any doubt in my opinion. But if he did well this time around, I worry that maybe they'll get complacent and think "Hey, he moved a bit to the left last time and nearly won, so let's for full-blown Marxist Socialism and get ourselves the keys to Downing Street". I hope that is just me being cynical and pessimistic, but I wouldn't be surprsied since human stupidity can reach levels beyond what we can imagine sometimes.

 

[fowler9]

What was your take on Labour's manifesto in 2017? I think it was kind of close to Social Democracy from what I remember (though my memory isn't the best), and they seemed like the kind of promises you'd hear be made in Sweden. Unfortunately I am do not entirely expect to see that kind of style a second time, since the Corbynistas cheered at him doing better than expected, even despite the fact Labour still lost the election. Nobody sees Jeremy Corbyn as un-electable anymore though, instead they seem him as a formidable opponent.

Much as I'm not that fond of him, he's certainly good at holding his own, especially against Jeremy Paxman. He won in that round against Theresa May without any doubt in my opinion. But if he did well this time around, I worry that maybe they'll get complacent and think "Hey, he moved a bit to the left last time and nearly won, so let's for full-blown Marxist Socialism and get ourselves the keys to Downing Street". I hope that is just me being cynical and pessimistic, but I wouldn't be surprsied since human stupidity can reach levels beyond what we can imagine sometimes.

I think Corbyn is a full on Lefty, probably more than I am. The labour party under him though are far from the crazed Marxists the right wing press wants everyone to believe they are. As you said there was nothing that crazy in their last manifesto. Germany, France and Italy have proved that you can privatise your railways and energy companies and at the same time have them state run and run that well that well that they are making a profit in the UK that goes back in to their states coffers.