Politics Thread!

[pogo]

Flying just isn’t an alternative for most. E.g. to get to Newcastle airport, the nearest and the biggest one in the region, takes me an hour and a half on a good day. Then there’s the hour check in, security and waiting around. I could be in London in that time alone, never mind the flight time and the time getting from Heathrow into London. Plus services are a lot less frequent than rail. Basically the only time I would consider flying is when I have a connecting flight: it would only make sense if my destination in London was one of the airports (and not always then: if the time between flights is more than a hour or two then it would be quicker to get the train).

It’s not the same for everyone but you are much more likely to live near a train station than an airport, trains are much more frequent, and although flights are quicker the time before and after flights and the time getting into London from a “London airport” more than cancel out the benefit.

The railways are pretty good and popular but that means they are at capacity. I mentioned the new service to Sunderland, Grand Central, but that is very limited, having to slot in between the existing ECML, Cross-Country, Trans-Pennine, local and freight services that all share the same line. I imagine the West Coast line is as busy. Adding a new line would improve capacity by 50%, or more as it should be all high capacity trains, no 2/3-carriage services (used for local and Trans-Pennine services here), no freight.

[Dio]

That's the thing about all public transport though: they have a tendency to be dominated by entrypoint and endpoint timings rather than the actual cost of the journey. That's the reason it struggles so badly to displace the car; the 'single journey' aspect of it so frequently makes it far more time and fuss efficient than the alternatives.

[zip accident]

If "right to buy" is so popular, why not extend it to private tenants?

[tufty]

That's the thing about all public transport though: they have a tendency to be dominated by entrypoint and endpoint timings rather than the actual cost of the journey. That's the reason it struggles so badly to displace the car; the 'single journey' aspect of it so frequently makes it far more time and fuss efficient than the alternatives.

In the case of the railways, there's also the fact that 1/3 of the network was torn up and sold off after Beeching, meaning that most people dont have a "local" station. And although that was originally started under Macmillan's conservatives, Wislon's labour did the worst of it.

Thatcher wanted to close more, much more in fact, but it wasn't considered politically expedient.

[pogo]

That's the thing about all public transport though: they have a tendency to be dominated by entrypoint and endpoint timings rather than the actual cost of the journey. That's the reason it struggles so badly to displace the car; the 'single journey' aspect of it so frequently makes it far more time and fuss efficient than the alternatives.

It’s very different for bus and train though: both of them you just turn up, get on, ride. You may need to spend a minute buying a ticket but if you travel a lot then stored value tickets/season tickets or similar can save that time and some money.

How convenient that is depends on your needs and the services around you. For me the main destination is Newcastle. To get the bus I walk 20 seconds to the bus stop, wait an average of under four minutes in the day for a bus, which takes a straight route into the heart of Newcastle. A car can go by a quicker route without stopping but you spend much more time finding somewhere to park and dealing with congestion in the city.

This would not be true if I lived in a village with only hourly bus services or less to the nearest town. But I’d not live in a village. It’s certainly true that such services are a lot less universal than the first half of last century; not just Beeching but bus services have been scaled back, tram lines ripped up, with the growth of the private car.

But this will change sooner or later; I think we are at the bottom of a commodity price slump, but such tend to be self correcting, especially with commodities like oil which are expensive to discover and extract. Cheap oil makes it hard to pay for and fund new wells, new surveys. So as the current sources start running dry there will be less new supply as the investment hasn’t happened, pushing up prices. Public transport will look suddenly attractive again if oil and petrol bounce back to and beyond their previous highs.

[pogo]

If "right to buy" is so popular, why not extend it to private tenants?

As you have the rights of the landlords to contend with. To force them to sell, at a loss, based on tenant whim, would be disastrous for many. E.g. someone who rents out their own house while they are working overseas. Add to that that landlords are often not easily contactable; they may just be a bank account you set up a standing order to, and do all their business through contractors and agencies.

If it were introduced it would drive many people out of renting altogether. Properties would be left empty or sold rather than chance a forced sale at a much less favourable price. It would mean a few more houses for sale but a lot less for rent. Overall supply would fall and a much smaller rental market would be hard on those who need to rent. Or landlords would do whatever they could to avoid it. If there was a qualifying period then they would not sign tenancies for that long, so everyone would be kicked out after 6 or 12 months and forced to find a new tenancy. Good for no-one except removal companies.

[zip accident]

If "right to buy" is so popular, why not extend it to private tenants?

As you have the rights of the landlords to contend with. To force them to sell, at a loss, based on tenant whim, would be disastrous for many. E.g. someone who rents out their own house while they are working overseas. Add to that that landlords are often not easily contactable; they may just be a bank account you set up a standing order to, and do all their business through contractors and agencies.

If it were introduced it would drive many people out of renting altogether. Properties would be left empty or sold rather than chance a forced sale at a much less favourable price. It would mean a few more houses for sale but a lot less for rent. Overall supply would fall and a much smaller rental market would be hard on those who need to rent. Or landlords would do whatever they could to avoid it. If there was a qualifying period then they would not sign tenancies for that long, so everyone would be kicked out after 6 or 12 months and forced to find a new tenancy. Good for no-one except removal companies.

Most of that applies to council housing too, that didn't stop Thatcher.

[pogo]

Councils are not individuals with rights, they are just another level of government. They are definitely not hard to contact. They are not going to sell the house privately or leave it empty. I’m not saying Right to Buy was a good policy, but there were no practical or fairness (to landlords) issues, it just needed political will to pass the laws and compel councils to participate.

[gumboot]

I thought right to buy was merely to do away with publicly-owned rental property -- so as to turn it into privately-owned rental slums.

If a property is already a privately-owned rental slum, then what is selling it to another slumlord going to do for anyone?

[pogo]

I thought right to buy was merely to do away with publicly-owned rental property -- so as to turn it into privately-owned rental slums.

If a property is already a privately-owned rental slum, then what is selling it to another slumlord going to do for anyone?

I don’t know. Probably if you dug around you could find out the reasons for it, with the 30 year rule. Partly I think the Tories really believed that more people owning homes was a good thing. But they may also have seen it as a way to get at Labour, both by stealing the more aspirational of their voters and sticking it to councils many of which were Labour run.

It was flawed as it did not do enough to encourage new properties to be built to replace ones sold. But that’s a particular bugbear of mine, that housing policy in this country seems to consist of one gimmick after another, not joined up thinking. So we have boom and bust, we have large regional disparities, we have social problems. Right now we have a serious housing shortage due to successive governments failure to address house building. It’s not rocket science: work out how many houses we need and build them.

[(o)(o)]

..landlords are often not easily contactable; they may just be a bank account you set up a standing order to...

Bank accounts can walk and talk now can they?

All rental properties have a landlord - who has to provide contact details on demand Section 47 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987. They have to respond to certain requests by law failure to do so results in penalties and even difficult to contact landlords will respond to such requests. So that's that problem sorted.

RE Corbyn views being "dated" - posting a quote of someone who shares your biases IS NOT EVIDENCE.

Socialism, compassion, public ownership are only "dated" concepts because we've had 35 years of neoliberal leadership in the UK.

There is a modern day demand and only under a Tory government could the public experience similar emotions to a postwar environment. Even those who are reasonably well off likely know someone who is suffering whether it's someone getting worsening medical treatment, traumatised by the welfare system, struggling to pay the bills on depressed wages, an elderly relative with Parkinson's who has nowhere to go because the local support services have been closed down.

It took such experience to wake people up to their empathic qualities and build a welfare state and national health service and public housing... as Jezzie explains :



So what's dated is neoliberalism.. most of the UK is fed up of 35 years of inequality, 35 years of cardboard cutout politicians bending to conform to their masters wishes.. consistency is a BAD thing ?? LOL! The problem with Corbyn is he talks sense, is consistent, argues with reason rather than rhetoric, and people read him as passionate honest and authentic.

This article is better, which speaks of Tories satisfaction of UK politics appearing to swing to the right, and their nervousness of Corbyn because he poses a real threat.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/20 ... y-fear-him

[VNVObit]

As you have the rights of the landlords to contend with. To force them to sell, at a loss, based on tenant whim, would be disastrous for many. E.g. someone who rents out their own house while they are working overseas. Add to that that landlords are often not easily contactable; they may just be a bank account you set up a standing order to, and do all their business through contractors and agencies.

the government could just compensate the landlord for the discount. At least that way they would acknowledge they are giving away taxpayers' money
the deeds are in held by the land registry so the landlord could be contacted and advised they no longer have a property but cash paid into their bank account
after all that's what they're proposing to housing associations

[pogo]

Yes, but imagine if it happened to you. You rent out the family home, perhaps because you are working overseas or even the other end of the country and need the money. And suddenly it is compulsorily purchased from you and you can’t stop it (as the tenant has a right to buy).

You receive a fair price but you still have all the costs and stress of finding and buying a new house, storing your stuff in the interim (if you let it furnished), renting as you look (and you no longer receive rental income). What with all the costs, and our again rising house prices, you won’t be able to afford anything as nice as the house you were turfed out of.

So no, it’s not going to happen to private landlords. An Englishman’s home is his castle and all that. A government messes with that at its peril. Housing associations are regulated and government subsidised organisations, though. Very much subject to whatever laws and policies governments come up with.

[VNVObit]

A government messes with that at its peril. Housing associations are regulated and government subsidised organisations, though. Very much subject to whatever laws and policies governments come up with.

Housing associations are private companies that provide public benefit services. They provide more subsidy for new homes than the state does under current grant rules and wait between 15 to 20 years before they are in a position to recycle that subsidy in new assets. The properties they build are built to a higher space standard than the private sector(for grant compliance). Last time I did the calculation the taxpayer was making over 30% return on its investment so it would seem idiotic to piss that down the drain for ideological reasons (right to buy is ideological as there is no economic benefit associated with it).

railways, telecoms, utility companies are also regulated and subsidised by the taxpayer - by your logic their assets should also be subject to right to buy

[gravy]

Never saw this at the time

http://www.knutsfordguardian.co.uk/news ... s__money_/

Conversely:

During the 2009 expenses scandal, Corbyn was revealed as claiming one of the lowest amount of expenses of any Member of Parliament. In 2010 he claimed the smallest amount of all 650 MPs; in an interview with the Islington Gazette he said: "I am a parsimonious MP...I think we should claim what we need to run our offices and pay our staff but be careful because it's obviously public money...in a year, rent for the (constituency) office in Finsbury Park is about £12,000 to £14,000."[32] He rents his constituency office from the Ethical Property Company.