Saturday 19th & Sunday 20th September 2015

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Sat 19 Sep, 2015 7:55 am

Morning.

It's only been a week, feels like a lot longer.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Sat 19 Sep, 2015 8:02 am

Just caught a bit of News Watch and it seems the Beeb are hearing unappreciative views of their Corbyn coverage. We shall see whether they take note.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Sat 19 Sep, 2015 8:06 am

It was cheering to read the post last night about the Labour council buying housing to rent out.

''In what is believed to be the first initiative of its type in the country, the east London council of Barking and Dagenham has bought 100% of a private development from construction company Bouygues and will release 144 new homes on to the market for private renters in October.

Anyone who earns less than £66,000 per year is eligible for a one or two bedroom property while the cap for a three- or four-bedroom property has been set at £80,000.''

Maybe it's kneejerking, but those figures of up to £66,000 - £80,000 earnings seem rather high to me.

Surely the point should be to help lower/middle earners ?
Even if a couples incomes are combined to make those sums, they are still good earners.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Sat 19 Sep, 2015 8:15 am

utopiandreams wrote:Just caught a bit of News Watch and it seems the Beeb are hearing unappreciative views of their Corbyn coverage. We shall see whether they take note.

Chances of that, zilch, nada, niente.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 19 Sep, 2015 8:57 am

yahyah wrote:
utopiandreams wrote:Just caught a bit of News Watch and it seems the Beeb are hearing unappreciative views of their Corbyn coverage. We shall see whether they take note.

Chances of that, zilch, nada, niente.

Morning both. I am now not quite so sure that things can't be changed ... The BBC is being told from lots of quarters that it needs to change and they are going to need to recognise some of the criticism that is common to all complainers - whether the general public or various political parties as they come under increasing pressure re structural shake ups and commercial competition etc.

The people power that was manifested by that super fast petition needs to be kept up.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 19 Sep, 2015 8:59 am

Only one-in-ten council homes sold off under Right To Buy is being replaced
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 05273.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Only one-in-ten council homes sold off under the Government’s Right To Buy policy has been replaced by a new one, new figures show.

The shortfall comes despite a promise from the Government that every home sold would get a replacement.

Between April and June 2015 2,779 homes were sold by councils through scheme in England, but only 307 were started or acquired using the money raised.

This amounts to a roughly 11 per cent replacement rate for the quarter. Over the last year to June 12,235 homes were sold and 1,842 started to replace them.

In June sales under Right To Buy hit a seven-year high, with London alone account for over a third of all sales...

It has been more than three years since Right To Buy discounts were increased and the Government pledged to make one-for-one replacements of every home sold.

“A revitalised right to buy will unleash a new generation of home ownership and ensure every home sold is replaced," the communities department claimed in 2011.

“For the first time, every additional home that is sold will be replaced by a new affordable home on a one-for-one basis,” Grant Shapps, then housing minister, promised.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Sat 19 Sep, 2015 9:05 am

Not sure whether to laugh at the Welsh Tory leader or worry about the rather sinister turn that Tory propaganda is now taking.
Dangerous, security risk etc etc.

'The two most dangerous men for Wales' Conservative leader makes scathing attack against Jeremy Corbyn and Carwyn Jones
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales ... n-10086307" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We've had the head of M15 telling us we need more security measures, even suggesting during his interview that if you think M15 tactics cause radicalisation maybe you should be looked at.

Can see where this could go....Corbyn and McDonnell framed as dangers to national security therefore they should be monitored by M15. Damage Labour and ramp up right wing agenda.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Sat 19 Sep, 2015 9:07 am

Just waving to Grim before I go.
Nice to see you popping in.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 19 Sep, 2015 9:12 am

yahyah wrote:Not sure whether to laugh at the Welsh Tory leader or worry about the rather sinister turn that Tory propaganda is now taking.
Dangerous, security risk etc etc.

'The two most dangerous men for Wales' Conservative leader makes scathing attack against Jeremy Corbyn and Carwyn Jones
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales ... n-10086307" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We've had the head of M15 telling us we need more security measures, even suggesting during his interview that if you think M15 tactics cause radicalisation maybe you should be looked at.

Can see where this could go....Corbyn and McDonnell framed as dangers to national security therefore they should be monitored by M15. Damage Labour and ramp up right wing agenda.

I don't think you can laugh at him ... because as you say it's part of the new attack line. But this from Carwyn is interesting:

“There’s only one danger to Wales next May – and that is the prospect of a chaotic coalition run by the Tories and Plaid Cymru.

“The Tories want to slash education spending by a fifth, equivalent to 10,000 teaching posts and they want to hammer local government budgets which will see council taxes soar across Wales.

“The Tories have no credibility with business, arguing against big infrastructure projects and only this week using Assembly time to undermine the idea of targeted grants for important employers in Wales.”

He seems to think - as I do - that Plaid may, despite all they say, do deals with the Tories. I was chatting to a friend - of no particular party persuasion but definitely not Tory the other day - and he reckons Plaid will have a new leader soon - that there is no way Leanne Wood will still be there in 2020 - the old Plaid guard will reassert themselves. Be interesting to see if he is right.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Sat 19 Sep, 2015 9:35 am

yahyah wrote:Not sure whether to laugh at the Welsh Tory leader or worry about the rather sinister turn that Tory propaganda is now taking.
Dangerous, security risk etc etc.

'The two most dangerous men for Wales' Conservative leader makes scathing attack against Jeremy Corbyn and Carwyn Jones
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales ... n-10086307" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We've had the head of M15 telling us we need more security measures, even suggesting during his interview that if you think M15 tactics cause radicalisation maybe you should be looked at.

Can see where this could go....Corbyn and McDonnell framed as dangers to national security therefore they should be monitored by M15. Damage Labour and ramp up right wing agenda.

I would be astonished if our intelligence agencies weren't doing that already.

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Sat 19 Sep, 2015 9:57 am

yahyah wrote:It was cheering to read the post last night about the Labour council buying housing to rent out.

''In what is believed to be the first initiative of its type in the country, the east London council of Barking and Dagenham has bought 100% of a private development from construction company Bouygues and will release 144 new homes on to the market for private renters in October.

Anyone who earns less than £66,000 per year is eligible for a one or two bedroom property while the cap for a three- or four-bedroom property has been set at £80,000.''

Maybe it's kneejerking, but those figures of up to £66,000 - £80,000 earnings seem rather high to me.

Surely the point should be to help lower/middle earners ?
Even if a couples incomes are combined to make those sums, they are still good earners.

They're going to let the flats at 80% of market rent, though, the new level for so-called 'affordable' rents. The article suggested £970 and I'm guessing that's monthly as it didn't say. Shocking if it's weekly! And it might be they'll have a policy that once you and/or your partner (or even your household) earn more than that, you then cease to be eligible and have to move out - because once your tenancy comes up for renewal, it wo'n't be. (If you follow...) 'Round here there are so-called affordable flats that you need have to earn at least £50,000 to go on the waiting list, so up to sound like a better deal, to me.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 19 Sep, 2015 10:03 am

LadyCentauria wrote:
yahyah wrote:It was cheering to read the post last night about the Labour council buying housing to rent out.

''In what is believed to be the first initiative of its type in the country, the east London council of Barking and Dagenham has bought 100% of a private development from construction company Bouygues and will release 144 new homes on to the market for private renters in October.

Anyone who earns less than £66,000 per year is eligible for a one or two bedroom property while the cap for a three- or four-bedroom property has been set at £80,000.''

Maybe it's kneejerking, but those figures of up to £66,000 - £80,000 earnings seem rather high to me.

Surely the point should be to help lower/middle earners ?
Even if a couples incomes are combined to make those sums, they are still good earners.
They're going to let the flats at 80% of market rent, though, the new level for so-called 'affordable' rents. The article suggested £970 and I'm guessing that's monthly as it didn't say. Shocking if it's weekly! And it might be they'll have a policy that once you and/or your partner (or even your household) earn more than that, you then cease to be eligible and have to move out - because once your tenancy comes up for renewal, it wo'n't be. (If you follow...) 'Round here there are so-called affordable flats that you need have to earn at least £50,000 to go on the waiting list, so up to sound like a better deal, to me.

I think there's a couple of comments BTL saying that £970 is about half what they would have to pay in the open private sector in that area ... ouch.

And elsewhere I've seen a very sad post under that article on the appalling non replacement rates under the coalition / Tories Right To Buy ... saying they are a social housing renter who is disabled and being forced to pay the bedroom tax on their 'spare' room. They've been looking in the private sector in their area for alternative accommodation and find that a single room in an ex council flat will cost far more than their current monthly rent for a flat ... and, of course, no proper disabled accessibility or security of tenure.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 19 Sep, 2015 10:07 am

Jeremy Corbyn's frontbench has an entire team of ministers dedicated to housing
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 08251.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 19 Sep, 2015 10:17 am

Osborne is planning for a downturn
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015 ... -downturn/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 19 Sep, 2015 10:26 am

David Hanson ‏@DavidHansonMP 1m1 minute ago
Really pleased to have been asked to open the 10th anniversary #moldfoodfest - here with the mascot fun chef !

Mold Food Fest ... hmmm.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Sat 19 Sep, 2015 10:39 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Osborne is planning for a downturn
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015 ... -downturn/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If Osborne really is expecting a downturn in the near future, his fiscal plans, as outlined in his Autumn statement, are even more irresponsible, given they require private households to take on record amount of debt. High UK household debt at the time of the 2007/8 global crash was one of the reasons the UK economy was hit particularly hard. One thing I hope Labour do is to keep re-emphasising this point. Ed Balls did raise it and it has to be brought up again and again because the Tories have been so successful in establishing debt is "a bad thing" and insisting the government needs a surplus, yet one person's surplus is another person's debt and under Osborne's plans that person is us - not the private business sector that we are usually told will invest if the government gets out of the way, they are still sitting on their cash which is multiplying rapidly as corporation tax rates nose dive.

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Sat 19 Sep, 2015 10:43 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:
LadyCentauria wrote:
yahyah wrote:It was cheering to read the post last night about the Labour council buying housing to rent out.

''In what is believed to be the first initiative of its type in the country, the east London council of Barking and Dagenham has bought 100% of a private development from construction company Bouygues and will release 144 new homes on to the market for private renters in October.

Anyone who earns less than £66,000 per year is eligible for a one or two bedroom property while the cap for a three- or four-bedroom property has been set at £80,000.''

Maybe it's kneejerking, but those figures of up to £66,000 - £80,000 earnings seem rather high to me.

Surely the point should be to help lower/middle earners ?
Even if a couples incomes are combined to make those sums, they are still good earners.
They're going to let the flats at 80% of market rent, though, the new level for so-called 'affordable' rents. The article suggested £970 and I'm guessing that's monthly as it didn't say. Shocking if it's weekly! And it might be they'll have a policy that once you and/or your partner (or even your household) earn more than that, you then cease to be eligible and have to move out - because once your tenancy comes up for renewal, it wo'n't be. (If you follow...) 'Round here there are so-called affordable flats that you need have to earn at least £50,000 to go on the waiting list, so up to sound like a better deal, to me.
I think there's a couple of comments BTL saying that £970 is about half what they would have to pay in the open private sector in that area ... ouch.

And elsewhere I've seen a very sad post under that article on the appalling non replacement rates under the coalition / Tories Right To Buy ... saying they are a social housing renter who is disabled and being forced to pay the bedroom tax on their 'spare' room. They've been looking in the private sector in their area for alternative accommodation and find that a single room in an ex council flat will cost far more than their current monthly rent for a flat ... and, of course, no proper disabled accessibility or security of tenure.

Yep, that's the situation around here, too. The cheapest private one-bedroom flat (ground-floor) I've seen to rent, recently (and it's tiny with no separate kitchen) is double the rent for my two-bedroom, ground-floor, council flat. Single rooms in shared flats/houses, here, are going for more than my weekly rent. It's ludicrous.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Sat 19 Sep, 2015 11:01 am

I'm watching Scottish First Minister Questions and Nicola Studgeon is defending the SNPs decision to neither rule fracking in or rule it out. I feel Labour get unfairly slated for taking a similar cautious approach.

Next up the Tories' draconian union rules, will SNP oppose. No answer, I think, but this, according to Nicola, can be resolved by getting responsibility for union rules devolved. A good example of how a Tory government is much more helpful for Scottish independence ambitions than a Labour one.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sat 19 Sep, 2015 11:06 am

The full front bench team is now out, but has JC announced his PPS yet?

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Sat 19 Sep, 2015 11:36 am

Not a sign off - am not going anywhere!

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sat 19 Sep, 2015 11:50 am

Good-morning, everyone.
Glad to read you, tinyclanger2.
TheGrimSqueaker, hello!
Wonderful friends, greetings.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Sat 19 Sep, 2015 11:50 am

Just noticed this - excellent news. She was a real star on the Edu Select Committee where she was (literally) Graham Stuart's right hand woman.

With Nic Dakin (former teacher and college principal) And Gordon Marsden on the team too, this is looking really good. I was a bit concerned with Kevin Brennan stepping down but the replacements look fine to me.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Sat 19 Sep, 2015 11:59 am

Oh dear, frothing right wingers are getting over-excited about a story by Harry Cole in The Sun that Corbyn gave money to an IRA bomber...except that The Times retracted the story...in 1987 Apparently a member of his staff and not him.

Ah well, so when's the next smear?

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sat 19 Sep, 2015 12:07 pm

yahyah wrote:Morning.

It's only been a week, feels like a lot longer.

I bet poor JC has been thinking that too...

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sat 19 Sep, 2015 12:17 pm

I don't think that much that has happened this week has surprised him, even if the extent of it may have done at times.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sat 19 Sep, 2015 12:21 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
yahyah wrote:
utopiandreams wrote:Just caught a bit of News Watch and it seems the Beeb are hearing unappreciative views of their Corbyn coverage. We shall see whether they take note.

Chances of that, zilch, nada, niente.
Morning both. I am now not quite so sure that things can't be changed ... The BBC is being told from lots of quarters that it needs to change and they are going to need to recognise some of the criticism that is common to all complainers - whether the general public or various political parties as they come under increasing pressure re structural shake ups and commercial competition etc.

The people power that was manifested by that super fast petition needs to be kept up.

This took my mind back to the BBC newscasts and programmes when I was younger.

A serious newscaster would sit at a desk...No distracting red boxes with other news running along the bottom of the screen.
The news was read dispassionately. What had happened, where, and when. No why's. No speculation. No hearsay.

There were always two experts, or two politicians from opposing sides. They would be given equal time to explain their case. The host kept quiet and rarely, if ever interupted.

It's simple enough.

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Sat 19 Sep, 2015 12:21 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Only one-in-ten council homes sold off under Right To Buy is being replaced
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 05273.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Only one-in-ten council homes sold off under the Government’s Right To Buy policy has been replaced by a new one, new figures show.

The shortfall comes despite a promise from the Government that every home sold would get a replacement.

Between April and June 2015 2,779 homes were sold by councils through scheme in England, but only 307 were started or acquired using the money raised.

This amounts to a roughly 11 per cent replacement rate for the quarter. Over the last year to June 12,235 homes were sold and 1,842 started to replace them.

In June sales under Right To Buy hit a seven-year high, with London alone account for over a third of all sales...

It has been more than three years since Right To Buy discounts were increased and the Government pledged to make one-for-one replacements of every home sold.

“A revitalised right to buy will unleash a new generation of home ownership and ensure every home sold is replaced," the communities department claimed in 2011.

“For the first time, every additional home that is sold will be replaced by a new affordable home on a one-for-one basis,” Grant Shapps, then housing minister, promised.

I'm not sure whether or not they've slightly changed their original promise but did you notice this, from the DCLG spokesman?

“Councils are continuing to deliver on their promise to deliver one for one replacements within 3 years and over 3,000 replacement homes have already been delivered across England."

(my bold)
And they keep going on about it being replacement 'affordable' homes which, we know, can mean 80% of market rent, under this Government. I'm not very hopeful that many will be let at 'social rent' levels. And simply by virtue of being newly built even the 'social rent' will be higher than that of the one that was sold.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sat 19 Sep, 2015 12:28 pm

yahyah wrote:Not sure whether to laugh at the Welsh Tory leader or worry about the rather sinister turn that Tory propaganda is now taking.
Dangerous, security risk etc etc.

'The two most dangerous men for Wales' Conservative leader makes scathing attack against Jeremy Corbyn and Carwyn Jones
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales ... n-10086307" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We've had the head of M15 telling us we need more security measures, even suggesting during his interview that if you think M15 tactics cause radicalisation maybe you should be looked at.

Can see where this could go....Corbyn and McDonnell framed as dangers to national security therefore they should be monitored by M15. Damage Labour and ramp up right wing agenda.

It's how they keep the population under control in the US. If things start getting a bit sticky domestically and the natives get restless, they up the terror alert or feature something that involves their military and patriotism...

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sat 19 Sep, 2015 12:31 pm

LadyCentauria wrote:
yahyah wrote:It was cheering to read the post last night about the Labour council buying housing to rent out.

''In what is believed to be the first initiative of its type in the country, the east London council of Barking and Dagenham has bought 100% of a private development from construction company Bouygues and will release 144 new homes on to the market for private renters in October.

Anyone who earns less than £66,000 per year is eligible for a one or two bedroom property while the cap for a three- or four-bedroom property has been set at £80,000.''

Maybe it's kneejerking, but those figures of up to £66,000 - £80,000 earnings seem rather high to me.

Surely the point should be to help lower/middle earners ?
Even if a couples incomes are combined to make those sums, they are still good earners.
They're going to let the flats at 80% of market rent, though, the new level for so-called 'affordable' rents. The article suggested £970 and I'm guessing that's monthly as it didn't say. Shocking if it's weekly! And it might be they'll have a policy that once you and/or your partner (or even your household) earn more than that, you then cease to be eligible and have to move out - because once your tenancy comes up for renewal, it wo'n't be. (If you follow...) 'Round here there are so-called affordable flats that you need have to earn at least £50,000 to go on the waiting list, so up to sound like a better deal, to me.

Didn't I read somewhere that Housing Associations are only allowed to charge rent at 80% below market value. They can't go any lower.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Sat 19 Sep, 2015 12:42 pm

ohsocynical wrote:... This took my mind back to the BBC newscasts and programmes when I was younger.

A serious newscaster would sit at a desk...No distracting red boxes with other news running along the bottom of the screen.
The news was read dispassionately. What had happened, where, and when. No why's. No speculation. No hearsay.

There were always two experts, or two politicians from opposing sides. They would be given equal time to explain their case. The host kept quiet and rarely, if ever interupted...

True, ohso, but if the experts were pols they may have framed or presented their arguments in favourable light, but darn right lying was not the practice of the day. I also recall the Times and Telegraph were more newspaper than partisan sounding board, I guess that also applies to the Guardian.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Sat 19 Sep, 2015 12:55 pm

ohsocynical wrote:... Didn't I read somewhere that Housing Associations are only allowed to charge rent at 80% below market value. They can't go any lower.

I vaguely remember similar, ohso, but could be mistaken since housing policy seems non-existent or chaotic in Toryland. Nothing they do ever helps the growing crisis, only compounds it, yet they repeatedly state how much better they're doing than on the ground; this Tory reality they keep speaking of.

Anyway since then they have or are trying to extend Right-to-Buy to Housing Association properties plus wasn't it something ridiculous like £! per week rent reduction. Not much it would appear but after they have sorted their finances based on likely returns along come bloody Tory Housing Ministers to ride roughshod over their plans.

It's similar to the question I often ask of Dave, are they deliberately provocative or excessively thick. Somehow I suspect the former is not some insubstantial part of this. Whichever it be they are ruining this country more and for more with each passing day. Surely there be some Conservative MPs over and above David Davis who can recognise the harm that they do and bloody well join us in stopping them.

Cameron and Osborne are highly toxic, let alone IDS. Which reminds me isn't Theresa too? None of them apparently gives a damn about anybody else.

Edits: typos!

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Sat 19 Sep, 2015 12:55 pm

ohsocynical wrote:
LadyCentauria wrote:
yahyah wrote:It was cheering to read the post last night about the Labour council buying housing to rent out.

''In what is believed to be the first initiative of its type in the country, the east London council of Barking and Dagenham has bought 100% of a private development from construction company Bouygues and will release 144 new homes on to the market for private renters in October.

Anyone who earns less than £66,000 per year is eligible for a one or two bedroom property while the cap for a three- or four-bedroom property has been set at £80,000.''

Maybe it's kneejerking, but those figures of up to £66,000 - £80,000 earnings seem rather high to me.

Surely the point should be to help lower/middle earners ?
Even if a couples incomes are combined to make those sums, they are still good earners.
They're going to let the flats at 80% of market rent, though, the new level for so-called 'affordable' rents. The article suggested £970 and I'm guessing that's monthly as it didn't say. Shocking if it's weekly! And it might be they'll have a policy that once you and/or your partner (or even your household) earn more than that, you then cease to be eligible and have to move out - because once your tenancy comes up for renewal, it wo'n't be. (If you follow...) 'Round here there are so-called affordable flats that you need have to earn at least £50,000 to go on the waiting list, so up to sound like a better deal, to me.
Didn't I read somewhere that Housing Associations are only allowed to charge rent at 80% below market value. They can't go any lower.

I don't think it's compulsory but I know that quite a few Housing Associations charge higher rents than councils do, for similar dwellings, but not necessarily a lot more. They can't charge lower than local social rent, I'm sure, and I think social rents have been, generally, at around 36% of local market rent for a comparable dwelling, for quite some time, now. I could be wrong about that because my brain's gone woozy. Meds...

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sat 19 Sep, 2015 12:56 pm

Willow904 wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:
Osborne is planning for a downturn
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015 ... -downturn/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
If Osborne really is expecting a downturn in the near future, his fiscal plans, as outlined in his Autumn statement, are even more irresponsible, given they require private households to take on record amount of debt. High UK household debt at the time of the 2007/8 global crash was one of the reasons the UK economy was hit particularly hard. One thing I hope Labour do is to keep re-emphasising this point. Ed Balls did raise it and it has to be brought up again and again because the Tories have been so successful in establishing debt is "a bad thing" and insisting the government needs a surplus, yet one person's surplus is another person's debt and under Osborne's plans that person is us - not the private business sector that we are usually told will invest if the government gets out of the way, they are still sitting on their cash which is multiplying rapidly as corporation tax rates nose dive.

"...insisting the government needs a surplus, yet one person's surplus is another person's debt and under Osborne's plans that person is us..."
Exactly.
Do most people understand this?
It's taken me seven years to get to beginners' economics.
Daily we're told stories about how money works for households and for governments.
We're deliberately misled by government and other influential charlatans.

That being said, large private sector employers of many people in the UK are in trouble.
(SSI http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... n-teesside" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)
People don't have money.
Tories in government six years.
Hiring trolls to lie about who's currently in government won't fool enough people.

Attacking the pay and employment conditions for workers in just about every profession in the UK (teachers, doctors, nurses, fire fighters, law enforcement, barristers, judges, soldiers, prison guards, social workers...) is about as dumb as I'd expect from this Tory front bench.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Sat 19 Sep, 2015 1:04 pm

ohsocynical wrote:
LadyCentauria wrote:
yahyah wrote:It was cheering to read the post last night about the Labour council buying housing to rent out.

''In what is believed to be the first initiative of its type in the country, the east London council of Barking and Dagenham has bought 100% of a private development from construction company Bouygues and will release 144 new homes on to the market for private renters in October.

Anyone who earns less than £66,000 per year is eligible for a one or two bedroom property while the cap for a three- or four-bedroom property has been set at £80,000.''

Maybe it's kneejerking, but those figures of up to £66,000 - £80,000 earnings seem rather high to me.

Surely the point should be to help lower/middle earners ?
Even if a couples incomes are combined to make those sums, they are still good earners.
They're going to let the flats at 80% of market rent, though, the new level for so-called 'affordable' rents. The article suggested £970 and I'm guessing that's monthly as it didn't say. Shocking if it's weekly! And it might be they'll have a policy that once you and/or your partner (or even your household) earn more than that, you then cease to be eligible and have to move out - because once your tenancy comes up for renewal, it wo'n't be. (If you follow...) 'Round here there are so-called affordable flats that you need have to earn at least £50,000 to go on the waiting list, so up to sound like a better deal, to me.
Didn't I read somewhere that Housing Associations are only allowed to charge rent at 80% below market value. They can't go any lower.

In order to qualify as social housing rents must be 80% of going rate or less. Some are as low as 50% though. I wonder if this refers to new built council housing? Something's ringing a bell, but I can't place it.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Sat 19 Sep, 2015 1:36 pm

Peter Jukes ‏@peterjukes 1h1 hour ago
Highly defamatory too - sure a lawyer would ibe interested in story and tweets. Screen grab? @mr_ceebs @tnewtondunn @MrHarryCole

If Corbyn wants to crowd source funds for suing Harry Cole then I'm in for a tenner.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Sat 19 Sep, 2015 1:40 pm

More on social housing:

Social rents are typically half the market rate, whilse ‘affordable’ tariffs are up to 80% of private rent levels – a description that has been called Orwellian. Many housing associations have exploited the category change to set rents at the highest level so that only affluent people can afford to live in homes originally meant for the poor. Changing the housing category when new tenants move into a property means neighbours in identical flats can pay vastly different rents.

http://www.leftfutures.org/2015/04/tori ... ion-bribe/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It seems at one point social housing had to be much lower than 80% of market rates to qualify as such. I don't really understand what this " affordable" rents is and when it first appeared. Anyone know?

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Sat 19 Sep, 2015 1:44 pm

I'm shocked, shocked that a Tory-front charity feels that it doesn't actually need to publish a paper before it simply hands a stiory to the press based on no analysis whatsoever.

Not the first time this has happened either. One of their "background papers" was simply a link to the press story about it!

Since they're supposed to be just dishing out advice to people wanting to open a new school, I feel like asking what the hell it has to do with them anyway.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Sat 19 Sep, 2015 1:52 pm

pic of Tim Farron deleted as it came out absolutely massive.
It was truly horrible.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 19 Sep, 2015 1:59 pm

yahyah wrote: pic of Tim Farron deleted as it came out absolutely massive.
It was truly horrible.

Thank you for protecting us from that.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 19 Sep, 2015 2:16 pm

BT plans to answer 80% of customer calls in UK service centres by next year
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/busin ... 08894.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Well that seems to be one 'efficiency' saving that seems to have had its day. Any efficiency saving made being done mostly on the backs of customers who did most of the work for them by having to explain and explain and explain again to some poor person who had no idea about or any ability to fix anything but the simplest of service issues and problems.

Sorry if that sounds over fervent - we've just had 6 months of our neighbours complaining everyday about BT customer service and the problems they had in contacting anyone who had the faintest understanding of the issues in our very rural setting ... It was only for the last 5 weeks they were allowed to speak to a 'resolutions manager' based in this country. They actually got to speak to the same person more than once and felt like cheering about it.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sat 19 Sep, 2015 2:21 pm

...2012 Government gave social landlords in England the discretion to charge market or near market rents to tenants with an income of £60,000 or more a year.
It was argued that high income families should not be paying social rents (typically half the market rent) when they could afford to pay more.
The scheme is known as ‘pay to stay.'

Respondents to the consultation exercise raised concerns over:
- administration - social landlords do not gather information or monitor tenants’ incomes;
- affordability – affected tenants could face substantial rent increases...

Social landlords mandated to collect tenants' wage data on a regular basis?

As part of the Summer Budget 2015 the Chancellor announced that the discretionary ‘pay to stay’ scheme would be made compulsory (in England) and that new, lower, income thresholds would be introduced.
- These thresholds are expected to be £40,000 in London and £30,000 elsewhere.
- Local authorities will be expected to repay the additional rental income to the Exchequer ‘contributing to deficit reduction’ while housing associations will be able to use the additional income to reinvest in new housing.

The move to a mandatory ‘pay to stay’ scheme will require primary legislation; the Government has said it will consult and set out details, including how income will be calculated for those affected, in due course.
http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ ... ry/SN06804" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

House of Commons
Research Briefing
August 18, 2015

Have Tory government legislated this into being yet?
It probably got passed while media were doing documentaries on Corbyn's shoes.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sat 19 Sep, 2015 2:30 pm

Willow904 wrote:More on social housing:
Social rents are typically half the market rate, whilse ‘affordable’ tariffs are up to 80% of private rent levels – a description that has been called Orwellian. Many housing associations have exploited the category change to set rents at the highest level so that only affluent people can afford to live in homes originally meant for the poor. Changing the housing category when new tenants move into a property means neighbours in identical flats can pay vastly different rents.
http://www.leftfutures.org/2015/04/tori ... ion-bribe/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It seems at one point social housing had to be much lower than 80% of market rates to qualify as such. I don't really understand what this " affordable" rents is and when it first appeared. Anyone know?

Guidance on Rents for Social Housing

At Budget 2013, the Government signalled its intention to set out, in the Spending Round, a rent policy to apply for ten years from 2015/16. This commitment was in recognition of the benefit of long-term certainty to landlords, in helping them to plan for future investment – and so provide more new affordable homes, improve existing affordable homes, and provide good services to their tenants.

The Government also set out its aim that those in social rented housing with high incomes should pay a fairer level of rent. We believe that, where a social tenant household has an annual income of at least £60,000, the landlord should be able to charge them the full market rent, rather than being expected to continue to provide them with a sub-market rent. This would allow landlords to make best use of social housing, and would mean a sub -market rent is provided only to those tenants who clearly need it.

At the Spending Round, the Government then gave certainty to social landlords by confirming that, from 2015-16, rents in the social sector would increase by CPI + 1 percentage point annually, for ten years. The move from RPI to CPI follows the Office for National Statistics' announcement in January 2013 that the formula used to produce the Retail Price Index does not meet international standards. As a result, the Government is looking to move to the Consumer Price Index, where possible, where an inflation-index is currently being used in policy.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... idance.pdf

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Sat 19 Sep, 2015 2:33 pm

UK News ‏@UK__News 4h4 hours ago
More than one third of SNP supporters are more likely to vote Labour under Jeremy Corbyn, ORB polling has found.

If they did, obviously not a given, it would only add just over 1.6% to Labour nationally if my sums are right.

But every little helps, and at this stage of the game, encouraging for Labour in Scotland where the effect would, of course, be better than nationally.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 19 Sep, 2015 2:34 pm

Good last caller on Any Answers.

He smacked down the almost reflex use of the term 'loony' left whenever someone on the left demonstrates a bit of compassion, a bit of social conscience and principle - in this case it was Alison Pearson on Any Questions about Corbyn and all those supporting him.

He's right - it wouldn't be thought acceptable in just about any other context and it is a disgrace.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 19 Sep, 2015 2:36 pm

citizenJA wrote:
...2012 Government gave social landlords in England the discretion to charge market or near market rents to tenants with an income of £60,000 or more a year.
It was argued that high income families should not be paying social rents (typically half the market rent) when they could afford to pay more.
The scheme is known as ‘pay to stay.'

Respondents to the consultation exercise raised concerns over:
- administration - social landlords do not gather information or monitor tenants’ incomes;
- affordability – affected tenants could face substantial rent increases...
Social landlords mandated to collect tenants' wage data on a regular basis?
As part of the Summer Budget 2015 the Chancellor announced that the discretionary ‘pay to stay’ scheme would be made compulsory (in England) and that new, lower, income thresholds would be introduced.
- These thresholds are expected to be £40,000 in London and £30,000 elsewhere.
- Local authorities will be expected to repay the additional rental income to the Exchequer ‘contributing to deficit reduction’ while housing associations will be able to use the additional income to reinvest in new housing.
The move to a mandatory ‘pay to stay’ scheme will require primary legislation; the Government has said it will consult and set out details, including how income will be calculated for those affected, in due course.
http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ ... ry/SN06804" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

House of Commons
Research Briefing
August 18, 2015
Have Tory government legislated this into being yet?
It probably got passed while media were doing documentaries on Corbyn's shoes.

I was cynical enough to think this move was really about enticing these middle earners living in social housing to opt for the Tories new extended Right to Buy ... so they can claim that's a big success and hasten the demise of social housing which they clearly so dearly want.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sat 19 Sep, 2015 2:37 pm

Guideline rent limit for private registered providers 2015 to 2016

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... 15-to-2016

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 19 Sep, 2015 2:39 pm

Jenny Chapman ‏@JennyChapman 2m2 minutes ago
Nobody is defecting to the Lib Dems. Even Labour MPs have their pride.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sat 19 Sep, 2015 2:42 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
BT plans to answer 80% of customer calls in UK service centres by next year
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/busin ... 08894.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Well that seems to be one 'efficiency' saving that seems to have had its day. Any efficiency saving made being done mostly on the backs of customers who did most of the work for them by having to explain and explain and explain again to some poor person who had no idea about or any ability to fix anything but the simplest of service issues and problems.

Sorry if that sounds over fervent - we've just had 6 months of our neighbours complaining everyday about BT customer service and the problems they had in contacting anyone who had the faintest understanding of the issues in our very rural setting ... It was only for the last 5 weeks they were allowed to speak to a 'resolutions manager' based in this country. They actually got to speak to the same person more than once and felt like cheering about it.

I left BT because of their moving their help desk to India. I hated having to ring, because the poor person on the other end of the phone couldn't understand me and I couldn't understand them. I felt guilty if I got impatient. Used to wonder what they thought of Westerners because we must have come across as rude and ignorant...

Virgin's help line is in the Philippines...It's just as bad coping with the accent, plus the phone connection is rubbish; it's crackly echoey, and distant...Thankfully the system rarely fails so I don't need to use the help line, but they keep ringing to see if I want Virgin Mobile. I finally got ratty with them a while back and they seem to have struck me off their list.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Sat 19 Sep, 2015 2:43 pm

It would be a bit of out of the frying pan wouldn't it ?
Still can't blame Farron & Cable for trying to drum up a bit of excitement for their cult following.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Sat 19 Sep, 2015 2:45 pm

ohsocynical wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:
BT plans to answer 80% of customer calls in UK service centres by next year
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/busin ... 08894.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Well that seems to be one 'efficiency' saving that seems to have had its day. Any efficiency saving made being done mostly on the backs of customers who did most of the work for them by having to explain and explain and explain again to some poor person who had no idea about or any ability to fix anything but the simplest of service issues and problems.

Sorry if that sounds over fervent - we've just had 6 months of our neighbours complaining everyday about BT customer service and the problems they had in contacting anyone who had the faintest understanding of the issues in our very rural setting ... It was only for the last 5 weeks they were allowed to speak to a 'resolutions manager' based in this country. They actually got to speak to the same person more than once and felt like cheering about it.
I left BT because of their moving their help desk to India. I hated having to ring, because the poor person on the other end of the phone couldn't understand me and I couldn't understand them. I felt guilty if I got impatient. Used to wonder what they thought of Westerners because we must have come across as rude and ignorant...

Virgin's help line is in the Philippines...It's just as bad coping with the accent, plus the phone connection is rubbish; it's crackly echoey, and distant...Thankfully the system rarely fails so I don't need to use the help line, but they keep ringing to see if I want Virgin Mobile. I finally got ratty with them a while back and they seem to have struck me off their list.

We use John Lewis Broadband, their technical support is based in God's own county, Yorkshire.
Good staff, very affable and no problems with them understanding idiomatic English.