Corbyn sceptics, what do you think of him now (part II)?

[ks.234]

Interesting, that whenever the possibility of a fairer society is mentioned, how many people find it a short and easy leap of the imagination to see nothing but Stalinist starvation, shortage and civil strife of all sorts coming out of government, but find it impossible to envisage any way that people who earn eye watering amounts of money from this country should be made to pay their fair share towards it.

 

[ks.234]

The top say 5/10% of income earners are both smart enough and wealthy enough to circumnavigate any legislative change.

Thinking that any politician can either outsmart them or persuade them into believing that they are worth, less than they have, is hopeful at least.

There is always someone prepared to offer a 'safer financial' haven for the wealthy, Isle of Man,Jersey or Ireland for examples on our doorstep.

So to assume that voting JC in will transform society by getting the rich to fund it is a slightly flawed argument in my opinion.

It's not the case that these very high earners are smarter than anyone else. It's just that their vested interest is so very well represented in government, the legislature and the tax system. Their advantage is not their intelligence, it's their numbers in the key positions in government.

Amber Rudd has seen several businesses she controls go bankrupt owing millions, yet she still has millions hidden away in tax havens. No great smarts needed there, just being a keyplayer in a system set up to advantage vested interest in taking money from those less advantaged and keeping it nicely hidden away.

The very rich have this numerical advantage not because of any innate superiority, but because the electorate have voted for the vested interest of this tiny minority of greed, and against the interest of the vast majority of ordinary people, for the last 40 years or more.

If you vote Tory you are voting for the continued vested interests of a fabulously wealthy few and against the needs of the many. If you're genuinely interested in a fairer society, you can't vote Tory.

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

IIRC the stats show that the main factor that determines if someone will get into the class of 'owning' over a hundred million pounds/dollars is that they started off inheriting or being given a million.

In our economic systems having investable 'wealth' allows you to make more by making use of the work of others. Thus you can then accumulate wealth by the same process that takes wealth that others generate away from them. Owning property you rent to people too poor to buy is a classic example. These days also becoming a mechanism by which rich landlords get Government-provided benefits out of our taxes. In effect, housing benefits get paid to the *landlord* not the tenant!

Given random processes and distributions, some will be higher up the scale than others, simply due to randomised circumstances, etc. The above divergence effect then comes into play.

The rich like to kid themselves (and us!) otherwise, of course, and can own the newspapers that tell us so.

 

[jackbarron]

Thousands of pictures of sheds have been found on Jeremy Corbyn's computer, unlike like sacked porn Minister Damien Green, according to: http://newsthump.com/2017/12/21/thousands-of-pictures-of-sheds-found-on-jeremy-corbyns-computer/

"Corbyn today stands accused of surfing the Internet for pictures of ‘extreme’ garden accessories on his work computer.

"Sites like Shedhub, Shedhamster and ShedCams were regularly accessed from Corbyn’s office, leading to allegations that he had been engaging in some one-handed gardening at work.

"Corbyn, whose Westminster account is supposed to be private, claimed he knew nothing of the online activity and when asked who might be using his internet account to look for pictures of garden sheds and jam-making equipment replied that it could have been ‘absolutely anybody’."

Jack

 

[Seeker_UK]

 

[dweezil]

IIRC the stats show that the main factor that determines if someone will get into the class of 'owning' over a hundred million pounds/dollars is that they started off inheriting or being given a million.

In our economic systems having investable 'wealth' allows you to make more by making use of the work of others. Thus you can then accumulate wealth by the same process that takes wealth that others generate away from them. Owning property you rent to people too poor to buy is a classic example. These days also becoming a mechanism by which rich landlords get Government-provided benefits out of our taxes. In effect, housing benefits get paid to the *landlord* not the tenant!

Given random processes and distributions, some will be higher up the scale than others, simply due to randomised circumstances, etc. The above divergence effect then comes into play.

The rich like to kid themselves (and us!) otherwise, of course, and can own the newspapers that tell us so.

So what's your magic way of solving the housing crisis?

We've got a shortage of builders and a delegation on the way to persuade 1500 to nick off to NZ.

You won't get a rich builder out of bed for much under £1000 a week these days.

Legislation is already cutting the number of people becoming Landlords.

Income distribution has improved significantly over the last decade giving us a median for the top fifth of about £65k which may sound a lot to us wouldn't go far if you had a mortgage in London. That also usually means an employer expecting his pound of flesh.

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

So what's your magic way of solving the housing crisis?

There isn't a "magic" way so far as I know. Only the way that worked in the past.

If you look back to the decades after WW2 the state arranged to build many hundreds of thousands of affordable houses per year. The main mechanisms were allowing - indeed *requiring* - Councils to build them and rent them out. The second was a set of New Town 'Corporations' being enabled to build entire new towns of houses, etc, for both rent and sale. Most of these homes were built to a higher standard than in later decades, and the income went back to the Council / Corps who could use in-house workers to maintain and deal with them.

The results were cheaper to rent or buy, yet still gave most Councils / Corps enough income to payback the build costs and let them build *more* homes. It helped cut out dependence on big builders who could profit gouge or control supply. A mix of in-house and local labour could be used instead, and ground purchased at a price determined by the Council / Corp.

One reason this worked was that we also had a decent trade apprentice system, which again, Goverment helped to organise.

This all changed when Thatcher decided to allow the 'right to buy'. Which in itself was a good idea. The sting was forcing Councils to sell at a loss and then refuse to let them use even the low sum they got to pay for building new social housing. For some odd reason only Council tenants had this 'right to buy'. Somehow private tenants were regarded as a lesser breed who had no such right. No doubt unconnected with how many Tories and their rich mates were large-scale private house builders, renters, etc.
She also messed up the establshed support for apprenticeships, etc, and then Tory Plan B started pushing people into paying to go to Uni to learn 'media studies'. So our supply of trained and reliable skilled workers for the home and building trades got stabbed.

So there isn't a 'magic' way. But there is a real way which we have used in the past, and which other countries have continued to use. The result being that they don't all share our screwed-up housing arrangements which in turn mess up the rest of our economy and society.

Another advantage of the above system is that it enables us to spread out the housing and the jobs. That improves things in many ways. In particular taking the pressure off London and the way that sucks up more resources per person than elsewhere, yet gives many people who work in London a less pleasing place to live and work.

It isn't either 'magic' or 'perfect'. But it is a damn sight better than we've done since Thatcher came to power.

 

[MikeMA]

There isn't a "magic" way so far as I know. Only the way that worked in the past.

If you look back to the decades after WW2 the state arranged to build many hundreds of thousands of affordable houses per year. The main mechanisms were allowing - indeed *requiring* - Councils to build them and rent them out. The second was a set of New Town 'Corporations' being enabled to build entire new towns of houses, etc, for both rent and sale. Most of these homes were built to a higher standard than in later decades, and the income went back to the Council / Corps who could use in-house workers to maintain and deal with them.

The results were cheaper to rent or buy, yet still gave most Councils / Corps enough income to payback the build costs and let them build *more* homes. It helped cut out dependence on big builders who could profit gouge or control supply. A mix of in-house and local labour could be used instead, and ground purchased at a price determined by the Council / Corp.

One reason this worked was that we also had a decent trade apprentice system, which again, Goverment helped to organise.

This all changed when Thatcher decided to allow the 'right to buy'. Which in itself was a good idea. The sting was forcing Councils to sell at a loss and then refuse to let them use even the low sum they got to pay for building new social housing. For some odd reason only Council tenants had this 'right to buy'. Somehow private tenants were regarded as a lesser breed who had no such right. No doubt unconnected with how many Tories and their rich mates were large-scale private house builders, renters, etc.
She also messed up the establshed support for apprenticeships, etc, and then Tory Plan B started pushing people into paying to go to Uni to learn 'media studies'. So our supply of trained and reliable skilled workers for the home and building trades got stabbed.

So there isn't a 'magic' way. But there is a real way which we have used in the past, and which other countries have continued to use. The result being that they don't all share our screwed-up housing arrangements which in turn mess up the rest of our economy and society.

Another advantage of the above system is that it enables us to spread out the housing and the jobs. That improves things in many ways. In particular taking the pressure off London and the way that sucks up more resources per person than elsewhere, yet gives many people who work in London a less pleasing place to live and work.

It isn't either 'magic' or 'perfect'. But it is a damn sight better than we've done since Thatcher came to power.

Indeed, and interestingly, it took place mostly under a One Nation Conservative government lead by Harold Macmillan (Eaton, Oxford, Grendier Guards, wounded three times at the Somme) and the number of houses built has never been equalled by any government since. Macmillan was a proper Edwardian toff and all round good egg.

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

My feeling about Macmillan is that he was a product of his era in the sense that he and the other Tories of the time had been though the period from about WW1 though the depressions and through WW2. Many of them had served in the forces or had other experiences that meant they had to face people from other backgrounds in a situation where we really *were* all 'in it together', etc.

So although they weren't happy with some changes like the NHS, the felt things *did* have to change after WW2. Particularly given the failure to deliver "homes fit for heroes' after WW1.

Sadly, by the time of Thatcher, they'd largely been pushed aside by others who'd not been through the above. A quite different sort of Conservative.

 

[ks.234]

Indeed, and interestingly, it took place mostly under a One Nation Conservative government lead by Harold Macmillan (Eaton, Oxford, Grendier Guards, wounded three times at the Somme) and the number of houses built has never been equalled by any government since. Macmillan was a proper Edwardian toff and all round good egg.

Council Housing was a 'mostly' conservative idea?

 

[Seeker_UK]

Council Housing was a 'mostly' conservative idea?

Although the City of London Corporation and Liverpool Corporation were the first to build housing, these were local plans, a national programme was a Liberal idea.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Addison,_1st_Viscount_Addison

 

[gassor]

Anyone got an impression of what Labour's position is on a second referendum? Seems to me there is a case for another ref once the details of Brexit have been negotiated, this would enable Corbyn to show some leadership credentials.

 

[MikeMA]

Council Housing was a 'mostly' conservative idea?

To be honest I don't know who's idea it was. The previous poster suggests it was a Liberal idea and he may well be right. However, you don't live in ideas, and it was the Conservatives under Macmillan who got them built at a rate not seen before or since. The same goes for private sector housing. It would be good to see a new Labour government achieve something similar, as well as keeping us in the EU!

 

[ks.234]

To be honest I don't know who's idea it was. The previous poster suggests it was a Liberal idea and he may well be right. However, you don't live in ideas, and it was the Conservatives under Macmillan who got them built at a rate not seen before or since. The same goes for private sector housing. It would be good to see a new Labour government achieve something similar, as well as keeping us in the EU!

Yes I think it was a Liberal idea. However, I believe you're right that SuperMac gets credit for getting closest to the housing targets. It was Churchill who first charged Macmillian with housing in 1951 so perhaps he should get credit too? One thing I've read is that Macmillian put investment and infrastructure into brick making, something that Labour and the Liberals failed to do and consequently failed to reach their house building targets. I doubt such Keynesian pump priming would go down very well in today's post-Thatcher political climate.

Shame that such good work on social provision has been so comprehensibly undone by political ideology since 1979.

 

[Dave H.]

Wikipedia seems to think that 1.2 million houses were built under the Labour post-war government, and that council house provision well into the 1950s was shaped by two acts passed by that government in 19476 and 1947.

Which would make a large proportion of council housing a Labour idea, wouldn't it?

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

TBH I don't personally care very much whose 'idea' Council housing was. I suspect a few *Councils* came up with it as an idea that spread, initially. And then national politicians may have caught on later.

It seems more relevant to me that the idea grew out of experience of an era. In particular the sequence of events:

1) WW1 and troops being promised 'homes fit for heros' when they came home having won the war.

2) Said troops who survived coming home and found that they were dumped. Promise broken, and given a depression instead to cope with.

3) WW2 troops again and a country where the wealthy needed the poor to fight for them again. Same promises made. But this time the poor were fly to being kidded. And some of the weathly had their eyes opened by having to fight alongside the poor.

4) Bombing of UK towns and cities, making many homeless, etc. Leaving areas where new housing was required.

This led to a state of mind that reached Liberals, Tories, and Labour to form a consensus that things had to change for the better. Hence the NHS, 1944 Education Act, and housing policies. IIUC the forces also held meetings where the people discussed what the 'war aims' would be *after* the war. It also led to a civil service that had the mindset that things *would* be done, rather than arse-covering delays and obfuscations were the rule.

IIUC the rate of housbuilding peaked under Macmillan, and the Tories made housebuilding their top priority in their manifesto. But Labour and Liberals also had similar policies. Largely a consensus except for details.

Sadly, not to last beyond a few decades...

 

[eternumviti]

There certainly seem to have been three phases of council house building. The first was in the 1930s - our Essex village is very typical in this respect, four roads leading into/out of the village each have a row of solid, brick built council houses, all of them of a pretty much identical design, stolid, ugly, grey and thoroughly functional. Most, but not all, are now privately owned, and their uniformity has been interrupted by variously designed PVC windows and B&Q doors. Most of them were originally built to replace delapitated farm workers' cottages. Towns often have something similar, though they seem to be more ubiquitous in the countryside. The second and third phases came in the 1950s and '60s with the building of often vast council estates on the edges of and behind market towns, and within the concept of the New Towns Act, which was designed to relieve the squalid, overpopulated and bombed inner cities. As with all utopian schemes, the latter certainly did not come without social cost. It was paralleled within the cities and larger towns with the clearing of Victorian workers' terraces and tenements and their replacement by construction of the always controversial council tower blocks.

 

[dweezil]

Very interesting to get some historical perspective, i'd have thought even the minimal income from "right to buy" should have been ring fenced.

It turned out to be a great deal for a few, I remember a couple of families who clubbed together to get funds together for Gran's house.

What might be seen as a no brainer in retrospect looked slightly different then. We'd been in a position where many rural houses were left to dilapidate or even bulldozed.

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

FWIW My mother bought what had been our Council flat some years after I moved out and my Dad had died. For a tenant that could afford it, provided it was in a decent condition, etc, it was a reasonable decision for them to make. They would not generally have realised they were 'kicking the ladder away' for their kids, etc.

The Tories and their newspapers allowed people to assume Councils would be able to afford to replace the sold-off homes. But in reality had/have made sure they simply wouldn't have the money. They can then blame the *Councils* for any failures, whilst washing their hands.

The problem wasn't 'right to buy' per se. It was the way the Tories used it to destroy the ability of Councils to provide social housing. For them, the main point was - IIRC, Shirley Porter said - "Council house tenants vote Labour". And, of course the money their private builder and renter mates could make once affordable social homes became hard to find... who duly paid money to the Tory party and various of its politicians, etc. Money-go-round.

Instead of letting themselves seem opposed to "Right to buy" the Labour party should have said:

1) Ok, we'll extend it to private tenants *on the same basis as for Councils* in terms of discounted prices being set and as a 'right'. Rules that are felt 'fair' for one should be 'fair' for the other. Its a 'right' innit?

2) But the discounted prices must all be going to the original owner who can then use it to build or buy replacements. Given the ability of Councils to plan, CPO, and use in-house labour that might well as worked fairly well given sensible rules for the pricing, etc.

If nothing else, it would have helped remove the 'political cover' the Tories threw over their scheme for removing social housing as an effective resource in the UK, making money and gaining votes along the way.

 

[MikeMA]

Very interesting to get some historical perspective, i'd have thought even the minimal income from "right to buy" should have been ring fenced......

Michael Heseltine, to his credit, was a reluctant convert to "right to buy" when he was SofS at the then DoE. He pushed to have the sales proceeds, or at least a good proportion, ring fenced for new social housing. That policy was implemented (though I've no idea how much actually got spent on new housing) but fell by the wayside when Heseltine moved on to DTI.