what’s next then?

[Dork Lard]

Are you on the verge of saying such a thing is wrong?

You're a Marxist revolutionary JohnDski, there's no talking to you.

 

[Dork Lard]

When I got rid of all my BTL housing, each tenant was offered the opportunity to purchase at a market discount. Not as big a discount that would make it an attractive proposition to buy / flip & return to (subsidised) social housing, but enuff to make it an attractive deal for those who really wanted to buy but were stuck in the rent trap. You can count on one finger how many took up the offer.

Apparently the welfare state doesn't pay for mortgages.

 

[JohnD]

you do talk a lot of nonsense, dork.

I can see why it is difficult for you to approve of forcing owners to sell homes to tenants at large discounts, while disapproving of forcing owners to sell homes to tenants at large discounts.

So you avoid facing up to it.

 

[Dork Lard]

I can see why it is difficult for you to approve of forcing owners to sell homes to tenants at large discounts, while disapproving of forcing owners to sell homes to tenants at large discounts.

That makes absolutely no sense to me at all.

Do I disapprove of forcing private landlords to sell to their tenants at large discounts?

Of course I do you dimwit. How would you go about accomplishing it? Would you be forcing them at gunpoint perhaps?

 

[Dork Lard]

I don't have the answer to the housing crisis, & it IS a crisis. It is a complex problem & therefore it can only be a complex solution.

Personally I think the Marxist revolution solution is a little bit drastic, not least because comrade JohnDski's communist utopia has never succeeded anywhere on earth before.

One thing I would like to see, & versions of this have happened in the past. Your local council will have a plan of what land will be developed for housing over the next 10yrs, it's called the 10yr plan & every council will have one. At this time they are under immense pressure to focus on brownfield development, but greenfield development will always be neccesary. What I would like to see return, is the council purchase that land at it's value without housing planning consent & then to auction that land with housing planning consent in a mixture of single plots (to attract self builders) & multiple plots (to attract developers).

Coupled with a re-introduction of the 'council mortgage' & well policed by an independant body, I think this would be one way to begin to tackle the nightmare we are leaving behind for our children.

 

[ajohn]

Good idea this, it worked so well last time.

It and easier mortgages is full of holes.

There is a characteristic that I have noticed with the Tory. What ever they do always seems to go back to what I will call their basic traits. Brexit appears to be an example so far. It has never ever done us any good long term. Sometimes it's easy to see why they do what they do, Thatcher for instance but they don't solve problems.

Currently in some areas due to price increases they are having a tax bonanza.

Boris - he is going to announce some pleasers as I call them - the housing area is probably one of them. Give details - I very much doubt it. Housing societies have no idea about it. Not talked to them at all.

What happens to cheap properties and increasingly with more expensive stuff - private landlords.

His speech was as expected. One hole - looked we have built all these new houses etc glossing over price increases that he also mentioned.

Answering the questions afterwards didn't go so well. The loss of the 5p per litre is down to the industry not the ever increasing prices was a good one.

 

[Dork Lard]

I met this young girl student the other day who told me she worked with alcoholics, hopeless gambling addicts, homeless dropouts & the mentally unstable.

"How very rewarding" I commented. "What charity is it".

"Oh it's not a charity" she replied, "I'm a barmaid at Weatherspoons, & the worse thing is they provide free WiFi".

 

[JohnD]

Personally I think the Marxist revolution solution

I strange way to describe Thatchers forced giveaway selloff of social housing to gain votes.

 

[Dork Lard]

I strange way to describe Thatchers forced giveaway selloff of social housing to gain votes.

Are you in Weatherspoons again JohnDski???

 

[ajohn]

It is a complex problem & therefore it can only be a complex solution.

Correct. It was easy for Thatcher - she got rid of maintenance costs and called them short term building stock. A joke, they were generally more solidly built than cheaper private properties. Load of them had been built for some time. She also got shut of the rental charge problems. Increasing them isn't popular which can lead to others sources of income creeping in. I've never seen that as a problem really. It needs to be made clear that this cost can effect rents and no matter who you vote for .......etc. A law.

Thatcher freely admitted that there would be a big increase in private land lords and was heavily criticised. Her response was that self own levels were much lower in other EU countries and many lived in rented for their entire life. Actually prior to the post war build I think many did here too at some income levels. Higher levels of that than you might expect.

Maintenance costs always figure in rental costs. Some levels of landlords don't like that at all and will do their best to avoid it.

Housing associations - when bought they have to build another. Building costs are less than buying one. Even when discounted ? I think I will grab my bootlaces, pull and levitate. Were will the new ones be built - jobs etc. Those on housing benefit can save into a 1st time buyer type thing. Infrastructure will be improved to support new builds etc - sewers too? We already dump too much into rivers. All transport aspects as well. I wonder. More mortgage help. Something to be done about freehold rip offs. That should be interesting. Land is expensive.

One new nuke station per year. Previous govs have had problems finding some one to build them. France decided to do one after Japan pulled out as not enough money in it. More off shore wind. Land based not mentioned

More hospitals or are they diagnosis centres - I have always thought those might be a good idea as I feel money is lost due to more or less guesses. Fixing may cost more than the problems it causes. I spoke to a guy in Wales that was scanned - date sent to Australia for analysis. Whose going to do that work - were are they. That is a general problem in the NHS.

Regulations will be relaxed. We've heard that before. The same problems will still crop up.

Need to loose a lot of civil servants. Can't afford them any more.

Inflation will steady eventually - it always does but that doesn't mean prices will reduce. We can't have pay increases to cover it - a disaster if we do. All the one off helps mentioned again - stuff we have heard before.

The rest of his speech was how wonderful the Tories are. More of that than the rest. The number of things we can buy now compared with the past is incredible. Truly wonderful. Being able to buy them didn't seem to figure.

Boris expected to address the nation again in coming weeks. IE Broadcast live like this one. Several times maybe? Polish up his image.

We should see some change in the behaviour of fuel prices in coming months due to increased production. Total appears to be short of what was produced and for a limited time.

 

[ajohn]

selloff of social housing to gain votes.

No there were a number of changes all loosely related. Generally concerned with reducing state expenditure in all areas even local. It also produced a money pot that helped as did the oil and gas sell off.

Yes though it did gain votes while bending us all over backwards so we could be taken from the rear.

Whoops I forgot privitisation. There are holes in the reasoning behind some of that but it did reduce gov expenditure and was misused in that respect. China style capitalism does show that it can be made to work. A point Corbyn was trying to make - rather badly.

 

[diy_fun_uk]

surely we could enforce the right of private tenants, to buy their homes from BTL landlords, at a substantial discount.

No reason why not, surely.

www.facebook.com/reel/328593382685661

I'm not sure if you suggested this in jest or not. If serious, you'd have been an advocate for the plan floated by Corbyn and McDonnell then? They suggested something similar.

I have a vested interest in this, I own a small number of BTLs. Properties I scrimped and scraped to get the deposits for and that I pay a monthly mortgage for. I bought these properties to own long term and to boost my pension provision.

These properties rented out for circa £420 over a decade ago. They now achieve circa £460, hardly the great increases you read about in so many articles. The value of the properties has increased by circa £10k in the last decade if that, so again hardly a significant increase.

However, even though I scrimped and scraped to buy the properties and invest £££ as and when required (e.g. just had one of them re-tiled at a cost of thousands) you would support a scheme that allows my tenants to buy my properties ... regardless of whether I want to sell them or not? And at a substantial discount?

Don't worry, as you can tell from the figures mentioned above, I'm literally raking it in. If I am forced to sell them, I'll make up the shortfall by selling my Ferrari and my holiday home in France.

 

[JohnD]

you would support a scheme that allows my tenants to buy my properties ... regardless of whether I want to sell them or not? And at a substantial discount?

Don't worry, as you can tell from the figures mentioned above, I'm literally raking it in. If I am forced to sell them, I'll make up the shortfall by selling my Ferrari and my holiday home in France.

I'm glad to hear that you have ample other resources.

However, I am probing the idea that it is, or is not, justifiable to force owners of homes to sell them to their tenants at a substantial discount to their market value.

Do you think it is justifiable?

 

[JohnD]

remind me, who compensated the local councils when they were forced to give away homes they had paid for, and maintained, at ratepayers' expense, for much less than their value, to lucky recipents to buy their votes?

Are you on the verge of saying such a thing is wrong?

strangely, the dork has avoided this question.

 

[diy_fun_uk]

I'm glad to hear that you have ample other resources.

However, I am probing the idea that it is, or is not, justifiable to force owners of homes to sell them to their tenants at a substantial discount to their market value.

Do you think it is justifiable?

Not sure if you're trolling on this or being serious.

Do I think it's justifiable to introduce a scheme whereby private landlords are forced to sell their property/ies to tenants, not only that, but at a discount? Do I need to give you three guesses?!?

You 'do' realise most private landlords do not own more than three properties and do not rake in thousands each week in pure profit? Of course there are exceptions to the rule, however I wouldn't even agree with such a policy for those landlords that have made millions of out property.