that and a few other similar policies will see Britain have it's first Wallace & Gromit PM.

the rent subsidy bill is entirely unsustainable and the idea that taxpayers (including everyone who spends- GST) subsidise the creation of private landlords portfolios is ludicrous.

Oddly one form of Socialism you never hear a squeak about.

Sadly the result of one of Maggie's badly thought out policies.

hedda wrote:
that and a few other similar policies will see Britain have it's first Wallace & Gromit PM.

the rent subsidy bill is entirely unsustainable and the idea that taxpayers (including everyone who spends- GST) subsidise the creation of private landlords portfolios is ludicrous.

Oddly one form of Socialism you never hear a squeak about.

Sadly the result of one of Maggie's badly thought out policies.

Yes. Why are we paying money to landlords when we could use it (£245 a week according to the tv show "how to get a council house") to build council houses, flats, prefabs or caravans and have an income from it, or at the very least, not lose money each week paying housing benefit?

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
Yes. Why are we paying money to landlords when we could use it (£245 a week according to the tv show "how to get a council house") to build council houses, flats, prefabs or caravans and have an income from it, or at the very least, not lose money each week paying housing benefit?

Because the government is NOT a building contractor !

It is NOT in the business of building homes, or running shops and factories.

How soon before a "nationalised" building firm would be running at a loss and relying on continual handouts (like British Coal / British Leyland and every other firm a government has ever run)

In The Know wrote:
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
Yes. Why are we paying money to landlords when we could use it (£245 a week according to the tv show "how to get a council house") to build council houses, flats, prefabs or caravans and have an income from it, or at the very least, not lose money each week paying housing benefit?

Because the government is NOT a building contractor !

It is NOT in the business of building homes, or running shops and factories.

How soon before a "nationalised" building firm would be running at a loss and relying on continual handouts (like British Coal / British Leyland and every other firm a government has ever run)

Its got to be better than paying huge amounts for people to live it up in Mayfair!
Why am I paying for someone else to live in a better house and in a better area than mine? And paying for ever more at that!

ITK's wacky pronouncements again ignoring the roads, railways, bridges, tunnels, opera houses, dams, airfields, schools, universities, submarines ....oh you name it, that governments have been building since time immemorial.

hope he copes under Comrade Miliband

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:

Why am I paying for someone else to live in a better house and in a better area than mine? And paying for ever more at that!

You shouldn't be, honey !

Which is why the government are shipping them all out to Birmingham !

hedda wrote:
ITK's wacky pronouncements again ignoring the roads, railways, bridges, tunnels, opera houses, dams, airfields, schools, universities, submarines ....oh you name it, that governments have been building since time immemorial.

ALL national infastructure, hedda !

NOT for the s(d)ole use of the idle brigade !

In The Know wrote:
hedda wrote:
ITK's wacky pronouncements again ignoring the roads, railways, bridges, tunnels, opera houses, dams, airfields, schools, universities, submarines ....oh you name it, that governments have been building since time immemorial.

ALL national infastructure, hedda !

NOT for the s(d)ole use of the idle brigade !

But the idle "sort" (I am sure most are decent) will be encouraged to get a job if the housing is basic rather than palatial.
There is no incentive if everything is provided for them, and they cant very well take a job if they will have to find more than a weeks wages on rent.

Australia ( Canada, USA) were founded by the British government financing commercial exploration ventures.

You are simply stating your ideological belief that no government has ever followed even if they claimed to believe it.

There is no logical reason why governments should not build and finance commercial enterprises...Royal Mail is an example except sold off by Tory twats at rock bottom prices ( Noo Labour did likewise)

Government is all powerful..combine that with money to create and build business it can perform miracles.

We shall see if Citizen Miliband follows my decree- his policy of building 200,000 council homes will boost industry incredibly and silence the real estate agent/ Tory / small 'buy to let' wankers.

hedda wrote:
There is no logical reason why governments should not build and finance commercial enterprises...

EXCEPT that every single one has lost money !