odd that no-one ever wants to challenge the most ludicrous and damaging policy in 100 years that was instigated by a woman who thought she knew best : Maggie's sell-off of public housing with a rule that prevented Councils from replacing that stock.

This social engineering (from a woman who claimed there was "no such thing as society") were obviously choice areas like inner London would be snapped up while outer housing estates would stay the same (although the East End has now become prime property). Many of us predicted it.

Accompanied by her passing off of care for the homeless onto local Councils (ie- your Council Tax)..I know someone that made a fortune housing evicted people in sub standard "hotels".

But even worse now is that £Billions are yearly pumped into private landlord's bank accounts.

No-where in Europe is such bizarre Corporate Welfare (corporate scroungers) tolerated (although it is by ITK etc..socialism for some).

In France & Germany for example every town & city must have a proportion of social housing. Even in Australia when they sell off social housing, often in choice areas as they just did with a huge building by Sydney Harbour- they must by law re-invest that money into more social housing.

As Denis Healy said : the current " Conservatives" (they aren't conservative) are like a bunch of real estate agents and bookie's runners.

Only "odd" in your mad little world, hedda !

Why should a proportion of the population have their housing (and everything else) paid for by the rest of us?

We need to encourage people to be self-reliant ... not knocking kids out and then expecting everyone else to pay for them.

Socialism is a slippery slope to the bottom (as every single former Communist bloc country can testify - and can't wait to get away from as fast as possible).

Only in the mad little world of Loony La-La Land could people be punished for being successful (and for paying for everything else !)

In The Know wrote:
Only "odd" in your mad little world, hedda !

Why should a proportion of the population have their housing (and everything else) paid for by the rest of us?

We need to encourage people to be self-reliant ... not knocking kids out and then expecting everyone else to pay for them.

Socialism is a slippery slope to the bottom (as every single former Communist bloc country can testify - and can't wait to get away from as fast as possible).

Only in the mad little world of Loony La-La Land could people be punished for being successful (and for paying for everything else !)

People PAY for council houses. WE should be getting a steady income from them, instead of US paying landlords.

In The Know wrote:
Only "odd" in your mad little world, hedda !

Why should a proportion of the population have their housing (and everything else) paid for by the rest of us?

We need to encourage people to be self-reliant ... not knocking kids out and then expecting everyone else to pay for them.

Socialism is a slippery slope to the bottom (as every single former Communist bloc country can testify - and can't wait to get away from as fast as possible).

Only in the mad little world of Loony La-La Land could people be punished for being successful (and for paying for everything else !)

Order order !!!
In the past you have said (I'm like an elephant with memory) that policies like this help "get people on the property ladder" and other such nonsense.

As a Billionaire from the "right"- Warren Buffet and from the "left" George Soros complain..we have "free market " lunacy.

Unless Capitalism is strictly controlled ie: strict corporate laws that allow Capitalism to constantly re-generate..it spins out of control, and risks complete collapse. As in the Great Depression of the 20s.

A good example are the banks in Australia which operate under the strictest laws in existence..the result..no Aussie bank has ever gone bust and the Big Five banks make multi-Billion$ profits every year. Contrast that with the UK & USA where Blair/Cameron/Bush Jnr (not so much) and Trump are slashing laws governing banks and the stock exchange...it will all end in tears.


## Lecture ends here. Another 3 hours of this stuff can be enjoyed by taking Hedda to a 5 star Michelin restaurant (of Hedda's Choice) and purchasing a lovely Champagne supper (no Moët & Chandon..Louis Roederer Cristal will do) the next time I grace London with my presence.

### If unavailable for lunch ( you..not me..I'm always up for a good lunch) simply send a cheque for at least £200 and I'll think of you for a minute when I'm at the Groucho Club.

Up The Workers !
Eat The Rich!
All Hail the Revolution !

In The Know wrote:
Socialism is a slippery slope to the bottom (as every single former Communist bloc country can testify


Even Slovenia, the Check Republic and Slovakia?

In The Know wrote:
Only "odd" in your mad little world, hedda !

Why should a proportion of the population have their housing (and everything else) paid for by the rest of us?

We need to encourage people to be self-reliant ... not knocking kids out and then expecting everyone else to pay for them.

Socialism is a slippery slope to the bottom (as every single former Communist bloc country can testify - and can't wait to get away from as fast as possible).

Only in the mad little world of Loony La-La Land could people be punished for being successful (and for paying for everything else !)

ITK history agrees with the general approach you have outlined.
Communism / Socialism did in fact give many a security for housing, food, jobs, health care that many now miss. Of interest is Cuba with all it's faults and lacks, also allowing for the US harshness (vindictive policies rather than demonstrating they the US are better with a giving attitude showed themselves no better) appears to be one of the better countries in the region overall for it's citizens.
BUT imposing dictatorial social policies and knocking off any slight hint of opposition lacks in better life for it's citizens overall for the countries concerned. We are not all equal thus those who study hard and work hard should be allowed to succeed.

May I suggest that to have policies of social concern is essential (not socialism) similar to the ideal family where parents and family members contribute and help each other including severe words where needed, also assisting in providing opportunities, would be a far better model to put up as a standard to analyze and visualize for the making of future ideal policies. Labour is loony I have to agree and the conservatives have no heart or understanding. Just a bunch of selfish snobs in general. I despise them both, I am sorry to have to admit. Although some individuals almost get my interest.

So now with the collapse of communism - the market economies and survival of the fittest are the only way at present dominating the world's direction. Third ways seem to turn out worse and are just a cloak to hide the "no heart" group within the loonies. Labour's handling of Ken Livingstone's comments re Hitler's short term support for Zionism in that their aims were assisting his own goals, to me is evidence pointing to a loony side rather than sound judgment. They also promoted a lady who had / has a dubious bias record to a senior position. (Can't remember exact details nor name but she got a mention on this blog). But to me it was a clear contradiction in their attitudes and actions. I am very disappointed with labour who are suppose to have heart for individuals. They have a deputy leader who did not address the false allegations and injustices but fueled the flames of the corruption in the justice system.

Now to housing, the poor those on benefits etc

If today each family and those also living alone were offered reasonable paying jobs, an opportunity to buy their home, assistance, advice and future support when life's unavoidable events make it difficult would they take the opportunity. My observation is when people can get good advice, support and can get into their own own home paying monthly themselves they feel good about it and take the the opportunity. So I suggest the real problems are as follows lack of opportunity (homes to buy that can be afforded) Secure employment and with reasonable hours and pay. Continued education that covers all of life's issues such as the dangers of alcohol, drugs and family planning. How to establish workable relationships. How to budget. Education that is re enforced with social services (all agencies really) etc providing on going help and courses so where a young person for whatever reason does not get the message from school days gets the message later through public announcements, prison training programs and so on. A lot of this is gradually happening so really needs understanding and expanding.

Employment opportunities really should move to 11 jobs for every 10 available working people, then employers will have to be nicer and people can do second jobs, yonger people and older people can add to their income by some additional part time work. Thus shortfalls in income can be made up.

Nanny state - Yes it should be as we elect individuals to represent us and and our issues. But like in that ideal family nanny state does not mean free handouts but provision of support and opportunities which yes does in some areas include that free handout just as happens in an ideal family. But in the ideal family the members discover their own self worth by been encouraged to be responsible family members. And yes even in the ideal family it happens they get the scumbag who the family may just accept and give them minimal family support not for their sake but for the family's sake. When that scumbag is so intolerable then they may even assist the law to imprison them because it is right and they have done everything they could.

So at this point in time without the proper systems in place, lack of jobs the elected members of government have a duty to house and support those not in a position to do so themselves. And improve the opportunities.

The question of money both in the idea of collapse and paying for others is NOT the issue. Money needs to regarded as a vehicle. The country can house everyone and feed everyone. It is physically possible that is the issue and clearly it is not a major problem in any way whatsoever physically to acheive. We already have the resources and skills to provide for the gaps. Yes money supply and allocation is a real issue because those with power to contribute to improve and change system failing like money creation, collection, distribution and debt cancellation are too locked up in their power, positions, ignorance, narrow thinking (Often no thinking at all). A collapse actually could prove positive to the less fortunate. I personally have survived more due to the 2007 crash than any opportunities as they no longer for older people exist.

Just as brief as i could have tried to throw out some ideas in alternative thinking. Because right now people do need income, jobs and support for those kids they should not be having. That is right now. Later (as history also shows) proper policies in place and then the number of larger families not planned for will reduce. I think there may even numbers showing that those more comfortably off are better at family planning.

hedda wrote:
Bedtime reading for ITK

Monday, May 21, 2018
by
Common Dreams
The Coming Collapse

It is impossible for any doomed population to grasp how fragile the decayed financial, social and political system is on the eve of implosion.
by
Chris Hedges

www.commondreams.org/views/2018/05/21/co...source=socialnetwork

They've been saying this since I was a child.

And I'm only 44.

What about those multinationals that happily take things paid for by tax - police, fire, roads etc, yet refuse to pay tax in the UK?

What about those multi nationals ITK that quite happily take socialised handouts from the government because they have badly handled capitalism, those you are paying for appalling management of those said companies in the tune of billions of pounds of taxpayers money?

PS I'm self employed, I'm self reliant.

hedda wrote:
Up The Workers !

... but they are NOT workers, are they, hedda .... therein lies the problem !!

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
People PAY for council houses. WE should be getting a steady income from them.

They are subsidised !

Have you any idea of the real rent on a three bed property is?

If they are paying a proper rent, then moving out and renting on the open market would not be a problem, would it?

Anyway ... most of those in council houses are on the dole and getting Housing benefit (so WE are still paying them to live in a FREE house).

In The Know wrote:
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
People PAY for council houses. WE should be getting a steady income from them.

They are subsidised !

Have you any idea of the real rent on a three bed property is?

If they are paying a proper rent, then moving out and renting on the open market would not be a problem, would it?

Anyway ... most of those in council houses are on the dole and getting Housing benefit (so WE are still paying them to live in a FREE house).

Thatch sold off the council houses, well below their worth in the 1980s and refused those councils to build new ones.

Many of those houses now are in the hands of private landlords who charge the earth for very little, skewing the "open market" prices.

Once again, big business (in the hands of landlords) benefiting from the socialist ideal of giving everyone a roof over their head at the very least.

In The Know wrote:
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
People PAY for council houses. WE should be getting a steady income from them.

They are subsidised !

Have you any idea of the real rent on a three bed property is?

If they are paying a proper rent, then moving out and renting on the open market would not be a problem, would it?

Anyway ... most of those in council houses are on the dole and getting Housing benefit (so WE are still paying them to live in a FREE house).

"They are subsidised"

Once we have made back the building costs it all goes into public services. (our pockets).
Rent to private landlords that we pay through housing benefit (many many waged people get this) only goes in one pocket and its not yours or mine!


"Have you any idea of the real rent on a three bed property is?"

Not really. I bought my own house at eighteen or nineteen.
There is no "real" rent as long as WE are obliged to pay extortionate rents in housing benefit. They can charge what they like. And they like a lot.

"If they are paying a proper rent, then moving out and renting on the open market would not be a problem, would it?"

Yes. It is disruptive to family life, children's development and everyone's mental health to have to keep moving. We all need security in our housing.

"Anyway ... most of those in council houses are on the dole and getting Housing benefit (so WE are still paying them to live in a FREE house)."

But we are paying a lot less than in private accommodation, and can use the money to build more, saving money in the long run.

Why do you think most in council houses are on the dole?
According to The Guardian its only eight percent.

www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2015...-homes-england-wales

steveimp wrote:
Thatch sold off the council houses, well below their worth in the 1980s and refused those councils to build new ones.

Many of those houses now are in the hands of private landlords

They weren't sold to private landlords were they?

They were sold to the tenants who made a nice fat profit from flogging them on at the earliest opportunity (then expected someone else to provide them with ANOTHER free home !)

These people - who do not give a sod about anyone else - should learn to live in the real world ... and look after themselves (and their families), rather than expecting everyone else to do it.

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
Once we have made back the building costs it all goes into public services. (our pockets).

Ah, the great socialist gamble !

Borrow .. to invest ... and we will benefit in the long run.

Thats why we are currently paying £43 BILLION a year in interest payments alone - just to "feed" the last socialist gamble !

You will never get to a "paid for" situation ... as payments are less than they should be ... they will not look after the property ... and it will need continuous / endless repairs and improvements too.

In The Know wrote:
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
Once we have made back the building costs it all goes into public services. (our pockets).

Ah, the great socialist gamble !

Borrow .. to invest ... and we will benefit in the long run.

Thats why we are currently paying £43 BILLION a year in interest payments alone - just to "feed" the last socialist gamble !

You will never get to a "paid for" situation ... as payments are less than they should be ... they will not look after the property ... and it will need continuous / endless repairs and improvements too.

I am not suggesting any more borrowing! We have borrowed more than enough already. My opinion is that if you cant afford it you do without it.

The new houses dont need to be flash. or large. (at least to start with)
They can just be basic boxes or even caravans.
The point is that it would save us spending ridiculous money on private flats/houses, and most importantly, bed and breakfasts and hotels.

In The Know wrote:
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
Once we have made back the building costs it all goes into public services. (our pockets).

Ah, the great socialist gamble !

Borrow .. to invest ... and we will benefit in the long run.

Thats why we are currently paying £43 BILLION a year in interest payments alone - just to "feed" the last socialist gamble !

You will never get to a "paid for" situation ... as payments are less than they should be ... they will not look after the property ... and it will need continuous / endless repairs and improvements too.


you think that all the national debt was borrowed by labour

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
I am not suggesting any more borrowing! We have borrowed more than enough already. My opinion is that if you cant afford it you do without it.

The new houses dont need to be flash. or large. (at least to start with)
They can just be basic boxes or even caravans.

Mmmm ... boxes - I like it.

Of course if they went fruit picking they would probably be provided with a caravan to live in anyway .... lol !

Barney wrote:
you think that all the national debt was borrowed by labour

I NEVER mentioned the National Debt !

(Someone else with a name-change, me thinks).

It makes you wonder then, why Labour (B-Liar) had to promise to stick to Tory spending plans (for 3 years) in order to get elected in 1997 then, doesn't it?

For 3 years all went well ... we have NEVER made a profit since then !!!!

The City didn't trust Labour then - and then don't trust Corbyn now !

In The Know wrote:
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
I am not suggesting any more borrowing! We have borrowed more than enough already. My opinion is that if you cant afford it you do without it.

The new houses dont need to be flash. or large. (at least to start with)
They can just be basic boxes or even caravans.

Mmmm ... boxes - I like it.

Of course if they went fruit picking they would probably be provided with a caravan to live in anyway .... lol !

I know it sounds harsh, but surely better for everyone to have basic accommodation, than us paying for bed and breakfasts and houses with room for a pony for ever more?