Tories Being Tories - Public Spending Cuts.

[Big Orange]

It's funny how George Osborne's banging on about cutting spending on the public sector, when not criticizing the private sector (who outsource jobs and created the housing/credit bubble in the first place). There is going to be the most severe cost cuttings in public investment since Margaret Thatcher:

Tory conference: George Osborne plans biggest public spending cuts for 30 years
A new era of austerity would be ushered in by a Conservative victory in the general election after George Osborne announced the biggest cuts in public spending for 30 years.
By Andrew Porter and Robert Winnett, at the Conservative Party Conference in Manchester
Published: 10:34PM BST 06 Oct 2009

The shadow chancellor set out a detailed range of cuts, including a one-year pay freeze for five million public sector workers, which, he said, would save the taxpayer £23billion over the next five years.

The scale of the Tory plans to tackle the record budget deficit built up by Labour took many by surprise because it risks alienating a large swath of voters, including doctors, nurses and police officers.

But in a calculated political gamble, Mr Osborne said that he was simply being “honest” about the economic difficulties facing the country.

He pleaded with the public to accept that everyone had to face up to the challenges ahead.

“We’re all in this together,” he repeatedly told Conservative supporters at the party’s conference in Manchester.

In a frank assessment, Mr Osborne gave warning that Britain was “sinking in a sea of debt”.

While public sector workers would bear the brunt of cuts, middle-class families would also be asked to share the burden, he said.


Measures included:

A one-year freeze on public sector pay from 2011 for all those earning more than £18,000, except members of the Armed Forces.
A £50,000 cap on the maximum pension payments for senior civil servants
Reducing the cost of Whitehall bureaucracy by a third, saving more than £3billion.
The abolition of £250 baby bonds and tax credits for families earning over £50,000.
In addition, Mr Osborne said that the Tories would keep the Government’s proposed 50p tax on incomes over £150,000. He also confirmed plans to increase the state pension age from 2016.

The shadow chancellor pledged to reverse Gordon Brown’s stealth tax on pension funds, but not during the life of the next Parliament.

He confirmed the intention to introduce a more generous inheritance tax allowance of £1million, but would only say that this would be introduced at some point during the first Parliament of a Tory government.

Mr Osborne’s plans for a wide-ranging public sector pay freeze dwarfed the Government’s earlier recommendation to peg back the pay of certain highly paid public sector workers. Union leaders reacted by threatening industrial action over any attempt to deny pay rises.

Mr Osborne insisted, however, that only drastic action and “difficult decisions” could rescue the economy. “This is about character as well as policy,” he said. “Now we face the biggest challenge.

“How to build the sort of Britain we want in the face of the largest deficit in the developed world. There cannot be one rule for Westminster and Whitehall and another rule for everyone else.”

Economists said that Mr Osborne’s plans represented the biggest series of cuts since Margaret Thatcher took power in 1979. The speech was well-received but there were few positive policy announcements to enthuse the party faithful, reflecting the grim economic circumstances an incoming Conservative administration would face.

One popular giveaway policy was a pledge to double the allowance for members of the Armed Forces serving on overseas tours to an average of £4,800.

But Mr Osborne’s announcement that he would not even consider scrapping the new 50p top level of tax for the highest earners was met with silence by many in the hall. He insisted that the party had to be “straight” with the public.

“These are the honest choices in the world in which we live and we have made them today,” he said. “Anyone who tells you these choices can be avoided is not telling you the truth. We are all in this together.”

Mr Osborne added: “A pay freeze of the scale I’m talking about is the equivalent to saving 100,000 public sector jobs. And I say to every public sector worker it is the best way to try to protect your job during this difficult period.”

He also attacked the Prime Minister for “going shopping on Brighton pier with the nation’s credit card” at last week’s Labour conference.

“The Iron Chancellor has turned into the plastic Prime Minister. Free social care. Free hospital parking. Free child care places. We would all like those things. But where is the money coming from? He is treating the British people like fools,” said Mr Osborne.

He gave warning that failure to bring down the £175billion deficit quickly would threaten Britain’s future prosperity.

“You cannot have a sustained recovery until you show the world that Britain can pay its way. And let me tell you, the world is watching Britain at the moment,” he said.

Daily Telegraph (video included)

[Zac Naloen]

I'm predicting massive public sector strikes in the next 5 years as the cost of living increases and wages don't go up accordingly.

[Darth Tanner]

It's funny how George Osborne's banging on about cutting spending on the public sector, when not criticizing the private sector

Are you against the spending cuts? As all of the parties are pretty much committed to them now, even Labour who just won't tell us where the cuts are going to be until after the election.

I'm predicting massive public sector strikes in the next 5 years as the cost of living increases and wages don't go up accordingly.

Unavoidable really, especially once massive public sector layoffs come into force after the next round of elections. The only question is does whoever wins the next election have the balls to ignore the demands of the unions.

[Big Orange]

The Labour Party will incur spending cuts as will the Liberal Democrats, and government unions should be brought under control, however I fear the Tories will go out of control with the public spending cuts and union busting, throwing the baby out with the bathwater as they always do. And Cameron was part of the Bullingdon Club in university, a childish fraternity that smashed up the dormitories of students not part of their little "club".

[Straha]

BO, out of curiosity what level of cuts would you think appropriate? And how would you like to see them spread out?

[Darth Tanner]

however I fear the Tories will go out of control with the public spending cuts and union busting

Oh I agree that the risk is there for the Tories to undo all the investment that Labour has made into education and health, but to be honest to remain electable their going to have to limit their cuts to the minimum needed to stave off immediate bankruptcy. I'd much prefer a lib dem government as they have already promised not to cut education, which frankly we are going to need to keep some form of economy going.

And Cameron was part of the Bullingdon Club in university

I'm not sure how far I can hold being a childish prat at uni against a grown man.

Just out of random interest I saw a labour minister promising to cut the deficit by half (wow that'll clear out those debts ), does anyone know if they have said where their cuts are going to hit?

[Big Orange]

BO, out of curiosity what level of cuts would you think appropriate? And how would you like to see them spread out?

I'm not entirely clued up about public spending to post a good personal opiniona about what should be dispensed with, but The Guardian has a detailed graph on public expenditure. However I would cut back on MP expenses before cutting back on schools and hospitals ect.

And economist David Blanchflower criticises Cameron's economic strategy:

Ex Bank aide attacks ‘bizarre’ Tory plan
Joe Murphy, Political Editor
09.10.09 Look here too
Benefits: Cameron can sort system, says man in speech
David Cameron: I have a dream

David Cameron's economic plans have been branded “wildly dangerous” by a former senior Bank of England official.

Economist David Blanchflower, former member of the Bank's monetary policy committee, said the Tories would risk plunging Britain into a deeper recession by turning off the Government's measures to stimulate recovery.

In his conference speech at Manchester, Mr Cameron said quantitative easing should end “soon”. Mr Blanchflower called the stance “bizarre” and told the Daily Mail that calling off stimulus too early would snuff out recovery. “This is the most wildly dangerous thing I have seen in 100 years of economic policy in Britain,” he added. He said the Tories showed “no understanding of economics”: “It could drive the economy into depression.”

The Bank has held interest rates at their 0.5 per cent record low. So far it has created £146 billion of fresh cash, buying up debt in the form of government and corporate bonds. Mr Cameron said: “If we spend more than we earn, we have to get the money from somewhere. Right now, the Government is simply printing it. Sometime soon that will have to stop, because printing money leads to inflation.”

Chancellor Alistair Darling said: “If we stop supporting the economy now it would crash.”

London Evening Standard

And to answer Darth Tanner, yes I do prefer the Lib-Dems to either the Labourites or Tories, but the best thing to happen to our government is a Hung Parliament.

[aerius]

And economist David Blanchflower criticises Cameron's economic strategy:

Blanchflower's an idiot, there's a reason the Pound is getting murdered in the currency exchange market, and that's because the traders know the UK is printing & spending way too much money to have any hope of repaying their debts in any sort of reasonable time period. If there was solid evidence to indicate that a strong economic recovery based on sound fundamentals will begin next year or at the very latest by 2011, then the UK can print away and carry out quantitative easing to cushion their economy in the meantime. But there isn't, which means the QE is going to end up digging them a much deeper hole and fuck them up a lot worse in the medium to long term which is why Mr. Cameron says it needs to end soon. Maybe Blanchflower can tell us what will happen if the Pound reaches parity with the Euro and the USD. Hint. It will suck.

[Starglider]

I fear the Tories will go out of control with the public spending cuts and union busting, throwing the baby out with the bathwater as they always do.

The UK was in a pathetic state in the late 70s, in every dimension, and the vast majority of that is due to the union-dominated, socialist, pacifist Labor government of the time. Thatcherism was shock therapy, but it would not have been necessary if Labour hadn't let the nationalised industries degenerate into the pits of laziness and worthlessness that they were. Meanwhile the income tax rate was 83% on direct income, and 98% on capital gains. This may be a liberal leaning board but come on, 98% income tax, that is effectively communism. No wonder there was minimal private investment and massive flight of high earners. Yet with all that tax revenue, the Labour government could not make anything (or more specifically, any public servants or nationalised industry employees) actually work.

The new-Labour rebrand basically copied the Liberal Democrat look-and-feel and pushed the unionism and socialism into the background. That moderation combined with an economic boom that build on competent economic management by Major's government let them get away with their spending increases without restoring insane levels of taxation. Tony Blair also pushed an adventurist foreign policy agenda quite different from Labour's historical tendencies.

That's all over now though, and Labour is reverting to form, tax-and-waste and union dominance (mostly public sector this time since the private sector unions are largely dimminished) roots. If not stopped, they will take Britain back to a condition similar to the late 70s, except that in the place of unprofitable nationalised industries wasting money (which at least provided some jobs), we will have massive debt repayments sucking money out of the economy with no benefit.

The Conservatives are hardly inspiring, but Labor is now overwhelmingly dangerous and poisonous for the country, so I will certainly be voting for the Tories.

[Elaro]

Measures included:

A one-year freeze on public sector pay from 2011 for all those earning more than £18,000, except members of the Armed Forces.

Why exclude the Armed Forces? I understand that some of them are risking their lives, but 1) so are policemen, firefighters and other emergency workers, 2) if they are in a danger zone, or on the seas, do they have to pay rent, for example? I'm not sure about how the United Kingdom shelters and supplies its troops, but I'd think, overall, that they'd be less burned by a pay freeze than other civil workers.

A £50,000 cap on the maximum pension payments for senior civil servants

Reasonable, I guess.

Reducing the cost of Whitehall bureaucracy by a third, saving more than £3billion.

That's great, but how are they going to do that? That's an effect, not a measure.

The abolition of £250 baby bonds and tax credits for families earning over £50,000.

Again, that seems reasonable enough.

He confirmed the intention to introduce a more generous inheritance tax allowance of £1million, but would only say that this would be introduced at some point during the first Parliament of a Tory government.

Why? How could further encouraging the stockpiling of money possibly help Great Britain's public finances?

One popular giveaway policy was a pledge to double the allowance for members of the Armed Forces serving on overseas tours to an average of £4,800.

Bully for the people in the Armed Forces, but this seems more like a PR stunt than fiscal policy. "Oh, look, we're heaping money on our soldiers, but making things tight for our civil servants back at home." What is it with right-wing governments and "Big stick, feet of clay" state policy?

But Mr Osborne’s announcement that he would not even consider scrapping the new 50p top level of tax for the highest earners was met with silence by many in the hall. He insisted that the party had to be “straight” with the public.

“These are the honest choices in the world in which we live and we have made them today,” he said. “Anyone who tells you these choices can be avoided is not telling you the truth. We are all in this together.”

That's respectable.

Mr Osborne added: “A pay freeze of the scale I’m talking about is the equivalent to saving 100,000 public sector jobs. And I say to every public sector worker it is the best way to try to protect your job during this difficult period.”

That would be a very good justification for the whole thing, but why spare the Armed Forces? Is it a morale thing? Are they afraid of armed rebellion? What?

[Dartzap]

We're between a rock and a hardplace, thats for sure. You are going to see alot of selling off stuff up the river with probably no chance of us getting it back. Example Numero Uno from Labour:

BBC

Government's £16bn sale of assets

Gordon Brown is to announce the sale of £16bn-worth of assets by the government in a bid to shore up public finances.

The prime minister will give details of initial sales that could raise £3bn - including the Tote, the Dartford crossing and the student loan book.

He will announce the sale in a speech on Monday as an alternative to immediate cuts proposed by the Tories.

The Conservatives said the sale was "probably necessary" but "no substitute for a long-term plan".

Mr Brown will say premature cuts risk "snuffing out" the economic recovery when the job of fixing the global economy is only half done.

The plan is to sell a "portfolio of non-financial assets" held by Whitehall and local authorities over the next two years.

They will include the Tote, Dartford crossing, the student loan book, the Channel Tunnel rail link and - having protected national security - the government's stake in URENCO.

The government will also sell surplus real estate which is part of the £220bn owned by its departments and agencies.

"We need a deficit reduction plan that supports growth and jobs not one that snuffs out recovery before it has started," the prime minister will say.

"Restoring public finance sustainability must be done in a way that supports growth not destroys it. The failure to do so is the real risk of a lost decade of austerity."

The funds raised will help finance new capital investment and pay down debt, Mr Brown will say.

In April, Chancellor Alistair Darling forecast that public borrowing this year would reach a record £175bn over the next two years.

A Conservative Party spokesman said: "As any family knows selling off things helps in the short-term and, given the state the country is in, is probably necessary but it is no substitute for a long-term plan to get the country to live within its means."

Number 10 said the sale marks the beginning of a radical assessment of what other non-core government business activities can best be done by, or in partnership with, the private sector.

However Downing Street added that although these actions are important, a vital force for debt reduction will be the restoration of strong, sustainable growth within the economy.

[frogcurry]

Why exclude the Armed Forces? I understand that some of them are risking their lives, but 1) so are policemen, firefighters and other emergency workers, 2) if they are in a danger zone, or on the seas, do they have to pay rent, for example? I'm not sure about how the United Kingdom shelters and supplies its troops, but I'd think, overall, that they'd be less burned by a pay freeze than other civil workers.

You clearly know nothing about the subject, therefore I suggest you learn something about it before commenting. Army payrates at lower ranks (and specifically at those ranks, there are too many well paid high rank officers in all military branches these days) is abysmal in the UK when compared to the dangers and risks they run, and the accommodation and other services supplied simply are not of a quality or standard that is appropriate compensation in lieu, particularly given the regular redeployment of units to a wide variety of locations (not simply including deployments in combat, but the regular re-circulation of units between bases over time). Other emergency workers are not shot at as an inherent part of their job, don't have anything like the injury or fatality rate, don't get moved around whethey they like it or not, and are still better paid.

He confirmed the intention to introduce a more generous inheritance tax allowance of £1million, but would only say that this would be introduced at some point during the first Parliament of a Tory government.

Why? How could further encouraging the stockpiling of money possibly help Great Britain's public finances?

I don't agree with it myself, but I believe its likely in part due to the people who now have houses whose market value is great enough that it pushes them into the inheritance tax band. This can cause some issues for relatives when they die, particularly if the house is effectively the sole part of the estate and so the tax requires its sale to pay (and you only get so long to pay inheritance tax, which means you might need to sell at a lower value to get the cash in time to pay the tax). There's probably better ways to address that concern though, such as making a primary residence exempt from the estate value for tax assessment, assuming that its important enough an issue to even need addressing. I doubt it affects that many people.

One popular giveaway policy was a pledge to double the allowance for members of the Armed Forces serving on overseas tours to an average of £4,800.

Bully for the people in the Armed Forces, but this seems more like a PR stunt than fiscal policy. "Oh, look, we're heaping money on our soldiers, but making things tight for our civil servants back at home." What is it with right-wing governments and "Big stick, feet of clay" state policy?

So even though soldiers have been getting bum-raped on pay and benefits for so long, its not a good idea for someone wanting to help fix this? Recruitment for the armed forces isn't exactly roaring right now even with the financial crisis, and the historical inequity thats built up over the last 20 years (both conservative and labours fault) needs fixing.

But Mr Osborne’s announcement that he would not even consider scrapping the new 50p top level of tax for the highest earners was met with silence by many in the hall. He insisted that the party had to be “straight” with the public.

“These are the honest choices in the world in which we live and we have made them today,” he said. “Anyone who tells you these choices can be avoided is not telling you the truth. We are all in this together.”

Meh. The people who that tax will hit... are the people who can afford to leave, or avoid it by other legitimate means. Asking people to give over 50% of what they earn (once you add National Insurance contributions in) is just sickening in principle.

[bobalot]

Meh. The people who that tax will hit... are the people who can afford to leave, or avoid it by other legitimate means. Asking people to give over 50% of what they earn (once you add National Insurance contributions in) is just sickening in principle.

I'm sick and tired of correcting fucking retards who don't know how tax rates work.

There is a 50% Tax Rate for income above £150,000, moron. It is not 50% of whatever you earn.

The tax rates are (for income only, there are different rates for savings and dividends):

20% for £0 - £37,400
40% for £37,400 - £150,000
50% for £150,000 and over (To be introduced in 2010)

For example if you earned £200,000 in income. Your tax would be (£37,400 * 0.2) + (£112,600*0.4) + (£50,000)*0.5 = £77,520

Your nominal tax rate = £77,520/£200,000 = 38.76% without any deductions included. The actual effective rate would be lower.

[Stark]

Yeah, that's like saying people in AU on 80k pay '48%' of their income in tax. It's complete nonsense, as anyone with even a passing knowledge of finance would tell you.

Starglider, in the 70s, at what level did income tax hit 83%? I almost wish progressive rates went higher later than they do in my experience. 98% capital gains is terrifying; AU had 50% cap gains for a while and it was bad enough.

[bobalot]

The mega rich arseholes pay little in the way of tax. I always wonder why there are everyday people willing to suck these billionaires cocks over how much tax they have to pay.

For the UK, I found this:

Tax efficient
According to a newly published study by accountancy firm Grant Thornton and commissioned by the Sunday Times newspaper, British billionaires paid income tax totaling £14.7 million on their £126 billion combined fortunes last year, and only a handful paid any capital gains tax.
Grant Thornton estimated that three in five billionaires paid no personal income taxes, although they would have paid indirect taxes such as VAT and council tax. Business income would have been tucked away in offshore trusts and companies. Most of the rest who did pay taxes would have paid themselves in dividends rather than with a salary. Dividends are taxed at an effective rate of 25% rather than the 40% higher rate of income tax.

Minimising income tax
Accepting that there is a degree of guesswork in the numbers given that neither individual tax returns nor the details of more arcane tax shelters are public documents, but taking them at their face value, we estimate that Britain's billionaires paid an effective income tax rate of barely 0.4%.

Source

Yeah, these guys are doing it real tough on a effective tax rate of 0.4%. If you guys cracked down on these dickwads, and made them at least pay an effective rate of 10%-20%, your government would have several billion dollars a year to pay down the debt. But I assume some conservative cocksucker would call that "the politics of envy" or some meaningless bullshit like that.

[Starglider]

Yeah, these guys are doing it real tough on a effective tax rate of 0.4%.

This is why setting the effective official tax rate up past 70% (which has now UK passed for high earners) only punishes the honest; the very people we would actually prefer to keep in the country. The people you'd like to target have already offshored everything and are bothered not one jot. The top rate of income tax in the UK has historically started at an inflation-adjusted range of 30 to 50k/year; that's why the recent introduction of a band starting at 150k was headline news. Even the new band applies to millionaire-level wealth; rich, but well below the gross excesses you are (presumably) angry about.

If you guys cracked down on these dickwads, and made them at least pay an effective rate of 10%-20%, your government would have several billion dollars a year to pay down the debt. But I assume some conservative cocksucker would call that "the politics of envy" or some meaningless bullshit like that.

That level of fat cat apologism is fortunately quite rare in Europe. The real problem is that such a crackdown is very difficult; there are massive well funded legal teams and 'investment advisors' that work unceasingly to find and exploit loopholes, or create them through lobbying and campaign donations. Worse, it's almost impossible for one nation to do unilaterally (well, maybe the US could have a big impact alone, but the US is the least likely to do it), and it's even easier for elites to shut down international efforts than it is for them to stall national ones.

[bobalot]

Yeah, these guys are doing it real tough on a effective tax rate of 0.4%.

This is why setting the effective official tax rate up past 70% (which has now UK passed for high earners) only punishes the honest; the very people we would actually prefer to keep in the country. The people you'd like to target have already offshored everything and are bothered not one jot. The top rate of income tax in the UK has historically started at an inflation-adjusted range of 30 to 50k/year; that's why the recent introduction of a band starting at 150k was headline news. Even the new band applies to millionaire-level wealth; rich, but well below the gross excesses you are (presumably) angry about.

Where exactly was I advocating a top rate of 70%? I was pointing out how tax rates work and that the ultra rich pay little tax. I doubt the UK's effective tax rate for the rich is all that much different than most of the western world. In Australia, the top nominal rate is 45% over $150,000. I have heard lots of people talking about these taxes "driving" people out of the country, but no-one has ever offered any proof to me.

As for the mega rich, they are paying an effective rate of 0.4%. Even if there was a tax rate of 1% for the rich, there still would be an incentive to use these schemes. The marginal rate is irrelevant. Some people argue lowering the top rate would somehow make these people pay more. Strangely enough, they never provide any actual evidence for this.

Politicians not sucking these guys cocks, and really going after these guys would be better. Simply applying a minimum tax depending on their assets regardless of their "declared income" if their effective tax rate was below a threshold would be a start. I doubt that would happen though, if you don't uncritically worship these people you are labelled a socialist.

If you guys cracked down on these dickwads, and made them at least pay an effective rate of 10%-20%, your government would have several billion dollars a year to pay down the debt. But I assume some conservative cocksucker would call that "the politics of envy" or some meaningless bullshit like that.

That level of fat cat apologism is fortunately quite rare in Europe. The real problem is that such a crackdown is very difficult; there are massive well funded legal teams and 'investment advisors' that work unceasingly to find and exploit loopholes, or create them through lobbying and campaign donations. Worse, it's almost impossible for one nation to do unilaterally (well, maybe the US could have a big impact alone, but the US is the least likely to do it), and it's even easier for elites to shut down international efforts than it is for them to stall national ones.

Seriously, a minimum tax based on his assets and estimated income. Make it harsh and greater than what they would actually pay if they paid their taxes normally like the rest of us. A little incentive. As for loopholes, that's a serious problem that can only really be addressed by getting some policiticans who haven't been bought off (fat chance).

[Zac Naloen]

The government still has all it's bank stakes that it can sell as well surely?


To be honest I'm not convinced the recession is even close to being over, House prices are back to pre-recession levels with all the foibles that come with that. That's an industry that certainly hasn't learned from it's mistakes and there just has to be a crash coming again, no way those prices are sustainable.

[bobalot]

The government still has all it's bank stakes that it can sell as well surely?


To be honest I'm not convinced the recession is even close to being over, House prices are back to pre-recession levels with all the foibles that come with that. That's an industry that certainly hasn't learned from it's mistakes and there just has to be a crash coming again, no way those prices are sustainable.

The problem with your country is that it doesn't produce much any more. Financial speculation and North Sea Revenue kept government coffers filled for the last few decades and the economy ticking along. The North Sea Revenues are declining and the financial sector has exploded. The U.K does still have some manufacturing firms and such, but nowhere near enough to fill the gap. You need to trade something, previously it was oil and debt.

[Big Orange]

Thatcher's deregulation of UK's power worked out well didn't it?! I agree with bobalot that the UK has been nobbled by a comparatively small manufacturing base (which is largely foreign owned) and relying on a stupidly overpriced housing market (another of Thatcher's legacies from the 1980s).

One of the main problems is that the post-Thatcher politicians are too much like careerist on the gravy train than actual administrators with proper qualifications and experience in broader matters; ironically Thatcher was a chemist. The public sector unions of today are nowhere near as antagonistic and fiercely politicized as the industrial unions of the 70s and 80s.

[Starglider]

and relying on a stupidly overpriced housing market (another of Thatcher's legacies

That is an outright lie, typical of a Labour supporter with zero grasp of financial realities. These are the historical house prices;



There was a spike in the late 80s as part of the general economic boom, but it was back down to trend by the time Thatcher left office, and back down to the 1984 level (well below trend) by the time Labour got in in 1996. The massive boom did not start until 2000; that would be about when Gordon Brown assured everyone that he had tamed the boom/bust cycle (ha). There are various contributing factors but overly low interest rates were a major one, instituted by Gordon Brown in one of various attempts to dodge the early-2000s recession, which of course made everything worse in the long run.

[Dartzap]

I think one of the mistakes that Thatcher did make that can be attributed to her was allowing people to buy their council houses. Since that has happened it has seen significant issues arise with a shortage of cheap accomodation for low income familie and many people getting mortgages they could ill afford, which they would not have got had they merely been renting at an affordable rate, which has in some parts turn lead to some of todays financial troubles.

Between the amount of housing being reduced through sell offs and insignifcant amounts of new homes being built, we have a serious housing problem that could take decades to repair (And shock horror, Labour finally got around to think about building new homes recently Took 'em what? 12 years)

[Starglider]

I think one of the mistakes that Thatcher did make that can be attributed to her was allowing people to buy their council houses.

Gah, what is this, the Labour moron jamboree? The fact that those houses are now privately owned makes no difference to the total supply of homes. If they were still council owned, they would still be occupied, mostly by the same people. Having more council homes on the books wouldn't help a bit if they're all already occupied. The actual problem is the lack of sufficient low-cost homebuilding, both private and council, and Labour is 100% to blame for that. Since you socialists seem utterly unable to quote hard evidence, I guess I need to dig up another graph for you;



There you go (the graph only goes to 2002, but private completions came up a little in 2005-2007 and then plunged to a new low this year). Council homebuilding is, as the name suggests, not under the direct control of central government, but they do influence it a lot. New construction dropped to a low level in the early 80s mainly due to the glut of building in the 70s and the major early-80s recession. The Tories did not make a major effort to restart it, but that was partially offset by a recovery in private construction over the course of the 80s.

Since Labour got in 12 years ago, they have made no effort to promote the construction of either council or low cost private housing. The planning system has become steadily more byzantine and ridiculous. The shortage could have been remedied at any time in the last decade by either subidising construction of cheap private homes or just building new council homes, but Labour preferred to spend all their tax hikes on salary increases for their public sector supporters.

The only contribution to this problem that you can seriously blame the Thatcher government for is the discontinuation of the 'new town' policy that Labour promoted hard in the 70s (which again, NuLabour have had ample time to restart, but have failed to do so). Considering that 90% of those efforts produced stark concrete hellholes (e.g. Bracknell), as opposed to the aspirational and generally pleasant housing estates that sprung up through the 80s, I'd say it's no big loss.

[Dartzap]

Uh, I clearly said I thought Labour were a bunch of fethwits, SG I suspect that that the selling off of those council houses is an issue in the long term, because of the number of unaffordable mortgages that have come from it to over the past two decades.

You'll get no arguments from me over the fact that in the latter years of the last Tory adminstration or the entirety of the New Labour one, they have not done anything to help the problem. I encounter this issue every day when I have to deal with the Brummies and Scousers who move down here looking for jobs and housing that doesnt exist.

And Moi? Socialist? I'm merely stating what I understand (or not) I don't have a view one way or the other, politically speaking.

[Jade Falcon]

There does seem to be an increasing number of Housing associations with variable reputations. I'm living in a house owned by Ayrshire Housing, a private housing association. In it you can only rent, not buy. However, all what could be termed 'profits' that Ayrshire Housing make are ploughed back in. Repairs and renovation of older housing stock when necessary, and a small scale but near constant house building program of new stock which seems at least to be a sensible way to go.