Anyone understand why Johnson is so far ahead in the polls? ( 2)

The vast discounts led to a huge degree of unfairness. Someone I knew paid £24k for a new three bedroomed semi on a small development and the house next door was bought by the council, then immediately sold to the tennant for £12k.

Local authorities weren't allowed to spend the proceeds in building more LA housing.

I know ?

That was my point. If they had been, there wouldn't be the problem now where so many young people are unable to save enough to buy a house of their own.

LA rents were already subsidised, so giving people the right to buy the houses at massive discounts was (IMO) unnecessary. It took a huge chunk of taxpayers' money, which had been used to build them in the first place as well as to subsidise the rents, and used it to buy votes.

It worked, though - the number of working class Tories seems to have grown enormously ever since, despite the fact that they basically pulled the rug from under the feet of their children and grandchildren.

I'm not sure it would have negated Ma Thatcher's purpose Maizie. The poor are costly and keeping them poor while pretending to help them is even more costly. Now they can blame someone else - probably the poor themselves

^ If they had been sold at market value and the money used to buy more local authority houses,^

Local authorities weren't allowed to spend the proceeds in building more LA housing.

In 2017 a report found that some 40% of houses sold under the Right to Buy scheme was being rented out by private landlords. Which kind of negated the whole purpose of the scheme, didn't it?

(I can't link to the actual report mentioned in this article as it's behind a paywall)

www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/more-40-council-houses-sold-11657996

My two are in late 20s, and both left home when they went to university and stayed near their university cities, so have rented all along. Their rents for modest accommodation are ridiculous, so it is very difficult for them to save enough for a deposit on a house, although both want to buy, and both are engaged to be married.

I blame the sale of council houses for crowding the rental market. If they had been sold at market value and the money used to buy more local authority houses, there would be fewer people needing to line the pockets of private landlords, and rents would be more affordable.

I think you get the odd wind-up merchant on all forums Maybe70. Some very odd indeed.

I think you are right about the rents. It's probably a good thing not to buy until your 30s as you are more mobile during your 20s then you would hope young people could use this time to save as much as possible so they are taking on smaller and/or shorter mortgages.

Buy to Let was a disaster for all but a small number of people. Not only did it remove homes from the sales market but many on a Buy to Let mortgage have to agree to a short-term lease to appease the lenders head office.

Lemongrove and Urmstongram

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit and I'm sure you both know that.

Oh how rude yet again. That was interesting Pippa. Don’t they say a lot of people are in their thirties before they can buy their first home? And people that have to rent have to pay so much they can’t afford to save up for the down payment (or whatever it’s called these days) because the Conservatives encourage the buy to let market? A young couple rent a house opposite to me and they must pay @ 500 a month in rent, possibly more. How can people afford to save with an outgoing like that.

I would rather people explained the thinking behind their posts and viewpoints than trot out meaningless simplifications though.

It can be difficult to do that in a few snappy sentences, but I am always grateful when posters take the time to do it, whether or not I agree with their point of view.

Take a comfy chair next time Urmstongran

Definitely lemon I sit at the feet of my more educated betters and learn all the time.

?I hope you benefitted from the mini lecture Urmstongran

Not really Urmstongran. I constantly try to learn and do expand my knowledge but without the education, in that area, I can never know the whole. So I just pester everyone I know who does know to explain all the aspects to me.

One thing I do know is that the Labour Party did not "trash" the economy - far from it - and that although the snearers will have a go at Gordon Brown he is held in high esteem around the world for what he did during the financial crisis. I do wonder what it says about the mass media that tried to paint it otherwise.

What I do understand is that there is growing evidence to suggest that high levels of inequality slow economic growth and limit social mobility. I also understand that a regressive tax system will affect the health and well-being of the entire population ... and a few other bits I have gleaned along the way. Thankfully, every day's a school day and I can keep learning while accepting that others more educated in economics will know a great deal more than I do.

But, while I can happily accept this you keep throwing out meaningless arguments like

Home ownership makes a youngster grow up and see the realities of life. It gives them a stake in society - it's suddenly in their interest to have stability, law and order and a government that's not going to trash the economy.

That is the sort of thing that would be chimed out by Jilly Cooper's Jen Teale in the 1970/80s in an effort to sound the middle-class they felt they had become because house prices doubled. Sad that we are still hearing it when we all now know that, as in 2008, when the bubble pops it brings poverty for some. House ownership is often just about accumulated wealth - not a home. Certainly, the marketisation of homes is a real problem for those not on the housing ladder - and their wealth or lack of it is part of the economy, as is the fact that homeownership can lead to a less mobile society. Equally, house ownership can limit the number of homes that can be acquired by those who do not have one.

One thing I have learned about the economy is that we try to relate it to smaller things we understand, like business or household economies (sometimes called the nation-household metaphor). But these common comparisons rarely do a good job of explaining how governments work. Although it may seem clever to talk about running the country based on making money in the same way as companies make it (or try to) for owners (or those who think they are) and shareholders, democratic governments are meant to be run for citizens - all citizens not just the ones with the most assets. And as we all now know a government, unlike a household, can print money.

But as I said, what I know is that I know very little but I am prepared to listen and to learn.

Urmstongran

I think everyone of us in the UK has a stake in the economy PippaZ. It just depends upon one’s outlooks as to which political party appeals best to deliver more in line with ones interests. Hence the divisions.

So what do you actually mean by "the economy"? Do you know?

PippaZ

growstuff

Incidentally, what exactly do people mean by "the economy"?

Unless they like lying, those who keep saying that Labour trashed the economy and the Tories look after it cannot possibly know Growstuff. They are just saying what they have been brainwashed to say.

That's exactly what I suspected. That's why I was wondering whether they know what they mean. The "economy" looks very different for a hedge fund manager and somebody in a minimum wage job. The "economy" could be GDP or whatever, but what's really important is how wealth is distributed. It's meaningless to most people if indicators such as GDP and inflation are favourable, but they're not getting a fair share of the spoils.

growstuff

Incidentally, what exactly do people mean by "the economy"?

Unless they like lying, those who keep saying that Labour trashed the economy and the Tories look after it cannot possibly know Growstuff. They are just saying what they have been brainwashed to say.

I think everyone of us in the UK has a stake in the economy PippaZ. It just depends upon one’s outlooks as to which political party appeals best to deliver more in line with ones interests. Hence the divisions.

I don’t know the answer o that growstuff it’s above my comprehension. But it’s an issue for the Tory party to think on, in my opinion. Incentives of some kind. A highly reduced deposit?

Doodledog that’s a good question. I lent Boris my vote because he promised to Get Brexit Done. He & Rishi Sunak, Gove and David Frost (all Brexiters) are impressing me at present. Labour just looks less somehow with Diane Abbott, mouthy but embarrassing Angela Rayner, Dawn Butler as examples. The Lib Dem’s are still, for me, a wasted or a tactical vote only.

However I like the idea of a centrist, sensible group it isn’t going to materialise any time soon. Shame really as the voters would listen to such a party. The Tories do need a credible opposition. I just can’t see one at the moment but I’d be willing to be persuaded if one came along.

Home ownership makes a youngster grow up and see the realities of life. It gives them a stake in society - it's suddenly in their interest to have stability, law and order and a government that's not going to trash the economy.

For many people the economy they live in is already trashed. Who do you think the economy should serve Urmstongran?

growstuff

Incidentally, what exactly do people mean by "the economy"?

As a teacher you should know?

Incidentally, what exactly do people mean by "the economy"?

Urmstongran

Home ownership makes a youngster grow up and see the realities of life. It gives them a stake in society - it's suddenly in their interest to have stability, law and order and a government that's not going to trash the economy.

I do not in any way fear the Labour party coming back any time soon. It's actually possible that the next Labour Prime Minister hasn't even been born yet.

What I do fear is an alternative - maybe the Greens start to pick up the youth vote. They could end up pushing a ridiculous agenda.

In my opinion Boris needs to get young people on the housing ladder.

The issue is that many young people don't have much hope of home ownership, unless their elderly relatives die. How do you suggest Johnson gets them on the housing ladder?

Ok. Genuine question.

Would those who have been vociferous in defending Johnson have voted for a different party of they had thought them credible? Or put another way, is this government in power not because they are any good, but because they are least bad?

Even Tony Blair (who let’s remember led the Labour Party to victory 3 times on the trot) agrees with your comment GG13!

Kali2

''Not all Conservatives are Boris Babes

The majority of Conservatives (that I know) are kind, caring thoughtful folks.''

Let's accept this. So why oh why continue to support Boris and his Cabinet- who have been proven to be nothing of the sort?

Why? Easy answer to that is because there is no credible alternative!