Goodness - golden boy Sunak now less popular than Starmer!

Told you we agreed on something Maizie ??

Thatcher wasn't bothered about those consequences, though, was she?

All she wanted was to reduce investment in public services and get more tory voters.

Selling off council housing meant lower council tax (or was it still 'the rates' at that time?) because the councils wouldn't have to pay out on maintenance and administration costs involved (did she forget about lost rental revenue?) Which would make voters grateful..

She also reckoned that houseowners were more likely to vote tory.

As for the rest, well, that was their own fault for not working hard to better themselves...

Many of the former council houses were sold at a profit to landlords. Former council housing is now expensive private rental property... Fun, isn't it?

Casdon

I thought you lived in Wales Pantglas2? The right to buy council houses here has been abolished.

I do Casdon but the right to buy here wasn’t abolished until 2019...too little, too late methinks!

Not sure of the position in the rest of UK - perhaps other posters know?

I thought you lived in Wales Pantglas2? The right to buy council houses here has been abolished.

Witzend

It’s high time ‘non domiciled’ was a lot more strictly defined. And made far more stringent.

Another non-dom issue that really irked me was loaded tax exile Lewis Hamilton* getting a knighthood. IMO honours simply should not be awarded to people with loadsamoney who choose to dodge U.K. tax.

*If he had ceased to be non dom at the time then I withdraw that, but AFAIK he hadn’t.

It's more likely that he's non resident which means that he has to be out side the UK for a specified number of days - 183 days.

For those who would like to know more, here's a link to HMRC's residence and domicile manual. If you skim through it you will be better informed.

www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/residence-domicile-and-remittance-basis/rdrm13200

“The houses should not have been offered for discounted sale. As they were I don't see why people should not buy them. If you, or the buyer don't want a small government market economy which will always make choices like this then work towards changing the government. “

I’m glad we agree with the first sentence above DaisyAnne and I’m not sure how changing Thatcher for Blair made any difference as he continued the policy and with his majority could’ve stopped it stone dead!

So many people put their own interests first on this one without thinking how it would affect future generations - it was plain as day there’d be a massive price to pay for low earners stuck in expensive private rentals.

Apologies to OP for going off on a tangent...

I bought my council property because the mortgage was smaller than the rent, and seeing as I was barely scraping by, I needed to cut costs.

Pantglas2

Of course I understand people wanting to better themselves DaisyAnne - it’s the hypocrisy I can’t get my head around!

The tories I know who bought their council houses and traded up etc aren’t the ones moaning that their kids can’t get social housing and the Labour devotees are!

It’s all very well saying more houses should’ve been built with the proceeds but because of the discounts given to long standing tenants they couldn’t have replaced more than 10% of housing stock.

So we are where we are because folks looked after their own interest - Thatcher was right if she said there’s no such thing as society, after all!

I don't see the people buying council houses as hypocritical. We often have the same argument about those who want better schools for all but send their child to a fee paying school.

My view is that I don't like children starving but I wouldn't starve mine just to prove the point. My family will always come first even though, that includes appreciating that, at times, the country must come first for my family to thrive.

The houses should not have been offered for discounted sale. As they were I don't see why people should not buy them. If you, or the buyer don't want a small government market economy which will always make choices like this then work towards changing the government.

Hair shirts do not change goverments.

It’s high time ‘non domiciled’ was a lot more strictly defined. And made far more stringent.

Another non-dom issue that really irked me was loaded tax exile Lewis Hamilton* getting a knighthood. IMO honours simply should not be awarded to people with loadsamoney who choose to dodge U.K. tax.

*If he had ceased to be non dom at the time then I withdraw that, but AFAIK he hadn’t.

I do not expect a nation to have to have financial equality across its citizens but it would be so much nicer if the " have a lots" ensured there was nobody less than a "have enough".

Just seen a message from a friend living on what was a " have about enough" fixed income that her combined fuel bill has increased by £101 a month. No increase in pension. ?

Urmstongran

Weren’t those ‘Panama Papers’ supposed to have embarrassed the wealthy elites? It was all over the newspapers pre-Covid but everything then went very quiet regards off-shore shenanigans. Conveniently for some eh?

Nothing embarrasses the wealthy elites.

I think that the disclosure of the Panama papers should have made it clear to people that the wealthy elites aren't the slightest bit interested in the wellbeing of anyone but themselves. And made them stop and think before voting to keep them in power...

Katie59

Sunak is certainly smart, but his family connections will dog him for sure, there will always be those who will sneer at his wealth.
I don’t really see a long political career for him, certainly not
PM.

I think that for many people it's not 'sneering at his wealth', or even being envious of his wealth, but questioning why money, which is basically just a medium of exchange, should be distributed so unevenly in society.

What is the point of sitting on more money than one could possibly use in a lifetime (and that is a key point, use ) when there are people struggling, even dying, for lack of it?

Is money a public good or is it a commodity to be hoarded for no other purpose than to possess it?

Weren’t those ‘Panama Papers’ supposed to have embarrassed the wealthy elites? It was all over the newspapers pre-Covid but everything then went very quiet regards off-shore shenanigans. Conveniently for some eh?

It's not peoples wealth, really.
It's the ways and means they find to ensure they get to keep it, whilst denying others the basics of life.

I’m glad we’ve never rented out our little place in Malaga over the years Dinahmo. Sounds a complication I’m glad we’ve avoided.

Sunak is certainly smart, but his family connections will dog him for sure, there will always be those who will sneer at his wealth.
I don’t really see a long political career for him, certainly not
PM.

MissAdventure

Fishy Rishy would be more apt.

Oh I love this! Thanks MissAdventure Fishy Rishi it is!

Whitewavemark2

Up to £100000 paid to Mrs Sunak’s company for furlough.

Good grief talk about taking the p…..s

Its about time the government realised we don't want people who do things just because they are legal but because they are morally right.
Some chance!

Fishy Rishy would be more apt.

Pantglas2

Of course I understand people wanting to better themselves DaisyAnne - it’s the hypocrisy I can’t get my head around!

The tories I know who bought their council houses and traded up etc aren’t the ones moaning that their kids can’t get social housing and the Labour devotees are!

It’s all very well saying more houses should’ve been built with the proceeds but because of the discounts given to long standing tenants they couldn’t have replaced more than 10% of housing stock.

So we are where we are because folks looked after their own interest - Thatcher was right if she said there’s no such thing as society, after all!

It's 40 years since the first council houses were sold, and the people who got the largest discounts had to have been residents for a number of years, so even the youngest would now be in their 60s. It's their grandchildren who are now looking for housing and failing to find anything affordable.
Most of the Labour devotees I know want social housing not just for their own kids but for all the people in inadequate housing or living rough. The Tories don't moan, because they don't care.

So I take it there is no more Dishy Rishi?

Goodness - golden boy Sunak now less popular than Starmer!

Does that mean he is more popular than Johnson?

Not the U.K. the holiday home is in USA

CoolCoco

George Osborne said he would reform the non dom law ( he didn't). The Sunaks have multiple homes and no doubt he will be spending Easter in one of them where he won't have to put the heating on.

Apparently they have 4 homes. 3 in the U.K. and one described as a holiday home in the U.K.

Parsley3

The only reason to have non domicile status is to avoid paying tax in the UK on overseas earnings. It has to be applied for and costs money so it doesn’t happen by accident, it it a choice. When the chancellor was appointed the position of his wife must have been disregarded as a potential problem. It has come out now because of her company’s connection to Russia. It is not a question of legality but of doing the right thing. However, because we have a pot-kettle-black PM the British public are being asked yet again to turn a blind eye. Hell mend us if we keep on doing it.

Yes

Sorry Dinahmo I meant to put treaty not jeopardy.