Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

from where did "There is very widespread (70%) support for forcing the long-term unemployed to do community work or risk losing their benefits" emanate?

i'ld be surprised if it was that high, but not at all surprised if there was a a significant majority in favour (i'm one of those) - and yes, i know the same would apply to hanging (no i am not in favour)

so tell me fred (and sticky), where do you stand (or sit) on either of the above two proposals?

The unemployed doing community work is a good idea, except for the problems.


Transport

Training

Health and safety

Supervision

Insurance

Tools and equipment


That's a few, i'm sure there are many others.

there are always 1,000 excuses of why not to do something .... that's why so many say, "I had that idea" or "I nearly did that", whereas the few can say, "I had that idea and did it"

i guess you (MK) fall into the first group

You have no idea what group I would fall into cynic, hence your silly post.

Any practical solutions on offer from you?

cynic
The level of support for the under 25s comes from a poll published today. I am not surprised at the percentage. I didn't say that I agreed with the idea.

MK - my comments still stand ..... your just full of piffle, excuses and hogwash about why things can't be done ..... wrong approach to life entirely, but clearly you haven't learnt that .... it would seem you have never tried starting with the end result wanted and then determining how to get there, and doing it or at least doing something about it

You mean like this U-bend con government does?

All governments change course as events dictate. Some policies have to be scrapped. This is the normal process of government.

The Blair government did few U turns by leaking possible policies. If the public reaction was not good then the policy never made it to the official lists. That is weak government and just courts public approval.

would you rather that no help was offered at all?
if the answer to the above is negative, but you don't like the currently proposed concept, what do you suggest?

Lenders brace for stampede as over 600,000 homes eligible for Help to Buy

Demand may outstrip supply for the £12bn scheme, while Zoopla says buyers need average £10k deposit


Rupert Jones

The Guardian, Monday 7 October 2013


High street bank Santander claims that up to 1.7 million people are planning to use the scheme. Photograph: Rebekah Downes/PA


More than 600,000 homes on the market are eligible for inclusion in the £12bn second phase of the Help to Buy scheme, according to the latest in a series of surveys leading to predictions that lenders will be flooded by pent-up demand for the government-backed mortgages.

Details of the 95% mortgages, which are available to existing homeowners as well as first-time buyers, are to be unveiled by the chancellor , with some banks expected to invite loan applications within hours of the Tuesday announcement. The second phase of the flagship scheme to give more first-time buyers and others wider access to the housing market was brought forward by three months, with a report from high street bank Santander claiming that up to 1.7 million people are planning to use the scheme.

"It is going to accelerate more people going into the market, so the number of mortgage applications will increase and that will put more pressure on lenders and their [loan] processing," said David Hollingsworth of broker London & Country Mortgages. "But in terms of gross [mortgage] lending we are about less than half where we were in 2007."

Another mortgage broker predicted a surge in demand, stoked by media coverage of the scheme, that could be blunted by stringent eligibility checks from lenders. "A lot of people want to get on the property ladder and the lenders who come out with these products will be inundated with inquiries," said Andrew Montlake of Coreco. "But lenders are not going to suddenly forget about being prudent, so people are going to have to qualify for the loans."


More re-election house price ramping here:
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2013/oct/07/lenders-600000-homes-eligible-help-to-buy

Cynic,

The money should have been put into "social housing" when this coalition crew took office.

That money would have gone into a broader group of the public and supported local economies and fed into general economy, rather than a smaller number of society.

Also, would have been a major employer and increase in "work force" skill.

The effect would have been less drive up of housing and housing costs and relieved over likely "indebtedness" which is being stoked once more.


Simplistic, but think and DYOH.

at least that's a sensible answer

as far as i can tell, there are huge stocks of empty and/or badly run down or derelict housing and similar that are already owned by local councils ...... there seems to be remarkably little interest in bringing those up to spec, though I don't know who would or should pay the cost

there are certainly one or two small schemes dotted around the country where the properties are sold to first time buyers at a peppercorn cost but with certain provisos related to the time the property must be retained and also the necessary work carried out

rather more common are housing association properties and also houses sold under partial ownership (don't know how either system works)

One difference is that the government are acting as guarantors of the loan. They are not spending money. Social housing would require funds to be spent.

true, though in the longer term the benefit would be better utilisation of existing housing stock and arguably at least some extra jobs created as well as the slow up-grading of the areas where this unused housing is located

They may not be spending money today, but they sure as hell will be when the latest Ponzi scheme goes tits up.

And in the meantime, the banks are laughing their asses off...cant lose!

and in the meantime, what is your sensible and constructive suggestion, or is it that like usual, that you have none?

cynic. as said many times on these threads, empty vessels make most noise.

I believe the MOD has also got spare capacity of homes, maybe those could be sold off cheaply.
2517

quite possibly, and certainly round here there was a big batch sold off a good number of years ago
whether or not there should be covenants to whom they are sold or other restrictions (length of tenure etc) is a different question