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.

I didn't think you were but what you said was correct ,what's the difference ??

JB,

The sale of the houses were over 55 years ago.

The tenants not only paid rent for the grand parents "pensions" but also help them when they were infirm and also when my parents were "father less" in in their childhoods.

The majority of fathers and mothers families became "high" earning professionals, but my father and mother had severe illness and were for periods in their adolescence and later and were supported during those periods by their later tenants.

They had what I think of a Christian morality and in general applied it.

I was summarising.


Manuel's suggestions did not apply.

Satisfied.

Sums it up nicely!

Very nice of them to do that ....Satisfied about what ??

If a zero hours employee becomes eligible for permanent employment after 12 weeks, the employer will dispense with them after 11 weeks and use another person starting at 1 week and so on. The net result will be people losing their zero hours job.

Latest YouGov / The Sun results 1st April -

Con 36%, Lab 34%, LD 8%, UKIP 13%, GRN 4%;

Reality dawning?

FRED - so it's a good christian move to allow "your" long term tenants to buy their house(s) on the cheap, but not for council tenants?
curious logic

cynic Send an email to cynic View cynic's profile - 02 Apr 2015 10:47 - 58263 of 58265

FRED - so it's a good christian move to allow "your" long term tenants to buy their house(s) on the cheap, but not for council tenants?
curious logic
=====================
Your bang on cynic ,however Fred will come up with something .It's hypocrisy ..

Makes him a perfect match with Labour.
2517

Cynic and Manuel,

"FRED - so it's a good christian move to allow "your" long term tenants to buy their house(s) on the cheap, but not for council tenants?
curious logic"


Stop being stupider than usual.


There is a difference.

Never had an objection of selling tenants of council houses buying the properties they are in a market value, as long as it is not to be sold immediately again for personal profit. No reason for it not being sold back to the council at market value.

But the money gained" from sale of "social housing" should be utilised by the council to build the necessary replacement of "decent" housing at affordable rents for in society who do not have income or "financial ability" to purchase for themselves, or income to rent in the materialistic market.

Even MacMillan had sufficient intelligence and sensitivity to understand and enact policies to attempt this. His attempts led to the destruction of many slums.

It is the responsibility of the individual to return some of what they benefit from society back to it, rather fattening themselves up at the expense of with their snouts and bellies getting bigger and bigger.

As far as individual "wealth" is concerned then as long as it responsibly and "legally" obtained, then it is the right of the individual to be disposed of as that individual wishes to. Again as it is legally done, but personally I think there is a need to examined the development of hereditary dynasties built on the handed down of "unreasonable and often tax avoided" hand downs.

I think the is your own, and based on your own immediate self gratification, perhaps justification yourself on what you possess and boast of to others.

Trinkets of your existence, a bigger house, a bigger house, a bigger ring on the finger the latest "toy" etc..

=====

As far as "Christian" values are concerned I have been an atheist since early childhood, but I respect many of the values and probable intentions of much of the "philosophy" and believe in general the practices have benefited society in the UK.

Andy Burnham was in Northampton yesterday.

He promised his support to rebuilding Northampton General Hospital during a campaign visit to the town yesterday.

The shadow health secretary toured the hospital with Sally Keeble, Labour's parliamentery candidate for Northampton North, to give a boost to Mrs Keeble's election campaign.

Mr Burnham met staff at the hospital and said they were 'doing a fantastic job' but were working 'under severe pressure'.

He added that the hospital building is 'not conducive to the good standards of modern healthcare', before pledging his support to rebuilding the hospital if Labour wins the General Election.

"I was able to see for myself that the buildings and the environment is not conducive to modern healthcare. I know the staff are working wonders in that situation but they deserve better in terms of buildings and facilities.

"So the commitment I have given today is that if I am in the department in a few weeks time I will come back with Sally and we will host a summit to plan a way forward for the NHS here."

Hmmm?

Well, we could definitley do with a brand new hospital. Here's the next best thing to a promise from Andy Burnham to see that we get one.

In other words, vote Labour and Northampton gets a new hospital out of it.

Hmmm?

I wonder where the money will come from?

Hmmm?

Who cares? Just vote Labour!

What a way to win an election! Just keep promising things to get yourself elected and into power.

In case you didn't know, "Power" is the prime motivator for politicians.

In an aggregation of YouGov's daily voting intention polls the Greens fell below the Lib Dems in March for the first time since November – and have fallen behind the Conservatives among 18-24s

fred writes
Never had an objection of selling tenants of council houses buying the properties they are in a market value, as long as it is not to be sold immediately again for personal profit.


fine ..... so apart from the fact that your parents sold these properties to the tenants at 50% of fair market value (taxman should have had something to say about that - ie deemed additional capital gains), was there a restrictive covenant in the sale contract to these tenants preventing them selling on?
bet they didn't

was there any similar covenant in the sale of the council houses?
i've no idea, but even if there was, it would/could only be for a max 3 years or just possibly 5, either of which timescales are very short

From my memory sale of council houses was initiated by Thatcher as "bribe" some tenants to buy their own "homes" with the intent of swelling the ranks of tory party members. Same abuse as the present mob in power.

But the main process or hope was to lower the level of local government and influence, which "Maggie didn't trust" and centralise "financial" power in government hands.

(Similar to what is proposed now, but the reverse, in devolving responsibility to local government especially as major taxation will still be raised centrally. ie. responsibility without power or authority, or a least authority confused.)

Suggest reading "Simon Jenkins (2006) Thatcher & Sons – A Revolution in Three Acts Penguin, ISBN 978-0-7139-9595-4"

Your second point my parents would have respected their tenants and known their circumstances and allowed them their own judgements.

Your 3rd point I can't remember, but think initially there was some restrictions,which were appealed against.

From my memory sale of council houses was initiated by Thatcher as "bribe" some tenants to buy their own "homes" with the intent of swelling the ranks of tory party members. Same abuse as the present mob in power.

But the main process or hope was to lower the level of local government and influence, which "Maggie didn't trust" and centralise "financial" power in government hands.

(Similar to what is proposed now, but the reverse, in devolving responsibility to local government especially as major taxation will still be raised centrally. ie. responsibility without power or authority, or a least authority confused.)

Suggest reading "Simon Jenkins (2006) Thatcher & Sons – A Revolution in Three Acts Penguin, ISBN 978-0-7139-9595-4"

Your second point my parents would have respected their tenants and known their circumstances and allowed them their own judgements.

Your 3rd point I can't remember, but think initially there was some restrictions,which were appealed against.

Cameron odds on to be next PM

http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-uk-general-election/prime-minister-after-general-election

Conservatives most likely to get most seats

http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-uk-general-election/most-seats