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.

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

125,000 sign petition to try and stop Britain's oldest prisoner of war being evicted from his home
Britain's oldest prisoner of war is being forced out of his home of more than 50 years because a council says his care is too expensive

By Agency11:54PM BST 01 Apr 2015Comments240 Comments
Britain's oldest prisoner of war is being forced out of his home of more than 50 years because a council says his care is too expensive, his family has said.
More than 125,000 people are now backing a campaign to stop Second World War veteran Robert Clark, 96, being forced into a care home after his local authority refused to continue paying for his at-home carer.
Brent council claim the cost of a carer coming to his home in Burnt Oak, north London, is too great and they are trying to move him to a nearby facility.
For the past two years, Mr Clark, who is also blind, wheelchair bound, and deaf in one ear, spent his £50,000 life savings on part of the cost of his £960-a-week live-in carer. But the council, which currently pays just £350 towards his care, is refusing to increase its contribution.
• The war hero who gave shelter to the lonely
During the Second World War, Mr Clark was one of the few prisoners of war who survived Hitler’s 1,000-mile “Death March” retreat across Europe in 1945.
His son, Mike, 58, fears that his father will just “give up on life” if he is forced into a care home against his will, because it will remind him of prison.
• From the desert to the registry office: how one war hero left the horrors of Helmand behind
Mr Clark was a gunner in the Durham Light Infantry when he was captured by the Nazis in the Libyan city of Tobruk in June 1942.
He spent the remaining three years of the war in a variety of prison camps in Poland, as well as taking part in the horrific Death March from January to April, 1945. Phil Porter, Brent council’s strategic director of adult social care, said: “We recognise Mr Clark’s contribution to this country and sincerely empathise with the situation that he and other older people like him across the UK are in.
• UK troops must help the Kurds, says Iraq War hero Colonel Tim Collins
“However, the problem arises as the care package that Mr Clark is choosing is not affordable to council taxpayers given the constraints of local government funding and the need to be consistent for the 2,900 people we support.”
The council said the maximum they can spend per resident is £451 a week, but even if he moves into a care home, Mr Clark will require specialist help that costs far more.




Comments :-

I think we need to know if this council's 'leader', who rejoices in the old English name of Mohammed Butt, has any connection to the care homes patronised by his council. If I were a betting man I would give odds on for it.


gave so much to his country and to others for so little in return when most in need.

his country are letting him, like so many other senior citizens and those who have served their country, down.

'Phil Porter, Brent council’s strategic director of adult social care, said: “We recognise Mr Clark’s contribution to this country and sincerely empathise with the situation that he and other older people like him across the UK are in.'

expressing empathy in words is easy. how about demonstrating it is meant with action?

"“However, the problem arises as the care package that Mr Clark is choosing is not affordable to council taxpayers given the constraints of local government funding and the need to be consistent for the 2,900 people we support.”

The council said the maximum they can spend per resident is £451 a week, but even if he moves into a care home, Mr Clark will require specialist help that costs far more."


yes and id like to know how many of the 2,900 were actually born in Britain or how much they have contributed to it over the years.. War Vets should get special funding so that rather than just words of empathy there sacrifice and service can actually be repaid its the least we could do for men and women who gave so much to Britain.


The chief executive's pay scale in Brent is set using the nationally recognized
Hay reward scheme which is used by the majority of local councils around
the country. The chief executive's current salary is £191,159.

strategic director pay rates range from £128,300 to £145,034 (4 posts)

operational director pay rates range from £94,828 to £122,008 (15 posts)

head of service pay rates range from £54,112 to £89,251 (48 posts).

Nice..

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


on that basis, there could equally be no restrictive covenants on council tenants selling their homes

and interesting logic that you reckon it was a very fine gesture indeed for your parents to sell their properties to their tenants for silly money - we'll assume the sale for undervalue was declared to HMRC - whereas for the gov't to give long-term tenants of council properties a similar opportunity was absolutely appalling

would your opinion have been the same had a labour gov't instigated such a programme?

Manuel.

You are getting dafter and dafter.

The "responsibility" of my parents and family with the "personal" goods was to themselves and if they wish to show generosity and thanks that was their personal right to do so. (It may have given them satisfaction to do so in reciprocity for what has been show previously.)

There is a different responsibility for "government" and how the dispense "cash" which doesn't belong to themselves, but those the they raised the tax from and the society as a whole.

As far as taxation, knowing my parents the transactions would have been carried out by a solicitor and any necessary payments would have been appropriate.

.

fred - you're contradicting yourself .....

a little earlier you wrote
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.

not for the first time, you now sing badly and out of tune


and of course you failed to answer ....
would your opinion have been the same had a labour gov't instigated such a programme?

Bullshit!

My opinion is not based on party or dogma affiliation as your seems to be.

Your attachment to the con party appears to me on how much it will fill your pocket.

That is why I do not affiliate myself to any party.

I can see a little further than my own snout!

sorry fred, but your persistent one-way diatribes betray your colours, albeit that labour may not be sufficiently far left for your taste ......

in any case, your bluster does not preclude you from answering my question nor of course from explaining your clear contradictions, except of course you cannot bring yourself to do so

============

your rhetoric and polemics may convince yourself, but they do not seem to have mustered any support from anyone else here