What a government

[drfchound]

BST, the comment by bfyp was made after a post by your pal sydders who posted a link about MPs having numerous rental properties so it is possible that bfyp was thinking of rentals when he asked his question.
I have tenants who can’t afford to buy or are unable to get mortgages and so have to rent.
They prefer to rent from a private landlord who looks after the property rather than some councils who don’t do even basic repairs or maintainance.
With regards to your comment about people who own multiple properties not having the right to having the heating bill subsidy, would you say that should apply to business owners who are not short of a few quid too.

When they talk of multiple home owners recieving the discount, does that mean landlords?

I thought it would be the bill payer. In a rented property that's not usually the landlord.

No RD, it only goes to the landlords if the utilities bills are included in the rent.
Otherwise the tenant gets the subsidy.
I think bst was suggesting that landlords are all so well off that they shouldn’t be eligible to receive the subsidy full stop.
Thanks by the way for copying in my post, I was hoping someone would.

[tyke1962]

The Tories are bricking themselves with the energy crisis .

They know full well that in order to retain power all they have to do is keep just enough people onside and they win .

An energy crisis affects everyone and everything and they know it .

Well, fancy a political party doing something that might be popular with the public! Disgusting!

Depends what you class as doing something popular with the public .

Just how many times does Mr and Mrs Joe Taxpayer have to bail out free market capitalism ?

When does the  re-nationalising conversation begin to happen .

Keith at one point was in favour of it before he became leader of the Labour Party but now he's apparently not .

[River Don]

The Tories are bricking themselves with the energy crisis .

They know full well that in order to retain power all they have to do is keep just enough people onside and they win .

An energy crisis affects everyone and everything and they know it .

Well, fancy a political party doing something that might be popular with the public! Disgusting!

Depends what you class as doing something popular with the public .

Just how many times does Mr and Mrs Joe Taxpayer have to bail out free market capitalism ?

When does the  re-nationalising conversation begin to happen .

Keith at one point was in favour of it before he became leader of the Labour Party but now he's apparently not .

The tax payer has now had to bail out free market capitalism three times in the last 13 years.

Sometimes the market breaks. Financial crisis, pandemics, wars.

[tyke1962]

The Tories are bricking themselves with the energy crisis .

They know full well that in order to retain power all they have to do is keep just enough people onside and they win .

An energy crisis affects everyone and everything and they know it .

Well, fancy a political party doing something that might be popular with the public! Disgusting!

Depends what you class as doing something popular with the public .

Just how many times does Mr and Mrs Joe Taxpayer have to bail out free market capitalism ?

When does the  re-nationalising conversation begin to happen .

Keith at one point was in favour of it before he became leader of the Labour Party but now he's apparently not .

The tax payer has now had to bail out free market capitalism three times in the last 13 years.

Sometimes the market breaks. Financial crisis, pandemics, wars.

And in the good times RD where do the huge profits go ?

Which is my point but made poorly mind .

Socialism for the bad days , free market capitalism for the profits .

[River Don]

One thing is sure now the free market is not a panacea. It is not perfect.

Just like nothing else in this world is perfect.

[tyke1962]

One thing is sure now the free market is not a panacea. It is not perfect.

Just like nothing else in this world is perfect.

So in reality not perfect equates to the free market only capable of correcting itself in the very mildest forms of adversity .

Would that be fair comment ? .

[River Don]

One thing is sure now the free market is not a panacea. It is not perfect.

Just like nothing else in this world is perfect.

So in reality not perfect equates to the free market only capable of correcting itself in the very mildest forms of adversity .

Would that be fair comment ? .

I think it's fair to say a free market works pretty well in a growing economy.

Otherwise. Problems.

[normal rules]

£1200 for the poorest households?
That will be a couple of the newest iPhones for their kids then and feck the leccy bill.

[BillyStubbsTears]

One thing is sure now the free market is not a panacea. It is not perfect.

Just like nothing else in this world is perfect.

So in reality not perfect equates to the free market only capable of correcting itself in the very mildest forms of adversity .

Would that be fair comment ? .

I think it's fair to say a free market works pretty well in a growing economy.

Otherwise. Problems.

I saw a quote at the start of the pandemic.
"Everyone believes in God on a sinking ship. Everyone's a socialist in a sinking economy."

Free marketeers are fine believing in free markets when they are divvying up the profits. When there's debts to be dealt with, it's suddenly everyone's responsibility.

[tyke1962]

One thing is sure now the free market is not a panacea. It is not perfect.

Just like nothing else in this world is perfect.

So in reality not perfect equates to the free market only capable of correcting itself in the very mildest forms of adversity .

Would that be fair comment ? .

I think it's fair to say a free market works pretty well in a growing economy.

Otherwise. Problems.

I saw a quote at the start of the pandemic.
"Everyone believes in God on a sinking ship. Everyone's a socialist in a sinking economy."

Free marketeers are fine believing in free markets when they are divvying up the profits. When there's debts to be dealt with, it's suddenly everyone's responsibility.

That seemed to be how it played out in 2008 when all of a sudden I had a stake in several failing banks .

I don't remember receiving a dividend when they returned to profit mind .

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

What's wrong with having multiple homes?

Back to the point of my post.

There's an argument that there's nothing wrong with having multiple homes, although in a society where we have so many homeless and so many others priced out of owning homes, I personally couldn't look at myself in the mirror if I owned a home that was empty for long periods.

Regardless of that, if someone can afford to own more than one home, by definition they don't need and certainly don't deserve to have their heating bills subsidised by public money.

If there's a limited pot of money, a fair approach would be not to subsidise people who evidently don't need it, but to give more support to those on the edge of falling into abject poverty.

A couple of points.

1. I agree if you can afford that you probably don't need the help, why have they given this handout to all, does a multi millionaire pensioner need it?  Or is it up to said recipitent to decide they don't need it?

2.  Is it the fault of the multiple home owner that others are homeless? Or a failure elsewhere?  Do you feel guilty if you have emtpy seats in your car when you see someone walking to work in the rain or do you stop to give them a lift?

3. How many things do you means test before you end up being worse off earning more?

4. We should be real careful on the criteria for the perception of someone's wealth. it's very complicated.

[SydneyRover]

''3. How many things do you means test before you end up being worse off earning more?''

Can you explain this one pud please?

[tyke1962]

One thing is sure now the free market is not a panacea. It is not perfect.

Just like nothing else in this world is perfect.

So in reality not perfect equates to the free market only capable of correcting itself in the very mildest forms of adversity .

Would that be fair comment ? .

I think it's fair to say a free market works pretty well in a growing economy.

Otherwise. Problems.

The key fundamentals in ones life are not best left to the free market in my opinion .

An affordable  roof over your head .

Healthcare .

The means to keep yourself warm .

Good services that provide care in your later years .

Everything else I can pretty much navigate around in a capitalist free market country .

I don't care much for the railways , the post office or anything else to be honest but that's just me personally and I get others may want further re-nationalisation depending on their personal circumstances .

It's high time the free market got over itself and the arrogance and self interest that goes with it .

Why should anyone care that house prices would be affected by a building programme of social housing ?

You buy a house to live in first and foremost and if you make a few quid down the line it's a bonus .

I'll even go along with the purchase of a social house just as long as that stock gets replenished .

The key fundamentals of life and to even suggest this has you branded a communist or a Marxist .

This country is like living in an abusive relationship , well getting punched or mentally damaged ain't normal .

Socialism is fine until you run out of someone elses money .

Oh the irony given someone else's money props em up when they fail .

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

A house price crash would bankrupt many youngsters tyke particularly in areas outside of ours.  They would fail to get a new mortgage at remortgage points if the value dropped and have no means to sell to pay it off, it would be disastrous.

[BigH]

The Tories are bricking themselves with the energy crisis .

They know full well that in order to retain power all they have to do is keep just enough people onside and they win .

An energy crisis affects everyone and everything and they know it .

Well, fancy a political party doing something that might be popular with the public! Disgusting!

Depends what you class as doing something popular with the public .

Just how many times does Mr and Mrs Joe Taxpayer have to bail out free market capitalism ?

When does the  re-nationalising conversation begin to happen .

Keith at one point was in favour of it before he became leader of the Labour Party but now he's apparently not .

The tax payer has now had to bail out free market capitalism three times in the last 13 years.

Sometimes the market breaks. Financial crisis, pandemics, wars.

To which I'd also add Brexit where we've induced our own break in the import v export market.

[tyke1962]

A house price crash would bankrupt many youngsters tyke particularly in areas outside of ours.  They would fail to get a new mortgage at remortgage points if the value dropped and have no means to sell to pay it off, it would be disastrous.

The last thing I'd want to see happen would be negative equity emerging in the housing market .

My intentions would be to see house prices rise but gradually and not at the levels we see today .

Millions and millions of younger people have absolutely no chance of owning a home or possibly only owning a home when their parents die .

They are at the mercy of private landlords many of whom are unscrupulous .

An opportunity to move in to a social home and after a period of time have the opportunity to buy that home would be my policy .

[SydneyRover]

I reckon (for what that's worth) this government would have been very popular with the ordinary unbiased public had it not been for unforeseen events such as Covid and its repercussions delaying progress on commitments such as the levelling up process.

I still believe if Johnson survives as premier he will prove to be very popular again with the ordinary unbiased public.

hmmm

[phil old leake]

Tyke it’s that policy that started the housing crisis

Social housing being sold off at cut prices and not being replaced. There’s now not enough housing

[Glyn_Wigley]

New builds are nearly all semi or detached houses because they're the lucrative ones and not enough cheap housing is being built as a result. I'd like to see a policy of not giving planning permission to build these unless the builder also builds cheaper terraced housing on a similar sized plot of land. And builds them before the semis and detached ones get built too, otherwise they'll backslide on it.