Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
#21
Tom Austin wrote:You could never be 'bottom-up' Keith, for the simple reason - clearly evidenced above, that straight away you wish to talk about yourself.
Kinnock, Smith, Thatcher, Blair, Brown;you are character obsessed. Just as Starkey thinks history is all about Kings and Queens, you display your thinking as Politics as all about Party and Party Leaders. Who else but yourself or BarryW could take the Top-down stance?
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#22
Looks like politics took a battering on this thread
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#23
you're right alex, keith has left it 3 times already.
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
#24
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
#25
I hope he put in the rubbish bin howard.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#26
This thread was doomed from its title on.
There's a chance it could suffice to wallpaper a room (the title)
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#27
Tom Austin wrote:You could never be 'bottom-up' Keith, for the simple reason - clearly evidenced above, that straight away you wish to talk about yourself.
Kinnock, Smith, Thatcher, Blair, Brown;you are character obsessed. Just as Starkey thinks history is all about Kings and Queens, you display your thinking as Politics as all about Party and Party Leaders. Who else but yourself or BarryW could take the Top-down stance?
Wrong - totally wrong. It is your socialism that is top-down with the setting of rules and control by various levels of government including the EU and councils plus quangoes. It is you who support high levels of taxes, objecting to people doing what is legal to minimise their tax liabilities. It is you who objects to individualism and sneers at individual aspiration.
By contrast I want small government. Government that taxes us a lot less, spends a lot less and leaves us alone to get on with our lives. I put individuals and their aspiration first and foremost.
Then there are the public figures you refer to:
Where you are wrong is in respect of Mrs T. She was was bottom up in most respects, privatisation and her drive to open up equity ownership and employee buy-outs introduced real public ownership of business instead of the debilitating mirage of state ownership. She brought in right to buy enabling people to own their own homes who never before thought they would be able to. She got rid of a lot of senseless controls and rules that were introduced as 'temporary' war measures and were well past their sell-by-date. OK, she was not perfect in this respect, she did introduced rate capping and did nothing to break up the monstrosity of the NHS among many other central institutions. But - she did more to reduce the dead hand of government over our lives than anyone previously. The ironic thing was that to bring about 'bottom up' change it need 'top down; change to do it.
As for Starkey, you do him a disservice. Kings, queens, plus war and invasion - these are the 'attention grabbing' bits, the movers and shakers of history and as such are a good starting point to get people interested. But, of course, there is a lot more to it than that.
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
#28
Starkey ,,,,is a lot more to it than that.True
I think his views very interesting
He sticks it in and gives it a big twist
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#29
M.Thatcher didn't replace the council houses she had sold, Barry, thus crippling affordable housing.
This contributed to the sky-rocketing of house prices, as so many people had no council housing to turn to, and the demand for private renting and house-buying went up.
But so many people who set out to buy a house cannot afford the rates at some point.
Politics is largely to blame, reason for which the two main parties have decreased in membership from about 3 million each in the 70s to little over a hundred thousand.
Politics should be kept out of economy, which should rather be governed by a Statute of Economy.
Such a Statute would ensure, for example, that houses are affordable and priced following a logic. Economy must be accountable.
Politics among most parties UK is based on elitism and snobism.
Hence we have a private family living in palaces galore and acclaimed as "head of State and of Government".
All the rest is a knock-on effect from this initial anomaly. It's the top-down effect.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#30
Alexander - I certainly think that Councils should have had the right to spend the capital receipts as they wished and if they wanted to build houses so be it.
That said you are wrong - the move in social housing at that time was to Housing Associations instead of council housing. Council overheads are so high it costs council massively more than it costs other organisations to do the same things. She certainly did not 'cripple housing' at all. The biggest problem for housing has arisen from the changes to families and family structures combined with the mass immigration since 1997.
The rented housing demand went up more over the last 13-16 years as a result of interest rates being held too low for too long, reducing returns on savings and making it cheap to borrow. A lot of people wrongly though of buy to let housing as a safe way to build a pension providing a better return than other savings. This helped create the housing and debt bubble that has now burst. Brown reducing tax free savings allowances then reducing the tax benefits for them plus his failures in screwing around with pensions also played a major part.
Alexander - what you cannot seem to understand is that you cannot regulate prices and economies as you seem to think. Attempts by governments to do so in the past have failed and been a disaster. In extreme cases there has been a total overthrow of the system such as the old Soviet Union.
The rest of what you say is just an expression of your own prejudice and insecurities and not worth further comment.
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
#31
barry
No need for council housing to be expensive if the tenancy contracts are correct
Tenants should be responsible for small maintenance and the up keep of common area
Eviction for not playing the game should be swift
The building of council Housing, shouldn't be given to the price fixing big companies.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#32
Keith - better no council housing at all. Social housing should be left to housing associations who can do it better and cheaper. More bang for the buck.
Back in the late 70's it was said, with not a lot of exaggeration, that the council could give the houses away to the tenants and be better off!!!!
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
#33
Barry
Council housing generating profits for the taxpayers should be the norm.
When you get the build costs back, its all profits,
With modern materials you should have an investment that will last 100 years before you need to spend big
The trick is to employ a management department on privet sector pay and standards, no fancy non jobs or fantasy pension's pots
When you pencil in the recoup on housing benefits, the maths get better
Haw much in general important non cosmetic maintenance have you spent on your house in the last 20 years Barry ?
The same with private sector nursing homes
Have you ever seen a poor privet sector nursing home owner?
It's all about managing your assets correctly
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#34
Keith - all branches of government including local do not manage assets efficiently - that is the whole point. Think - staff costs alone have a pension on-cost of 35% of salary. It could be virtually nil for a private contractor, though auto-enrollment will add a 3 to 4% on-cost. The costs mount up - this is the real world Keith.
Sadly the Unions remain powerful in local government and unless you privatise the work you will not be able to do what you say. Housing Associations can do the job a lot cheaper and better than councils and that is why they should do it.
That example is of only one aspect of the extra costs of local bureaucrats doing the work.
I remember back to the bar in the sports centre in the early 80's, it could not even make a profit on beer sales - once it was privatised it did.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#35
"The rest of what you say is just an expression of your own prejudice and insecurities and not worth further comment."
Barry, a private family living in many palaces and on many estates at the cost of the State is all-round a very bad example!
It is top-class benefits scrounging.
As said, it has a knock-on effect, top-down.
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
#36
Housing associations do not return money back to the taxpayers
I did say let private sector like management run the system.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#37
Alexander
your critical of your very own head of the church
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
#38
Keith s
Trust you to pull the pin on that one
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#39
keith b
alexanderf kept making reference to the church leader(the queen) so im just replying
im not sure what the alternative alexander thinks there is
im no royals fan,
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#40
KeithS, you seem to have a deranged view, are you also frothing at the mouth?
