Man of Honour
Sounds like a "no true Socialist" situation to me!
Allow to correct my wording/clarify my meaning.
There are people advocating for socialist policies in some policy areas. Such as a return to the state providing housing for the low-paid. That is a socialist policy. It doesn't turn us into a socialist country, overnight.
People advocating for socialist policies, as I said, don't really stand much chance of being elected in this country. Example include the much-maligned Jeremy Corbyn, various Labour grass roots organisations, the Green Party, etc.
I don't include Keir Starmer's The Keir Starmer Party, because he's not a socialist, and only called himself a socialist very temporarily until he took full control of The Keir Starmer Party. After which, he disavowed all socialist leanings and policies. So, he's a wolf in sheep's clothing.
But this country did effect socialist policies, such as in the post-war period. And they were successful, and well-liked.
This other vision for the UK has been successfully discredited by Murdoch and pals, and it is incredibly unlikely that we'll return to these kind of policies in my lifetime.
But no, not Venezuela, rest assured.
LOL wat... Maybe because every time people do try they end up with some totally obvious issues.
Of course, there isn't much to stop some groups from getting together and trying their own thing.
You're free to set up a housing cooperative:
All in it together: co-operative aims to save a pub and call it home
When the landlord called time on the residents living in The Rising Sun, they decided to try to buy the building
www.theguardian.com
see also:
'It's going to be our little paradise': can co-ops solve the housing crisis?
For many people, bouncing between shoddy, overpriced house-shares is a fact of life. But there is a ready-made answer: the humble housing co-op
www.theguardian.com
Of course for some of the people in here the issue with that would be that they don't actually own/get equity in the property... they just get to rent from a coop they set up instead of a landlord and eventually if they want to move on then someone else can rent from that co-op. For others they perhaps can't be bothered, they'd just want to moan about the situation and hope someone fixes it rather than doing anything proactive themselves.
You're free to set up your own co-op for food too, or just join the existing one with branches across the UK, there is one near me, it's not much different to Tesco Express but if you really really don't like capitalism then you've got that option.
You're free to go work for a non-profit or a charity or the state or indeed go work for John Lewis where all the workers are shareholders.
I guess if you're in the US or Australia you could also set up a commune and just isolate yourself in a mini communist/socialist utopia, IIRC there may be some in Spain too. The Amish in the US have been able to mostly isolate themselves from the outside world, if you were really keen on socialism or communism and really really believed in it then why not go do that.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 May 2006
- Posts
- 7,207
does that not fall back to the old adage... power corrupts... which is why socialism tends to fail
most human beings if given the choice would take the option of an easy stress free life (I know I would) therefore the only way to encourage most people to do the high stress jobs and what not is to pay them more money. which Is kind of against a true.socialist way of life... so we kind of have a hybrid system of capitalism with a few socialist safety nets .
I would definitely support some more socialist policies , and happily have the state control some big ticket issues ..... but not go full hard left
or am I wrong? (possible it's not my wheelhouse)
Last edited:
But housing is the perfect example of that, we had social council housing corrupt politicians sold it all off either for ideology or easy votes or a quick buck, take your pick it doesn't matter. And now the taxpayer pays out 20 billion a year, and everyone that rents pays far more than they would need to.
The western world was rebuilt after WW2 on socialism, not communism or vulture capitalism we have now. Government got on with ensuring the needs to allow people to actually have the free money, so business could do what it does best and supply the wants.
The social safety net was never really to help out the lazy peasants, it was to raise up everybody to the point they were happy enough and had a few coins in their pockets at the end of each week so that one, they didn't slit your throat in a dark alley for your coin purse and two might buy some tat and boost an increasingly consumer based economy.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 May 2006
- Posts
- 7,207
well I have no problem with more social housing... you just need to convince government to get building them or to compete fairly on the housing market to buy them back
We have a real issue around long term planning. For instance Labour finally started new nuclear power and was scrapped immediately when Cameron came in. Seemed like a great idea at the time given how expensive nuclear was (and is) obviously now energy security seems quite important.
As a long term strategy new council housing makes sense both from an ethical point of view (I am talking more LHA rates being far below private rent than getting into the ethics of being a landlord) and a financial one.
The government spends 23.4 billion a year on housing benefit. Landlord aren't charities so will be making a profit on that. It also brings with it an artificial lower limit, if the government will pay you up to £100 (figure is arbitrary) why charge less.
The profit could instead go towards building more or making improvements that have no incentive for landlords but make a big difference to tenants.
You could even be quite nefarious with landbanking. Buy cheap land that has no planning permissions available in and around areas you expect to grow in the next 20-50 years. By that time the need for housing will likely mean areas that had no public support for overriding planning permission may have it and as the government you can set the law.
Obviously the big issues are popular policies like right to buy that erode housing stock, something landlords don't have to worry about or factor in to their finances.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 May 2006
- Posts
- 7,207
I don't disagree with a lot of your points but this sounds typical of the sort of thing which goes on now and I don't like.
my dad's mate bought a plot of land in the village where he lived which was a small section on what was the side of a field. years ago it had had planning but it had been allowed to expire. they had planned to build a small retirement property on one part of it and convert the other part into an orchard - which it had also been 100 or so years back. it would have been discrete and hidden from view.
however the planning was refused as it was green belt yada yada yada. a couple of years later the same council green lit most of the field that the little plot of land backed onto which was most certainly green belt to have a housing estate built on it so now all that is left is a little orchard area and what is now may dad's and his mates allotment.
this has to be down to corruption somewhere along the line and it does kind of fall back to the crux of my distrust of making it hard for small private LLs.
yet again the average man gets shafted but the rich massive business is allowed to get away with so much more.
they have been told that planning would almost certainly be given now...... but my dads mate has parkinsons which has now progressed significantly more, and my dad, what at the time would have been a good just retired project helping out a friend and keeping him fit (he was a builder by trade) would no longer be fit enough to contemplate it.
Last edited:
Yep I hate it too, I personally think the only out is to have hard conversation now about what greenbelt will always protected and what greenbelt may be at risk.
Not sure how to prevent landbanking in general but it's caused 30 years of lack of development where I am.
We don't having enough housing but people don't want to live in high density housing and no one wants new housing built near them.
What's happening right now appears to be as you say outright corruption, often local councils are at odds with central government. So one will say no and get overruled by the other.
So for me we need to be realistic, can we really cover the housing needs in the next 20-50-100 years never building on greenbelt. If so great fire, fine anyone who ever grants it just an outright ban on greenbelt developments, like the ones your talking about, no appeals, no paying your mate to put it through.
If we cannot get enough housing then we need to have a serious public conversation about which bits we given up and have clearly earmarked at risk areas. (The current situation means people like your dad's mate buy a place for probably a premium due to the location then the rug gets pulled out from under them, and because it's all greenfield its both all safe from development and all up up for grabs for the right amount)
Soldato
If we lose the green of the UK there's no point being in the UK (plus you know, we kind of need nature and as it is were one of the most nature depleted countries in the world).
There's plenty of boarded up shop space that could be converted into living spaces. What about getting more people working remotely, there's a good lot of office space that could be converted. That space could be created into affordable housing.
I'd maybe even consider it then when I'm old and decrepit and would feel safer being closer to a hospital.
There's plenty of boarded up shop space that could be converted into living spaces. What about getting more people working remotely, there's a good lot of office space that could be converted. That space could be created into affordable housing.
I'd maybe even consider it then when I'm old and decrepit and would feel safer being closer to a hospital.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 May 2006
- Posts
- 7,207
I am no expert so i genuinely could be wrong.... but i really do not think immigration is the problem some of our press make it out to be... that said, since brexit, illegal border crossing has gotten a lot worse it seems.
but high taxes if you have more than 2 kids............. it would be political suicide to suggest it, if it wasnt such an important issue i would be quite interested to see the fallout of whoever came up with that!..... but that said, i WOULD in principle support more help for a families 1st child (everyone should have the opportunity to have a kid if medically able), with 2nd child being similar to how it is now, but yes, any more than that and you get stung.
but that said its not simple. it isnt the kids fault if they are number 5 to a really poor parent(s) and so you cant let them live in abject poverty (yes i know some do now).
in truth tho big picture.... whilst i agree that globally the population is too high, i dont think it is Europe which really has the problem TBH. There is the pension issue, but ultimately that is short terminism.... the pyamid cant keep getting taller. That is an economic problem..... which overpopulation and housing is as well, but getting rid of too much green land is an environmental one which should trump economics. it is a really tough one.
BUT
making use of brown belt however is something i strongly agree with you and should be an easy win surely?. the town where i live surrounds a lot of green belt areas. there is a lot of building going on, but its on once greenish land (may not have been officially green belt, i am just literally saying it was nice wild land) but at the same time, there is a significant number of borded up old buildings from the days when it was an industrial town..... it was before my time but was mostly to do with the cotton trade i think.
you could definitely make some great 1 and 2 bed flats there which could be great rentals for young people just starting out, or for 1st time buyers.
Last edited:
Don't have a pension so not worried about not receiving a handout to live my life, also I think you missed the point...
Well we currently don't have enough housing stock, so surely more people is a bad thing until we've resolved the living situation for our current populace.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 May 2006
- Posts
- 7,207
just for the record........... regardless of the topic.. a pension is not a handout, it is the payout of an investment that most working people put into through out their lives..... Anyone who paid national insurance has paid for their state pension.
Last edited:
Well the alternative to the state paying to house people is to let people go homeless.Ah yes, it's not a shortage of houses that's causing the high prices and issues for our population, it's the shortage of council stock for handouts"You give me free now plz"
There will be a lot of homeless if this is what you desire. And a lot of excess deaths.
