Nothing to see here. Just Labour threatening to compulsorily purchase private

[Ash]

Good luck to him. Once it ceases to belong to the state, what individuals do with their property is entirely up to them.

Of course. As I said, nice work if you can get it.

Does the stock get replaced though? i don't think so.

[Burney]

I still don't understand how RTB had any impact on the housing shortage, unless you're tellingm me that people who bought their council houses then demolished them.

I think the idea is that those who bought their council houses now have the temerity to still be alive and occupying them, thus denying them to the younger generation. Or, they have acquired other properties and are renting their properties out at 'exorbitant rates' (i.e. market value). In some instances, of course, they may have sold to developers who are sitting on the land until such time as it is financially advantageous for them to develop it - as is their right.

It all obscures the more fundamental demographic problems of a/ an ageing population of homeowners who aren't dying young enough to keep the housing stock moving and b/ increased demand for low income housing brought about by idiotic immigration policies.

[redgunamo]

The state in this country has never done anything to help those who can afford children to have more - while of course doing loads to encourage those who can't afford them at all to have loads. It's totally fücked up.

No, people who don't really want them in any case use that as an excuse for not having had them. Or more of them, as you say.

People are ****ed up and government policy reflects that fact, not the other way about.

[Sir C]

I think the idea is that those who bought their council houses now have the temerity to still be alive and occupying them, thus denying them to the younger generation. Or, they have acquired other properties and are renting their properties out at 'exorbitant rates' (i.e. market value). In some instances, of course, they may have sold to developers who are sitting on the land until such time as it is financially advantageous for them to develop it - as is their right.

It's all obscures the more fundamental demographic problems of a/ an ageing population of homeowners who aren't dying young enough to keep the housing stock moving and b/ increased demand for low income housing brought about by idiotic immigration policies.

Of course, the whole issue could be solved at a stroke by releasing Green Belt land for building. If May weren't such a Nimby, of course...

[Burney]

Of course. As I said, nice work if you can get it.

Does the stock get replaced though? i don't think so.

The stock gets replaced if there's sufficient money in it for the developers. If you artificially create a mass of low-income consumers (as happened between 1997 and 2010), you inevitably eat up the existing stock and give no economic incentive for the market to create more homes - because those consumers cannot pay the sums needed to make the deal profitable. The state then becomes the only party capable of breaking this impasse and it - in a society where property rights are enshrined in law - must still dance to the market's tune.

[Burney]

Of course, the whole issue could be solved at a stroke by releasing Green Belt land for building. If May weren't such a Nimby, of course...

Speaking as someone who lives in the green belt, I'd generally prefer not to have the dregs of Enfield vomited into my nice, semi-rural area in order to fück it up, thanks.

[Sir C]

Speaking as someone who lives in the green belt, I'd generally prefer not to have the dregs of Enfield vomited into my nice, semi-rural area in order to fück it up, thanks.

Speaking as someone who would be delighted to sell up to a developer and spend the rest of my life sitting on a beach laughing hysterically, I'm sympathetic to your issues, but only a little.

[Burney]

Speaking as someone who would be delighted to sell up to a developer and spend the rest of my life sitting on a beach laughing hysterically, I'm sympathetic to your issues, but only a little.

Yes, but your place is essentially an enclave of civilisation and decency in a sea of pikeys. Selling it off to developers would do little to negatively affect the ambience of St Paul's Cray.

[redgunamo]

Of course. As I said, nice work if you can get it.

Does the stock get replaced though? i don't think so.

You could have it if you wanted though, but you don't. All the rest is just some sort of virtue-signalling malarkey.

Decisions have consequences

[Pokster]

Yes, but your place is essentially an enclave of civilisation and decency in a sea of pikeys. Selling it off to developers would do little to negatively affect the ambience of St Paul's Cray.

So are you saying Sir C lives in a mansion surrounded by low life scum? He needs some of R's hounds to keep him safe