General Election 2019 thread

Nobody wants to build homes, well, affordable ones anyway because it could distort supply and demand in the housing market and people's nest eggs are going to be affected.

It will all come home to roost in a generation's time when an increasingly aged population is trying to pay rent out of their pension.

Once again, private house building companies don't really want to build affordable houses. They don't build houses just for the fun of it. They build them to make money. Affordable housing hits the builder in the pocket. The next question is, just what is 'affordable'? How do you define 'affordable'? Seriously.

This is the stark reality of the situation. Councils don't really want more council houses on their books. They are a long-term financial drain. Private building companies don't really want to build *affordable houses. It just means reduced profits for them.

They are having the exact same problem in Germany.

No, it's not Jesus wept !

If you really look, and put away your blinkers for a few minutes, you'll see, as I have already explained above, just why councils don't really want more council houses on their books ! Of course, no politician will ever come out and say it, but the truth is that council houses are a constant long-term drain on council finances ! Don't get me wrong. I am not advocating not building any, but just pointing out the reality as to why they are not being built.

So you can put away your drama queen act for another time eh.

And so it moves on. Labour announce they will spend more on 'our NHS' than the Tories. As we all know nothing will change and even more money and time will be wasted. Yet another Labour spending commitment that is coming from 'taxing the rich and raising Corporation Tax'. Has Labour ever explained how they are going to get 100's of billions doing this? It is economic madness.

If you account for the expenditure under normal accounting principles, the opposite of your contention occurs.

Let's say a 3 bed terrace costs £125,000 to build.

Average life? Say 100 years

But let's be prudent let's amortise that cost over 50 years.

The P&L hit is then £2,500 per annum.
Built to NHBC guarantees no maintenance costs for ten years.

You rent it out at £650 a month
That's £7800 per annum.
Net p&l before interest in the first ten years £5,300 surplus, per annum. Say interest is 1% pa, (central government gilt) so £1,250

Net net then £4,050 surplus per house. Per annum. Cash flow is plus £6,550 positive. Again, per annum.

Add back benefit savings of paying private landlords and B&Bs for housing homeless families.
Add back to the families now living in healthy, fuel efficient homes.

Not only is it the best policy on social policy grounds, it's the best policy in managing badly needed housing stock.

Obviously my numbers are rounded and I doubled the build cost from a base of 2007 numbers and assumes councils/ central governments will be effective procurement agents for land.
Not the current lot obviously.

Just to remind everyone these bunch of innumerate Special lady gardens watered away £174million on land they never built on.

Between 2001 and 2008 Blair / Brown increased NHS spending by an average of 6% per annum. Guess what? National debt as a % of GDP was 47% in 2007 (Its about 80% now under the current economic geniuses), the same as it was in 1997.
Latest labour plans amount to 4% per annum. It's not enough make good what this current bunch of Special lady gardens have brought upon us, but it's a start.

Anything a Tory tells you, just tell him or her to f**k off.

No they dont, they said they would borrow zillions

How are the Tories raising the money Nobby?

So, Labour are pledging to bring in a four day working week. The Shadow Health spokesman said this would not apply to the NHS, but three hours later, with the aforementioned Shadow Health Minister sat in the audience, John McDowall said it WOULD apply to the NHS. No confusion there then and everyone reading from the same sheet.
This will involve the NHS needing to recruit 250,000 more people. Even if those people were paid just 20k a year the cost would be 5 billion a year, and that is just using a figure of a very low wage without any of the additional costs that are met by an employer.
You always get the impression with Labour that they never ever really think through their policies and it's just stuff they make up as they go along.