No Rafbrat you are wrong, the money was to be used to build newer housing stock, but councils wished to use it for other purposes. When NuLiarbour came into power this money was in accounts waiting to be spent on housing, but Blair/Brown released it for other purposes. Councils were not interested in renewing their housing stock preferring to spend it on schemes which were anything else but to do with housing.

There were numerous court challenges to allow it to be invested in other things, but these were all won by the then conservative government.

Originally Posted by TheHatsRevenge

Originally Posted by msr

The answer's obviously yes. He is going to have to unless he slashes spending, which the loony left are physically incapable of doing.

Bring back Margaret Thatcher.

This whole fiasco can be traced back to Thatcherite policies of total deregulation of the financial systems and allowing 'market forces' to determine everything from share price to availabiltiy of public services, oh and they also sold off all social housing so now after all the irrisponsible lending anyone having their home reposessed have no-where to go. Unfortunately a tax increase is the only way of bailing out the financial sector ,to allow it to find it's own level would create a crash and depression far greater then the 1930's'.

How?

Originally Posted by bobthedog

No Rafbrat you are wrong, the money was to be used to build newer housing stock, but councils wished to use it for other purposes. When NuLiarbour came into power this money was in accounts waiting to be spent on housing, but Blair/Brown released it for other purposes. Councils were not interested in renewing their housing stock preferring to spend it on schemes which were anything else but to do with housing.

There were numerous court challenges to allow it to be invested in other things, but these were all won by the then conservative government.

Bob, I'm afraid you are wrong and RAFbrat is right.

Originally Posted by bobthedog

Thehatsrevenge:

This whole fiasco can be traced back to Thatcherite policies of total deregulation of the financial systems and allowing 'market forces' to determine everything from share price to availabiltiy of public services, oh and they also sold off all social housing

Nu Liarbour have had 11 years to change any of these anomalies and have chosen not to. Thatcherite policies have nothing to do with the problems that are being encountered by Cyclops and his team. Cyclops has been very quick to claim his triumph of getting rid of boom and bust, we had the boom, he spent it. Now we have the bust, and we are heading for an unprecedented depression. The government coffers are bare so we are going to have a very hard landing. The problems of last week are virtually the end of the London City markets, bank collapse and failure and the prospect of regulation will make other banks move elsewhere to where there is more stability, and more liberal markets.

On the subject of social housing - the money raised by sales should have been used to build additional housing - councils chose to play politics and not spend it. Brown allowed them to spend this cash on anything other than social housing, so thats where we are today! Easy to blame the tories but they last had influence on our day to day lives over 10 years ago.

I quite agree the policies and dare I say it VISION of Blairs 'NEW LABOUR' (AKA the ancilliary wing of the Conservative party) have not done in many areas what they pledged to do and quite possibly couldn't do, as for relocating banks elsewhere the problems are global so moving the whole of the financial markets from London or New York is impractical and there needs to be some regulation to stop the excesses of the last few years, you are correct there will always be a boom and bust that is the nature of trade the only control governments have is over the timing and the amplitude of the cycle.
I for one no longer trust these career politicians at all whatever the colour of their party.

It will happen again, it always does. Remember when all the hype was about the new economy in 2000, then came the dot com bubble burst. People like making money and ignore warning signs that things are going awry until its too late. Thats why there are regulators, to try and prevent excesses. They are controlled by governments and experience has shown they are incompetent fcuks who spin and hope for the best while ignoring problems. Longer term nothing will be learned and mistakes will continue to be made, 'twas ever thus.

Originally Posted by Ord_Sgt

It will happen again, it always does. Remember when all the hype was about the new economy in 2000, then came the dot com bubble burst. People like making money and ignore warning signs that things are going awry until its too late. Thats why there are regulators, to try and prevent excesses. They are controlled by governments and experience has shown they are incompetent fcuks who spin and hope for the best while ignoring problems. Longer term nothing will be learned and mistakes will continue to be made, 'twas ever thus.

One of the best points made on last Thursdays Question time by the Chairman of Next who was on the panel.

He can never rule out Tax increases, as that's what Labour do, increase Taxes, and always will.

Every time people vote for Labour they are voting for Tax increases, so they ought to either stop voting for them, or stop whinging.

Originally Posted by Thunderer

Originally Posted by bobthedog

No Rafbrat you are wrong, the money was to be used to build newer housing stock, but councils wished to use it for other purposes. When NuLiarbour came into power this money was in accounts waiting to be spent on housing, but Blair/Brown released it for other purposes. Councils were not interested in renewing their housing stock preferring to spend it on schemes which were anything else but to do with housing.

There were numerous court challenges to allow it to be invested in other things, but these were all won by the then conservative government.

Bob, I'm afraid you are wrong and RAFbrat is right.

You're both wrong, in different ways.

Social Housing was roundly cursed by Neu Arbiet in 2001 See here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/...pp/1527351.stm

The restrictions on spending the cash earnt were intended to allow councils the chance to reduce their debts. Which isn't that dumb an idea if you consider the current government's f**k up.....or perhaps some Council's levels of debt..

Originally Posted by TheHatsRevenge

Originally Posted by msr

The answer's obviously yes. He is going to have to unless he slashes spending, which the loony left are physically incapable of doing.

Bring back Margaret Thatcher.

This whole fiasco can be traced back to Thatcherite policies of total deregulation of the financial systems and allowing 'market forces' to determine everything from share price to availabiltiy of public services, oh and they also sold off all social housing so now after all the irrisponsible lending anyone having their home reposessed have no-where to go. Unfortunately a tax increase is the only way of bailing out the financial sector ,to allow it to find it's own level would create a crash and depression far greater then the 1930's'.

Just a couple of things

1. I think you may find that total de-regulation was started by Major and continued unabated under Blair.

2. Social housing. Thatcher started the process but under control. Major continued and Labour reduced the controls just that little bit more.

3. Why didnt Labour, if these policy's were so bad, reverse them?

4. How long does a government have to be in power when it can stop blaming the previous?? 10-15 years or longer? Why dont we all harp back to the Labour government of the 70's and their wonderful fiscal management then?

Originally Posted by Kitmarlowe

Originally Posted by Thunderer

Originally Posted by bobthedog

No Rafbrat you are wrong, the money was to be used to build newer housing stock, but councils wished to use it for other purposes. When NuLiarbour came into power this money was in accounts waiting to be spent on housing, but Blair/Brown released it for other purposes. Councils were not interested in renewing their housing stock preferring to spend it on schemes which were anything else but to do with housing.

There were numerous court challenges to allow it to be invested in other things, but these were all won by the then conservative government.

Bob, I'm afraid you are wrong and RAFbrat is right.

You're both wrong, in different ways.

Social Housing was roundly cursed by Neu Arbiet in 2001 See here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/...pp/1527351.stm

The restrictions on spending the cash earnt were intended to allow councils the chance to reduce their debts. Which isn't that dumb an idea if you consider the current government's f**k up.....or perhaps some Council's levels of debt..

The restrictions were introduced at a time when 'caring Conservatives' had also introduced rate-capping, ensuring that disabled children couldn't get SEN statements, facilities for the elderly and other needy people were slashed, and funding for schools reduced. Labour have taken these principles and refined them over the last 11 years, but the blue team certainly led the way admirably, from PFI to political research jobs, from paying consultants to paying millions to do what the consultants tell them to do (i.e. give money to their friends).

Quite agree about councils in general though; they still seem to find money for outrageous expense claims for councillors, fact-finding missions to all points of the globe, 'diversity' experts, and slavish following of every Euro-diktat which involves oppressing the law-abiding, whilst not funding police, schooling, public transport and useful stuff properly.