Corbyn 24: OUR party, people!

[ZoyzaSorris]

You don't need to look for hypotheticals when discussing this nonsense in the NHS in England - you have prescription charges.

ZoyzaSorris's point is the essential one - that it divides the population into those who pay for the welfare state, and those who benefit from it. (At least in people's perception, which the issue here. Life course makes this less true in practice.)

And dentistry and optometry the bastards (as someone with fucked up eyes and teeth and does not qualify for free care)

[greencalx]

I read on twitter somewhere that something like 70% of LD members want Swinson to support a JC caretaker government. Is this MUB or is there a poll that supports it?

[Zetetic]

It's this YouGov poll.

The claim made by YouGov is that 69% of (self-avowed would-be) Lib Dem voters would prefer Jeremy Corbyn+Second Referendum over No Corby+No Deal.

[greencalx]

Ah Right ok. One of those "would you rather be run over by a train or by a bus" type questions. That is, insensitive to the question of whether they actually prefer Swinson's plan.

[Zetetic]

A bit. There's a later poll, also by YouGov, which asked about whether x would or would not be a good choice a temporary PM. 79% of the 2017 LD voters they asked said Corbyn wouldn't be. (Compared with 10-20% for Harriet Harman, Ken Clarke. Or 27% for Swinson...)

Eh.

[Twed]

I don't think someone earning a high salary should be subsidised at public expense when there are huge numbers homeless.  I agree that affordable housing should be there for all but it's not.  Until it is, let the truly desperate have first dibs.  That seems obvious.

Meanwhile, I hope Jo Swinson fucks off somewhere like the moon very soon.  What is it with these so-called democrats that appeals so much these days about short-circuiting democracy?  Who elected Jo-Fucking-Swinson as kingmaker*?  The fucking arrogance.

Give the people an election and leave it to them.  Fuck's sake.


_{*100,000 members of the Liberal Democratic Party, not all of them (48,000).  Fucking neck.  It makes The Cunt Johnson look like the People's Man.}

My high salary does not translate to high excess wealth. I pay for a roof over somebody else's head so that they are not homeless. Obviously I am housed and not a priority, but I think there is a bitter misunderstanding that puts high earners into the "them" category that can, for example, discount that salary being stretched more than a single person earning 30k. Now, I am not saying "I should get lots of free stuff!" (I can make ends meet and I'm not entitled to anything here anyway) but as others have pointed out, selectivity is designed by austerity types.

What are the biggest bullshit arguments against "free" college and healthcare in the US? "Rich people would benefit from it, that's bad".

[Buelligan]

The whole point of the "make high earners in council homes pay market rent" policy is to justify not providing affordable housing for all while appearing to be doing "something". It's not some interim measure while we get on with building more homes, it's there to enable engineered scarcity and facilitate the ongoing daylight robbery of "market rates".

Putting that aside, high-earners in council homes aren't being subsidised at public expense (unless you want to go down the right-wing rabbit-hole of opportunity costs of having social housing full stop). They won't be in receipt of housing benefit so will be paying the full council rate which recoups the cost of the home over something like 30 years. If you want to tax high earners more i'm all for it, but it should be on income and wealth. We should be promoting the idea of council homes being comprehensive and aspirational, not acceding to troy attacks on it. It's pure milibandism.

I'm sorry, it's late and I'm tired and I've just got in from another shift but I don't understand.  I don't understand that in a world where decent affordable housing is not universally available, the idea that not letting the better off take some of the housing that is available (and leaving genuinely poor people without alternatives homeless) is the best course of action because otherwise Milliband.  Explain that to people carting their kids in and out of bed and breakfasts.

Of course social housing should be available to everyone that needs it.  But it isn't.  Thinking rich people shouldn't be taking some of the little there is doesn't mean you can't believe and vote for the universal right to a decent affordable and pleasant home.  It just means that you don't want to see genuinely desperate people, people who can't pay market rent, without a roof because someone who can is taking it right now. 

And I don't understand your thing at all Twed.  High earners are high earners, they're not "them", they're just people like everyone else but who, IMO, shouldn't be taking a home from someone who genuinely needs it (like everyone else). 

On this charity/voluntary supporting of others, I'm not at all convinced.  On a personal level, I'm sure you do it with great sensitivity but in general, it would allow for some dreadfully unbalanced relationships and some deeply problematical situations in the event of the donor/benefactor changing their mind/undergoing a life-change/dying and so on.  Great as an individual thing but not an answer to homelessness IMO.

[bgmnts]

Just replace the nature of profit with social profit.

[Zetetic]

Housing is slightly odd because it's universally considered close-to-essential - if you can afford, you'll almost certainly obtain it.  At the point of obtaining social housing, needs-testing is fairly close to means-testing. (And this gets closer to the point that Buelligan is making I think.)

Notable the proposed law was to charge people already in council housing "market rents", not to remove them - which despite the infringement on someone's stability, would have the actual advantage of freeing up stock (rather than, at best, encouraging people to move on who could).

[pancreas]

I imagine the point is: are there many rich people in council housing? Probably not. In any case, working out who all the rich people are and turfing them out of council housing is a very poor plan to get everybody housed.

[Zetetic]

Well, yes, the whole thing is a distraction from capacity.

[jamiefairlie]

Indeed. If you look at all the successful social democracies in Europe, they don't means test, the rights are universal and plentiful. The UK just will not fund them adequately and that's the root cause that needs to be hammered at, not tinkering round the edges and setting citizen against citizen.

I'm constantly amazed at how UK citizens accept such a shitty deal (services, pensions, health) as somehow just being inevitable. Why don't they look at Germany, Holland, Sweden, Norway et al and see how well their people live in comparison?

[honeychile]

Housing is slightly odd because it's universally considered close-to-essential - if you can afford, you'll almost certainly obtain it.

And in the context of Pay to Stay: if a high-earner is in council housing, and suddenly gets told to pay market rates, aren't you giving a massive fucking incentive to a tenant with the financial means to buy their home to do so at a knock-down price and take it out of LA stock altogether?

[honeychile]

I'd say the distraction from capacity serves as an active part of the reduction of capacity. Put aside the almost-certainly negligible impact the policy actually has on capacity itself in terms of high earners moving out. Since 2010 we are up 5 million people and down 200,000 council homes. Being able to point to shit like fucking shipping containers or Pay to Stay is what the government does so they can carry on decimating council housing with a veneer of public interest at heart. These are the solutions to the housing crisis in a country with (coincidentally) 200,000 long-term vacant homes. Meanwhile total LA stock continues to get sold off, private rental costs continue to push more into homelessness, adding even more to waiting lists, for even fewer homes - but at least we're doing something! Difficult decisions, remember!

It also feeds into the view of housing as a temporary commodity rather than a... home, and that underscores the agenda behind the continued running down of council housing numbers. Social housing for the desperate, and once you can afford to move out, you should. Yeah sure you might have memories, you may have been raised here, people you love may have been born or died here, but we're flogging everywhere else off and we're deliberately chucking millions into insecurity, so space is tight. Once we've hollowed out social housing so that only the very poorest, the most infirm, and the most addiction-dependent are left, we can write their communities off as "urban blight" and level them altogether.

Even the way we talk about the "housing crisis" makes it sound like some kind of intractable natural phenomenon outside of human control, rather than deliberate policy decisions. It's a housing choke. We know what the solutions are, it turns out they involve no "difficult decisions" unless you happen to be filthy rich.

[Johnny Yesno]

^Excellent post, honeychile.

[Mrs Wogans lemon drizzle]

Kicking people out for earning an arbitrary figure is sticking a plaster over a problem that shouldn't exist.

Sometimes sticking plasters are useful.  We don't have enough council housing and probably never will.

[Sebastian Cobb]

And in the context of Pay to Stay: if a high-earner is in council housing, and suddenly gets told to pay market rates, aren't you giving a massive fucking incentive to a tenant with the financial means to buy their home to do so at a knock-down price and take it out of LA stock altogether?

Yes, and what if you're on 59 grand a year? Your next pay rise will likely make you worse off after the necessity of shelter, you'd be tempted to tell your boss 'nah, you're alright, cheers'.

[Sebastian Cobb]

We don't have enough council housing and probably never will.

Not with that attitude.

[Mrs Wogans lemon drizzle]

Just telling it like it is :)

[Twit 2]

Sometimes sticking plasters are useful.  We don't have enough council housing and probably never will.

Have a read of honeychile's brilliant post above. Then read your pathetic one above. Then change your life. Mind you, you don't have enough gumption and probably never will.

[phantom_power]

At what level of earnings do you get kicked out of your home? And how do you determine how much of those earnings could be used for rent/mortgage?

[Buelligan]

I don't know about the upper level answer to your question phantom_power, but have fairly unequivocal data that indicates people with very low or no incomes always lose their homes. 

That group are expected to use all of their income on rent/mortgage and feed themselves from foodbanks and skips.

EtA

I'd say the distraction from capacity serves as an active part of the reduction of capacity. Put aside the almost-certainly negligible impact the policy actually has on capacity itself in terms of high earners moving out. Since 2010 we are up 5 million people and down 200,000 council homes. Being able to point to shit like fucking shipping containers or Pay to Stay is what the government does so they can carry on decimating council housing with a veneer of public interest at heart. These are the solutions to the housing crisis in a country with (coincidentally) 200,000 long-term vacant homes. Meanwhile total LA stock continues to get sold off, private rental costs continue to push more into homelessness, adding even more to waiting lists, for even fewer homes - but at least we're doing something! Difficult decisions, remember!

It also feeds into the view of housing as a temporary commodity rather than a... home, and that underscores the agenda behind the continued running down of council housing numbers. Social housing for the desperate, and once you can afford to move out, you should. Yeah sure you might have memories, you may have been raised here, people you love may have been born or died here, but we're flogging everywhere else off and we're deliberately chucking millions into insecurity, so space is tight. Once we've hollowed out social housing so that only the very poorest, the most infirm, and the most addiction-dependent are left, we can write their communities off as "urban blight" and level them altogether.

Even the way we talk about the "housing crisis" makes it sound like some kind of intractable natural phenomenon outside of human control, rather than deliberate policy decisions. It's a housing choke. We know what the solutions are, it turns out they involve no "difficult decisions" unless you happen to be filthy rich.

I agree entirely (and, to me, at least, it's utterly obvious), however, right now, we are where we are.  Of course things must change but that's not an answer that's useful in any way at all to people without a place to live.  And, IMO, right now, it's simply not acceptable (as I've already said) that people with the means to house themselves elsewhere are occupying homes that could/should be available to those without choices or alternatives.

This is not perfect, it's not a solution but it is reality and right now good socialists need to support others in need (as ever).

Ask yourself, would it be reasonable for someone with means to eat the last soup from a soup kitchen, because they like it, it's their favourite, denying food to the desperate who have no other options?  (thanks graffic)

I agree, there should be soup for all but if there isn't and there isn't, it should go first to those that absolutely need it.

[phantom_power]

I don't know about the upper level answer to your question phantom_power, but have fairly unequivocal data that indicates people with very low or no incomes always lose their homes. 

What I mean is, if you are in a council house and get a big pay rise, should you have to move out of your home to make way for someone on a lesser income?

[Buelligan]

No one should ever have to move out of their home if they don't want to but that's not a reality in the world we live in. 

In the world we live in, whilst working hard to change it, I think we should accept that people with options and choices (like people who can afford market rents), should not occupy homes that would provide the only option for people who cannot pay market rents.

If they don't leave and rent elsewhere what happens to the optionless people? 

EtA
Of course, another option that people might consider is if the rent from the person (now rich and paying market rent), was used to rent a commercially available property which could be made available to someone (on an equally secure basis) who couldn't afford it and was homeless.  The downside with this, of course, is it reinforces/rewards btl but homes are needed now, so what to do?

[honeychile]

Well yes to your last point, things like that. As for immediate steps as good socialists, given the private rented sector is three times the size of the council sector wouldn't a more impactful course be to cap private rents and ban "no HB"/"no DSS", rather than fixate on ~1% of council homes? Cos, once that ~1% of council homes are vacated and then filled, what next? We'll have to do something else immediately, right? So we'll reduce the income threshold again, to £40,000. That'll take care of another few %. Hmm, we've still got a problem! As good socialists, we should reduce the threshold again, right?

My point being who benefits from us having this conversation? The desperate and optionless, or the private rental parasites helping to drive destitution in the first place? That's why i say it's a fig-leaf for the ongoing attack on council housing. The purpose of it is not to help anyone in need, the purpose of it is to continue the ideological attack on council housing as an ideal.

[holyzombiejesus]

Do Labour have a position on buy-to-let?

[Buelligan]

Well yes to your last point, things like that. As for immediate steps as good socialists, given the private rented sector is three times the size of the council sector wouldn't a more impactful course be to cap private rents and ban "no HB"/"no DSS", rather than fixate on ~1% of council homes? Cos, once that ~1% of council homes are vacated and then filled, what next? We'll have to do something else immediately, right? So we'll reduce the income threshold again, to £40,000. That'll take care of another few %. Hmm, we've still got a problem! As good socialists, we should reduce the threshold again, right?

My point being who benefits from us having this conversation? The desperate and optionless, or the private rental parasites helping to drive destitution in the first place? That's why i say it's a fig-leaf for the ongoing attack on council housing. The purpose of it is not to help anyone in need, the purpose of it is to continue the ideological attack on council housing as an ideal.

This is all pretty obvious stuff, as I said, people should be working and voting against the way that social housing has been undermined at least since Thatcher.  People should be working and voting to redress the insanity that is the btl market.

However, that does not excuse personal responsibility, I'm afraid I feel that anyone on a high salary who's holding on to a property that was built to provide a home for the poor, is on very sticky moral ground.  At least to me.

Do Labour have a position on buy-to-let?

Maybe they're getting one?  https://www.policyforum.labour.org.uk/commissions/make-housing-more-accessible-by-financially-targeting-btl-landlords-who-own-multiple-properties

[holyzombiejesus]

God, I hope so. One of my bugbears is people owning more than one house. You hear them on Moneybox Live (if I haven't got to the off switch quickly enough) talking about how to 'maximise earnings from their investment' and I just think they're cunts. Had a bit of a rift with my family when I visited them last as my nephew, a genuinely lovely, decent, kind lad, is considering buying a house to rent out.  I basically pleaded with him not to and everyone was telling me I was being ridiculous - 'some people want to rent', 'he'd be a great landlord' - or, bizarrely, stating that Jeremy Corbyn's house is worth 'a million pounds'.

I have a friend, an otherwise principled Socialist, who inherited his mother's house when she died. He rented it out as he was unsure what to do with it, fair enough. He already owned his own house and then met a woman who owned a flat. They married, bought a house together but have kept their other 3 properties which they rent out. I asked him whether he had stopped being a socialist and he said 'I need the money so I can live'. Fucking bullshitter. Admittedly I told him that a mutual deceased friend would have been appalled at his stance, and we no longer talk.

[Buelligan]

My own private feeling, of course it's only a feeling, is that there was a concerted strategy, beginning in the Thatcher years, to undermine social housing (and so force the poor into the private rented market).  Once secure decent affordable housing opportunities became a thing of the past, landlords and profiteers were able to write their own cheques.  TINA.

My own hope, along with the rebuilding of social housing stocks, would be the encouragement of renter's unions.  Strong renter's unions would cut the legs out from under these unscrupulous capitalists.

[Mrs Wogans lemon drizzle]

Have a read of honeychile's brilliant post above. Then read your pathetic one above. Then change your life. Mind you, you don't have enough gumption and probably never will.

Relax.  As I said, just telling it like it is.  Like it or not!