Local authorities are clearly not good administrators of housing. The allocative inefficiency highlighted is proof of this.

Local authorities are not unbiased. Nor are housing associations.

So because you have been torn apart in a discussion, you have to resort to making false accusations and thinly veiled threats. How utterly juvenile.

There is no difference.

You say on one hand that the private sector is quicker to react to demand. The spare room subsidy had no bearing on this ability. On the other hand you don't want this change that will force local authorities to react to that demand.

There is no problem with those houses. The demand is there for them. The problem is that fixed resources have not been efficiently allocated. Why should a two/three bedroomed house be provided to a couple who no longer have children living at home?

The housing benefit rules prevent this in the private sector, why not in social housing? If there isn't capacity in the social sector, the private sector can take up the slack.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 25074.html I can't say anything except, we told you so, but no one would listen and we are fed the "its to free up larger properties" mantra when everyone knows that they know there are not the properties and the "tax" has to be paid. I'd like to think Grant Shapps will read this article and have some sort of conscious but I've more chance of flying to the moon this afternoon. Edit: See Minty beat me to it

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 25074.html I can't say anything except, we told you so, but no one would listen and we are fed the "its to free up larger properties" mantra when everyone knows that they know there are not the properties and the "tax" has to be paid. I'd like to think Grant Shapps will read this article and have some sort of conscious but I've more chance of flying to the moon this afternoon. Edit: See Minty beat me to it

"the taxpayer can no longer afford to pay for people to live in properties larger than they need"

About time the "taxpayer" started applying this logic to MPs

It would be nice, wouldn't it?

On only a slightly different note, I commented on the BBC site the other day under the story about increased prison sentences for convicted benefit fraudsters. I simply asked what increase in sentences there was going to be for any MPs who ripped off the taxpayer via their expenses.

It was deleted.

Apparently, you can't link how MPs are paid by the taxpayer etc to benefits paid by the taxpayer.

You mean when he calculated that Abbey, A&L, and B&B were completely worthless, and handed their assets and ongoing business to Santander, thanking them for helping keep those business afloat. This rendered shares in those companies worthless.

12 months later, Santander's annual accounts stated they made a E4bn profit, which consisted of an operational loss of E12bn, plus a transfer of E16b net assets from the 'acquisition' of Abbey, A&L, and B&B" ....... Worthless eh?

For those who don't know, the shareholders of all of those companies are still pressing for legal action against the then government for compensation - however, according to a government statement last month, "All files pertaining to the valuation and transfer of B&B assets to Santander were accidentally destroyed during the parliamentary changeover in 2010" .....

I don't think that was what either El Barbudo or Him were meaning.

I think that they were referring not to what happened after the onset of the financial crisis, but what caused the financial crisis in the first place – hence mentions of Lehman Brothers etc.

The matter of how Brown handled the immediate aftermath is still up for debate, although some analysts have suggested that Brown's actions after the crisis hit, and the speed of them, possibly avoided the situation becoming worse – maybe even up to a full-scale depression.