Its not my job to raise money for HM Government, I repeat, read up on how Margaret Thatchers government supported the ideal of social housing and raised money to pay for it right through her first term, at the least.

Does your online persona consider Thatcher to have been a socialist ?

online persona?

as I say, no answers to anything, just want "the man" to put his hand in his pocket. How many years since you last got a wage?

Jerry has said how it should be funded. Just because you disagree that it should be funded that way doesn't mean he hasn't given answer.

Last Friday, having owned and run my own business since 1984 until I sold it in 2007 I am now retained in a consultancy salaried role, I voted for Thatcher in two general elections, I have paid an awful lot of tax, personal and corporation over those 23 years, in my position as Managing Director of my company I was responsible for handing over an awful lot more tax on behalf of my employees, I know how the system works.

I'm not quite the old barstard socialist pensioner sitting in his coal miners cottage with a scuttle full of free coal that you thought I was am I ?


While you chew that over, go away and consider how Thatcher raised the finance for her social housing investment projects in the early 1980s, the answer to your question is right there.

I can only take people as I find them, and that is the way you come across.

Then why do you yourself present a persona that is nothing like your real life one ?

according to whom? As far as I am aware we've never met?, and very few from here have met me, you may be guilty of believing what you want to believe, as opposed to having an opinion based on evidence.

Anyway, Social Housing, yes we need more, but we also need to utilise what we have better.

We've been fighting an endless hopeless war in Afghanistan alone for years at an estimated cost of 39 billions pounds as of 2013. (forget the disaster that was Iraq)

I wonder how the powers that be have managed to finance that incredible amount?

No wonder they can't afford a few 2&1 gangs to knock up some gobbo and sling a few bricks together with it.

I coudn't agree more, we're too busy punching well above our weight on many fronts, and taking on too many of others peoples troubles.

Not that load of old fanny again surely?

We all know you begrudge your taxes funding those less well off than yourself, you've made that plain on numerous occasions in the past. Perhaps you'd like those who cannot afford their own home to simply live on the streets until they can get the money together for a mortgage?

Don't forget that it was someone else who paid for your education and healthcare before you were in a position to start paying tax and NI and contributing to the system that offers education, healthcare and even social housing. It's how civilised societies work and how this one worked very well for 50 years until someone decided it needed fixing.

As for funding a major housebuilding programme, that too has been answered on this thread and on numerous previous threads, so why you keep asking the question is totally beyond me.

On funding, I attended an economics conference last year and heard, among others, Lord Robert Skidelsky speak.

Now Keynesianism is not socialism.

But he gave an illustration of how the basic Keynes model could work in the economy as of then (June 2012).

You borrow - and this is the ideal time to do so, with very low interest rates - and (his illustration) you train up a host of unemployed people to insulate homes. You pay them a living wage - and undertake a mass insulation programme.

You mprove housing that exists and help people tackle their bills - and cut emissions.

You reduce the number of unemployed and pay them enough they are themselves paying tax, but - and this is crucial - spending in local economies.

You therefore boost local economies - and therefore the national economy.

Recent research has suggested that, if the living wage were paid more widely, it could create something like 50,000 jobs precisely because of the knock-on effect on local economies.

All of which saves on the benefits bills - and you're getting something for it.

Now, change that from Skidelsky's illustration to building housing. That in turn would reduce the housing benefits bills, which is so high simply because it's primarily now paid to private landlords who charge as much as possible.

There were some 30,000 deaths last winter due to the cold, apparently - mostly down to inadequate heating - and you cut that too. So you save on health and related issues.

To reiterate what has been said before: at the end of WWII we were in massive debt, but borrowed to invest, and thus created the prosperity of the 1950s and beyond.

And to repeat: Keynes was not a socialist and The economic school names after him is not socialist.



On the wider issues, we need to tackle the unelected and unaccountable power of the City, which as has been discussed here in recent weeks, promotes and pushes for unsustainable growth, while companies that are not listed, such as Richer Sounds and John Lewis are excellent examples of successful businesses that do not need to go down the City route, and also tat their staff in a better way than many that choose that route.

It was writ clear in a post by Hull White Star when you mentioned "the numerous people on this forum who fraudulently claim to be too ill to work".

I have a question for you, one that will only require a one word answer:

Are you, quite apart from your day job as a "housing professional", a buy to let landlord?

Where is this personal or disrespectful?

I wanted to clarify that not only do you work as a "housing professional" but you also have a personal financial interest in the housing rental market and as such, any fluctuations in prevailing rents would affect you directly.

Sorry but I have one other question:

Would you rent a house to Bob Crow?