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?

So just to get this straight...

In a Standee world there are two types of rental property, the private landlord/letting agency type rent where the market sets the rates and the landlord charges as much as he/she feels they can get away with.

And the "social" level of rental housing which is purely for short term emergency housing and subject to review and withdrawal at any regular interval if the operating authority feel that the tenant is no longer in dire need.

Council and housing association accommodation presumably fall into category two ?

And it is still possible for tenants in category one to receive housing benefits to cover all or most of their private landlord rents ?

Not on this thread I didn't?

Grow up - you are like a little kid up sides with the majority rather than fight his own battles - you jump on everyone else's points when you think they have one up on someone - grow some balls!!

If it isn't trickle down economics what is it?

They cannot reduce the price and make a profit - simple economics really - do you think they should sell them at a loss - seriously, BMW would sell thousands more cars if they sold them at the same price as a smart car but they would be bankrupt!!

I have posted on the other thread just for you!!

On which thread have you answered with the evidence?