Burnham

[Pross]

Oh dear. Another broken promise and one for a reform that is long overdue

You'd think there'd be a work around here e.g. with Union donations they are basically a load of dontions from individuals that are being passed on by the Union (pretty sure from my long ago days when I was in a Union you could opt out of donating).

 

[Psamathe]

You'd think there'd be a work around here e.g. with Union donations they are basically a load of dontions from individuals that are being passed on by the Union (pretty sure from my long ago days when I was in a Union you could opt out of donating).

I would agree but, whilst I suspect only those who follow the news will notice this issue (ie power costs, etc. will swamp this story), it does highlight how Burnham's view has become tribal wereby he doesn't want to restrict donations to Labour but agrees donations to other parties should be controlled. Again self-interest just furthers the perception about what our politicians (across the system) have become.

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

Shared ownership schemes are often terrible long term value. I wish they wouldn't subsidise them.

agreed all the goverment should subsidi is social housing if you have enough of it the market will need to offer private housing people actually want and thus the market for these kind of deals will decline if not disappear

 

[Mr Celine]

You'd think there'd be a work around here e.g. with Union donations they are basically a load of dontions from individuals that are being passed on by the Union (pretty sure from my long ago days when I was in a Union you could opt out of donating).

It's now the other way round. You have to opt in to the political fund.

 

[briantrumpet]

I would agree but, whilst I suspect only those who follow the news will notice this issue (ie power costs, etc. will swamp this story), it does highlight how Burnham's view has become tribal wereby he doesn't want to restrict donations to Labour but agrees donations to other parties should be controlled. Again self-interest just furthers the perception about what our politicians (across the system) have become.

The suggestion seems to be that the unions have been petitioning Burnham, in what would be a very short-sighted move, as the unions are always going to be outspent by those with virtually unlimited wealth (and, as we've seen, by those whose sources of wealth are decidedly murky).

 

[Beebo]

Lovely photo. Why do politicians bother to put on the uniform to make them look like they are real workers?

Also, is that Tommy Robinson on the right?

 

[AuroraSaab]

They made him a badge with his name on. Lol.
Sadiq Khan at the back with his polo shirt and tracksuit suit top looks like a PE teacher on a field trip, the old PE teacher who doesn't run about anymore.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Agreed, all the goverment should subsidise is social housing. If you have enough of it the market will need to offer private housing people actually want and thus the market for these kind of deals will decline if not disappear

I think shared ownership is just a way of keeping flat prices high. If people can't afford the going rate prices fall. Shared ownership makes flats appear affordable, but then you can end up in an sellable property because you've overpaid from day one and can't afford to sell at what the actual market price always was.

https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/new...-in-unsellable-and-unmortgageable-homes-97999

It's really not something I think the government should subsidise. It's a model that is bad value for buyers.

 

[briantrumpet]

I think shared ownership is just a way of keeping flat prices high. If people can't afford the going rate prices fall. Shared ownership makes flats appear affordable, but then you can end up in an sellable property because you've overpaid from day one and can't afford to sell at what the actual market price always was.

https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/new...-in-unsellable-and-unmortgageable-homes-97999

It's really not something I think the government should subsidise. It's a model that is bad value for buyers.

All house-buying and renting subsidies end up in the pockets of the developers/owners eventually: the market is very efficient at extracting maximum $ from the buyers/renters. The same goes for VAT reductions: all that happens is that the businesses keep what was charged in VAT as increased profit, as individual consumers have no power, but the businesses do.

 

[briantrumpet]

Lovely photo. Why do politicians bother to put on the uniform to make them look like they are real workers?

Also, is that Tommy Robinson on the right?

View attachment 16962

What, no hard hat & hi-vis? Whatever were they thinking of?

 

[Pross]

Lovely photo. Why do politicians bother to put on the uniform to make them look like they are real workers?

Also, is that Tommy Robinson on the right?

The far right?

 

[Dorset Boy]

What, no hard hat & hi-vis? Whatever were they thinking of?

What on earth goes on in the Topsham Sainsburys?

 

[briantrumpet]

What on earth goes on in the Topsham Sainsburys?

Ooh, it must be new, as there wasn't one there when I left.

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

I think shared ownership is just a way of keeping flat prices high. If people can't afford the going rate prices fall. Shared ownership makes flats appear affordable, but then you can end up in an sellable property because you've overpaid from day one and can't afford to sell at what the actual market price always was.

https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/new...-in-unsellable-and-unmortgageable-homes-97999

It's really not something I think the government should subsidise. It's a model that is bad value for buyers.

Yes i agree wiht you 100% i beleive that in a market where the goverment ensures there is enough social housing stock models like this have no way to exists because they exist because people have no other choice. When i live in Germany years ago they had something called rentbuy (translated word for word) that was something created because banks wouldn't finance and there was more offering than demand in houses over there and it works quite simple buyer and seller agree a price then a monthly sum for rent and mortage repayments is agreed and at the end off the period the renter is the owner.

All house-buying and renting subsidies end up in the pockets of the developers/owners eventually: the market is very efficient at extracting maximum $ from the buyers/renters. The same goes for VAT reductions: all that happens is that the businesses keep what was charged in VAT as increased profit, as individual consumers have no power, but the businesses do.

That why you need an goverment that breakes this cycle by building more social housing then demand and thus change the market from less offering then demand into more offerings then demand.

 

[briantrumpet]

This is the fierce analytical stuff that the BBC Political Editor really should be doing.

Hang on, no, this is worthy of Hello! Chris Mason back to form. He's just way out of his depth, even if you ignore his hots for Farage.