news & politics:discussion

[steviewevie]

and Wes Streeting 🙂

[Guest]

1 hour ago, steviewevie said:

 

People can barely afford their bills and food but they’ll jump at the chance to use their benefits to buy their house.

Is this really all he has!?

[Guest]

 

[steviewevie]

48 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

People can barely afford their bills and food but they’ll jump at the chance to use their benefits to buy their house.

Is this really all he has!?

Isn't it that housing benefit or whatever that usually goes to a landlord would go to paying a mortgage? Don't know how feasible it is with price of houses.

[Guest]

6 hours ago, steviewevie said:

Isn't it that housing benefit or whatever that usually goes to a landlord would go to paying a mortgage? Don't know how feasible it is with price of houses.

They can’t afford the weekly shop so I don’t they can afford the deposit for a prior. 

[Guest]

 

[squirrelarmy]

On benefit forms it asks if you have more than £16k in savings. You probably need at least £20k deposit to even think about buying a house. 
 

If the government are providing the fund via benefits to purchase the houses, will they also be introducing a scheme to help with the deposits too?

Then what happens when the person on benefits inevitably defaults on the mortgage? Will the government continue paying on their behalf?

You have to wonder who actually owns the house in the end, if there’s some small print saying that in the case of non payment the house ownership ends up in the hands of the local authority but the occupants can stay there for a minimal rent fee. 
 

It’s like a reverse Right To Buy. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, squirrelarmy said:

On benefit forms it asks if you have more than £16k in savings. You probably need at least £20k deposit to even think about buying a house. 
 

If the government are providing the fund via benefits to purchase the houses, will they also be introducing a scheme to help with the deposits too?

Then what happens when the person on benefits inevitably defaults on the mortgage? Will the government continue paying on their behalf?

You have to wonder who actually owns the house in the end, if there’s some small print saying that in the case of non payment the house ownership ends up in the hands of the local authority but the occupants can stay there for a minimal rent fee. 
 

It’s like a reverse Right To Buy. 

Also if they decide to 100% mortgages for this then it will devalue the housing market and then leave these people stuck with negative equity. 

[Neil]

9 hours ago, Ozanne said:

People can barely afford their bills and food but they’ll jump at the chance to use their benefits to buy their house.

not so easy when its difficult to get social hosing in the first place.

[steviewevie]

he's hoping it will be have same effect as Thatchers buy your council home thing. Home owners vote tory.

[squirrelarmy]

1 hour ago, steviewevie said:

he's hoping it will be have same effect as Thatchers buy your council home thing. Home owners vote tory.

Except Thatchers scheme actually happened. This is just a nonsense policy announcement just in time for the by-elections that is just going to appeal to a small section of voters but will never actually happen in real life. 

[steviewevie]

 

[steviewevie]

 

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

 

If only he would talk policy more in the Commons 😉

[Guest]

So Johnson has now bemoaned the high tax burden, which he raised and says wages shouldn’t rise in-line with prices. So we should be poorer. Good job PM. Idiot. 

[fraybentos1]

49 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

 

Must be a slow day at work if you’re baiting ozanne like this just for a reply Stevie 

[steviewevie]

49 minutes ago, fraybentos1 said:

Must be a slow day at work if you’re baiting ozanne like this just for a reply Stevie 

kin'ell you're weird

[gary1979666]

1 hour ago, Ozanne said:

So Johnson has now bemoaned the high tax burden, which he raised and says wages shouldn’t rise in-line with prices. So we should be poorer. Good job PM. Idiot. 

But wouldn't raising wages to match the level of inflation just fuel that inflation further?  As companies have to increase prices to make up for their higher wage costs. 

[steviewevie]

8 minutes ago, gary1979666 said:

But wouldn't raising wages to match the level of inflation just fuel that inflation further?  As companies have to increase prices to make up for their higher wage costs. 

yeah, this is the risk...which is why inflation can be a bit of a killer...

[steviewevie]

 

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, gary1979666 said:

But wouldn't raising wages to match the level of inflation just fuel that inflation further?  As companies have to increase prices to make up for their higher wage costs. 

So we should accept falling wages?

[fraybentos1]

1 hour ago, steviewevie said:

kin'ell you're weird

I’m not wrong tho 

[lost]

She's not the sharpest tool in the box is she? If my local pays their glass collectors £15 an hour the only place the cost can go is the beer I've just drunk out the glass. It'd be nice if Starmer had another term to clear the nutters out. 

[gary1979666]

1 hour ago, Ozanne said:

So we should accept falling wages?

I'm not saying that, but a blanket increase on wages won't help either - it'll make things worse long term, when inflation spirals. Not sure what the solution is. Don't agree with the Tory calls for tax cuts either.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, gary1979666 said:

I'm not saying that, but a blanket increase on wages won't help either - it'll make things worse long term, when inflation spirals. Not sure what the solution is. Don't agree with the Tory calls for tax cuts either.

Isn’t the solution to high inflation a recession? Generally speaking that’s what has sorted them out before.

The PM said 8 months ago that we would have a huge wage economy and now he suddenly doesn’t want that. He never wanted us to have more money, none of the Tories do.