Vague_Boy Posted April 13, 2013 Share Posted April 13, 2013 Since 1980 you said, so that's over 32 years, that's 5.6 billion a year. A pretty small drop in the ocean of government spending really. The interest alone on our ballooning debt (thank you Gordon Brown) is £44.8 billion a year [LINK] And that's with interest rates at multi-century lows and a Triple A rating. But hey, we should be spending more, isn't that right Titanic99? To stimulate "growth"? Odd then that during the noughties, when we had growth, our debt ran out of control? UK budget deficit hits new record [bBC News, Tuesday, 20 June 2006] Notice the date on that story? 2006. Before the financial crisis. In fact, if we go back to 2001: Brown warned over public spending The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has warned Chancellor Gordon Brown against running up a budget deficit to finance public spending increases. The European Commission has warned the government to cap public spending, drawing an angry response from Mr Brown. He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "I am not prepared for the European Commission to give us lectures about what the level of spending should be in this country. "Our public investment plans will go ahead". LINK What a self-righteous plank! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted April 13, 2013 Share Posted April 13, 2013 The interest alone on our ballooning debt (thank you Gordon Brown) is £44.8 billion a year [LINK] And that's with interest rates at multi-century lows and a Triple A rating. But hey, we should be spending more, isn't that right Titanic99? To stimulate "growth"? Odd then that during the noughties, when we had growth, our debt ran out of control? UK budget deficit hits new record [bBC News, Tuesday, 20 June 2006] Notice the date on that story? 2006. Before the financial crisis. In fact, if we go back to 2001: LINK What a self-righteous plank! What's that got to do with social housing and anyway, can you explain why the tories spent more in 2.5 years of government than Labour did under 3 terms? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted April 13, 2013 Share Posted April 13, 2013 The interest alone on our ballooning debt (thank you Gordon Brown) is £44.8 billion a year [LINK] And that's with interest rates at multi-century lows and a Triple A rating. But hey, we should be spending more, isn't that right Titanic99? To stimulate "growth"? Odd then that during the noughties, when we had growth, our debt ran out of control? UK budget deficit hits new record [bBC News, Tuesday, 20 June 2006] Notice the date on that story? 2006. Before the financial crisis. In fact, if we go back to 2001: LINK What a self-righteous plank! Surely you are not trying to claim that when we had a peak in economic activity, with house prices rising by 20% per years and all the revenue it generated going into the government coffers, Gordon was still borrowing huge amounts of money, what the hell could he have spending all that money on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
denlin Posted April 13, 2013 Share Posted April 13, 2013 Same as all the other parasites in government that Thatcher created and all subsequent governments followed. They brought the country to it's knees and now in this ecomomic climate of their creating lets spend a few more million on a state funeral. The world has gone mad. There is a 2 year old girl in Sheffield who needs to go to the USA for an operation costing £50,000 and the good folk in Sheffield are raising the money to send her there. You may ask why it can't be done over here. The reason is that a cash-strapped NHS can't afford to train a specialist to do the operation. Where would you think the money should go - the dead or the living? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titanic99 Posted April 13, 2013 Author Share Posted April 13, 2013 The interest alone on our ballooning debt (thank you Gordon Brown) is £44.8 billion a year [LINK] And that's with interest rates at multi-century lows and a Triple A rating. But hey, we should be spending more, isn't that right Titanic99? To stimulate "growth"? Odd then that during the noughties, when we had growth, our debt ran out of control? UK budget deficit hits new record [bBC News, Tuesday, 20 June 2006] Notice the date on that story? 2006. Before the financial crisis. In fact, if we go back to 2001: LINK What a self-righteous plank! What has that got to do with this thread? To help you understand, this is a discussion about what has happened to the revenue received from the sale of nearly 3 million council houses across the UK (the 2 million quoted elsewhere is in England). As a citizen of this country, I am annoyed that these assets which belonged to all of us have on the whole been sold at heavily discounted prices and that the money raised has been used to prop up mainly Tory legislations during periods when their economic policies clearly failed, yet some people think the late Margaret Thatcher looked after the economy well. So if she looked after it well, then why was all the money from these sales and revenue needed from North Sea Oil to keep the country afloat. Perhaps one day some political party will realise it makes no sense to pay people to do nothing, whilst others are having to work until whatever age you are allowed to retire at. ---------- Post added 13-04-2013 at 10:00 ---------- Same as all the other parasites in government that Thatcher created and all subsequent governments followed. They brought the country to it's knees and now in this ecomomic climate of their creating lets spend a few more million on a state funeral. The world has gone mad. There is a 2 year old girl in Sheffield who needs to go to the USA for an operation costing £50,000 and the good folk in Sheffield are raising the money to send her there. You may ask why it can't be done over here. The reason is that a cash-strapped NHS can't afford to train a specialist to do the operation. Where would you think the money should go - the dead or the living? Well said, it has gone completely and utterly mad and this example demonstrates this perfectly. ---------- Post added 13-04-2013 at 10:02 ---------- What about minusing the money it would have cost to update and maintain them? What about adding back in all the lost rent revenue during this period as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altus Posted April 13, 2013 Share Posted April 13, 2013 And also the money they saved on repairs and modernisation which was not spent on the houses which were sold. As I have said before it was a shrewd move on behalf of the government/councils to sell off some of their housing stock. If people would only stop repeating the political dogma and examine the facts. If you're going to claim the council save money by no longer having to pay for the maintenance of sold off council houses you'll also have to accept they lose money by no longer receiving rents for those properties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
algy Posted April 13, 2013 Share Posted April 13, 2013 Councils weren't allowed to spend income from council house sales on building new houses, or on maintaining the remaining stock. The money had to be held in reserves. This in turn allowed the Government to reduce their contribution to local government, as the reserves could be called on to make up shortfalls to support services. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SevenRivers Posted April 13, 2013 Share Posted April 13, 2013 Councils weren't allowed to spend income from council house sales on building new houses, or on maintaining the remaining stock. The money had to be held in reserves. This in turn allowed the Government to reduce their contribution to local government, as the reserves could be called on to make up shortfalls to support services. Don't think that is still the situation, councils now rely on revenue generated from selling their old housing stock. http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/ihstory.aspx?storycode=6503042 The implication is that falling right to buy and other receipt revenues will mean less money to maintain the stock nationally through the capital programme, while at the same time there will be more properties to maintain as we are not making the sales,’ he said. Martin Wheatley, housing programme director at the Local Government Association, said right to buy receipts were a ‘significant source of income for councils’. The subsidy councils receive to maintain their homes was already ‘not generous’, he said. If this was coupled with a fall in receipts it would damage councils’ ‘ability to maintain and renew stock in the way that they would want to’, he added. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted April 13, 2013 Share Posted April 13, 2013 If you're going to claim the council save money by no longer having to pay for the maintenance of sold off council houses you'll also have to accept they lose money by no longer receiving rents for those properties. Agreed, but don't lose sight of the fact that when most people lived in council houses, 1940/50/60s they paid their own full rent. In later years housing benefit has been provided to many tenants. This isn't paid to those who bought their homes thereby saving the council/government money. As I have said before it was a very shrewd move to reduce a councils housing stock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
staninoodle Posted April 13, 2013 Share Posted April 13, 2013 The money was used on tax cuts for the wealthy and to pay the spiraling benefits system,all created by Thatchers mob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.