Budget 2016.....

First topic message reminder :

OBR has revised down potential UK productivity growth.....

Nothing like a good start !!

http://www.resolutionfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/On-the-day-Budget.pdf

The richest 20% of households will gain £225 on average from the income tax cuts announced yesterday, while the poorest 20% will get just £10 on average.

By 2020 the poorest 20% of households will lose an average of £550 from the tax and benefit changes announced since the election, while the richest 20% will gain £250.

Is it better if quantified?

Pr4wn wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:Acknowledged, I misspoke!

Rather, he has failed to control the price of housing, particularly in London. By not building more council housing and forcing housing associations to sell off their stock to landlords, you could argue that this is deliberately corrosive.

I like Germany's prospects far more than the UK's, especially if the UK votes to leave the EU.

Have they? How would that work??

I prefer the German economy to the UK's in many ways, but let's not outright lie about outperformance.

Some details of the housing association policy can be found here: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/14/tory-housing-association-right-to-buy-policy-attacked-big-business

Germany has had it worse than the UK recently but for me at least, their prospects look better. Their state has more assets and their public services (including education) are far superior to those of the UK, which appear to be deteriorating.

A housing association cannot sell its occupied housing stock to 'landlords'. It's as simple as that. Legal requirement to be a 'Registered Provider'.

It can only be in reference to back door, i.e. social/council tenants buying under RTB and then ending up at somepoint turning it into BTL, which is what happened a lot last time.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:http://www.resolutionfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/On-the-day-Budget.pdf

The richest 20% of households will gain £225 on average from the income tax cuts announced yesterday, while the poorest 20% will get just £10 on average.

By 2020 the poorest 20% of households will lose an average of £550 from the tax and benefit changes announced since the election, while the richest 20% will gain £250.

Is it better if quantified?

Again, depends how you define rich.

Recent budget changes only benefit what I would call middle-higher income households. Not rich. Especially in London where the income tax threshold changes only bite at what is actually the average salary level.

But based on a simplistic analysis most of the country can be defined as 'poor'.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:Acknowledged, I misspoke!

Rather, he has failed to control the price of housing, particularly in London. By not building more council housing and forcing housing associations to sell off their stock to landlords, you could argue that this is deliberately corrosive.

I like Germany's prospects far more than the UK's, especially if the UK votes to leave the EU.

Have they? How would that work??

I prefer the German economy to the UK's in many ways, but let's not outright lie about outperformance.

Some details of the housing association policy can be found here: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/14/tory-housing-association-right-to-buy-policy-attacked-big-business

Germany has had it worse than the UK recently but for me at least, their prospects look better. Their state has more assets and their public services (including education) are far superior to those of the UK, which appear to be deteriorating.

A housing association cannot sell its occupied housing stock to 'landlords'. It's as simple as that. Legal requirement to be a 'Registered Provider'.

It can only be in reference to back door, i.e. social/council tenants buying under RTB and then ending up at somepoint turning it into BTL, which is what happened a lot last time.

Indeed, 40% of homes sold under the scheme are now being let privately. A roaring success.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/right-to-buy-40-of-homes-sold-under-government-scheme-are-being-let-out-privately-10454796.html

Yep, RTB is a terrible policy, got me agreement there.

"depends how you define" "I would call" "actually". Nice blurring of the lines there Toppy. Simply put though, the increasing of thresholds for income tax benefit higher earners, while doing very little for the lowest earners (most of whom already pay no income tax at all). If you want to debate semantics as to whether highest earners=rich and the converse, I really can't be bothered. There is IMO no moral justification for these tax cuts while the disables, those on benefits, the homeless, and the more vulnerable sections of society in general continue to be kicked on.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:Acknowledged, I misspoke!

Rather, he has failed to control the price of housing, particularly in London. By not building more council housing and forcing housing associations to sell off their stock to landlords, you could argue that this is deliberately corrosive.

I like Germany's prospects far more than the UK's, especially if the UK votes to leave the EU.

Have they? How would that work??

I prefer the German economy to the UK's in many ways, but let's not outright lie about outperformance.

Some details of the housing association policy can be found here: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/14/tory-housing-association-right-to-buy-policy-attacked-big-business

Germany has had it worse than the UK recently but for me at least, their prospects look better. Their state has more assets and their public services (including education) are far superior to those of the UK, which appear to be deteriorating.

A housing association cannot sell its occupied housing stock to 'landlords'. It's as simple as that. Legal requirement to be a 'Registered Provider'.

It can only be in reference to back door, i.e. social/council tenants buying under RTB and then ending up at somepoint turning it into BTL, which is what happened a lot last time.

But they do sell to tenants who buy on behalf of private companies, who then give the tenant a pay off for making themselves homeless (and a very small pay off at that). It's been going on for at least 16 years and possibly longer.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/mar/17/tory-rebels-osborne-disability-benefit-cuts-just-not-acceptable

navyblueshorts wrote:

Hoonercat wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Hoonercat wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Reducing sugar intake is the most significant and important dietary & lifestyle change pretty much anyone can make.

Wasn't this known as far back as the 70's but covered up by the food companies putting pressure on the White House who then did the same to the WHO?

Doubt it. Sugar is calories, same as protein and fat. In actual fact, per gram, it's less calorie-dense than either lean protein or fat.
One thing with carbohydrate, low fat things (for example, yoghurts) are often bulked with carbohydrates instead of the fat. So they're not as low calorie as you might expect.

But AFAIK not all calories are equal, nor are all carbs. Carbs that are high in sugar cause spikes in blood sugar levels and contribute to weight gain, while complex carbs release slower so the body uses them at a more suitable rate. Athletes can manage a high carb diet with ease but your average Jo cannot, though carbs still should form part of the daily intake. Pro bodybuilders on their 'cutting' cut out as much carbs as possible for maximum fat loss.

All calories are equal, by definition. No-one (except diabetics) get spikes in blood sugar that aren't natural and they never go above a certain blood glucose level. The spikes, per se, contribute nothing to weight gain. If you eat a shedload of pasta or a shedload of table sugar, the effects re. weight gain are more or less identical. If you aren't burning the calories, no matter the source, you'll put on weight. Pasta calories don't magically become muscle while those from sucrose become lard. Athletes can manage a high sugar diet because they're simply burning it off. No more, no less. Bodybuilders are just reducing calories while pushing weight, therefore maintaining muscle at the expense of depleting adipose stores. The reduction of sugar isn't in any other way really significant.

Except that the shedload of sugar will go through your system far quicker than wholemeal pasta, giving your body less opportunity and time to burn it. If I eat 1000 calories of sugar which passes through my system in (for example) 3 hours, while sitting in the office, I'll burn less of those calories than if I eat 1000 calories of wholemeal pasta which passes through my system in (for example) 6 hours, which gives my body twice as long to burn it off at a similar activity level.

We're way off topic, but I have to respond to this.

TopHat24/7 wrote:It isn't as simple as that though.  It's about knowing how your body reacts to the different foods you put in it.  As someone has already mentioned, sugar (particularly overly refined/processed) causes your insulin to spike and your body reacts negatively as a result, both in how in treats your current energy reserves and level but also how it 'tricks' your mind into decided what to put in next.

Hmmm. Your insulin 'spiking' is what it's meant to do. It isn't unhealthy. In the slightest. Your body releasing insulin in response to a glucose bolus is as far from 'negative' as it's possible to be. It's the response that's evolved over billions of years. It's what's meant to happen and routes glucose into glycogen, down the glycolytic pathway amongst other things and yes, into fat. Let's get away from the "refined/processed" as well, as if that's somehow significant. It's only glucose that causes insulin release. The only relevance of refinement etc is if it increases the overall % glucose content of a sugar foodstuff.

TopHat24/7 wrote:Fat doesn't cause your insulin to spike.  Same as it doesn't cause diabetes.  Whilst it is double the calories per gramme it is a lot easier to control and manage than sugars.  Therefore saying you just need to burn more calories than you take on, regardless of the make up of that intake, is overly simplistic, unrealistic and unhelpful.  Especially as it is near impossible to know how many calories you actually burn in a day.

Oh dear. Fat (by which I mean adipose) absolutely causes diabetes, the metabolic syndrome and much more. It's directly responsible for Type 2 diabetes. It causes decreased insulin-sensitivity at the peripheral tissues with the knockon that pancreatic β-cells over compensate and eventually flake out. It's no more easy to 'control' than sugar. Fat (dietary) is just as much a contributor to excessive visceral adipose as dietary sugar or protein, if taken in excess leading to continual weight gain. 'Fat' has a multitude of effects on basic physiology. Far too many to go into here. I'm sorry it's hard to hear, but my take is not simplistic or unhelpful.

TopHat24/7 wrote:My comments re exercise are not out at all, when in the context of losing weight.  I wasn't talking about being in a healthy starting position and just maintaining it (which is what the '20-30 mins a day' is relevant to). Trust me, I've been there and I've done that.  Reasonable exercise + poor diet = weight gain (or, at best, static weight).  To drop weight WITH poor diet you have to be doing an absolute tonne of exercise. For example, 4 pints of lager equates to almost 1,000 kcals - this would take the average person over an hour of vigorous exercise to burn off. I weight a heafty 110kg still and it still took me 45 mins to burn off 800 kcals this morning before work, which meant an hour of actual gym floor time.

The sugar tax is balls but your understanding of diet, nutrition and exercise isn't that great either.

Yes, as I acceded to above, diet is a major component of weight loss. I don't dispute that but it isn't all sugar. I do have a serious dispute with the flawed biochemistry/nutrition that's underlying your belief that it was sugar (and, apparently, only sugar) wot did it. You may also be confusing weight loss with re-distribution as a result of exercise. Muscle has a higher density than lard. Exercise will gain you muscle and lose lard, but you may well even gain weight as a result. Depends on the start point.

I'm done with this I'm afraid. Congratulations on the weight loss, it's not easy to get it off and keep it off. If a régime has worked for you, that's excellent.

I guess my biochemistry degree etc etc means I do indeed have no knowledge of nutrition/exercise/metabolism etc. The fact I work with at least 5 (off the top of my head) human metabolic physiologists obviously hasn't rubbed off in a positive way either. My bad...

I know you said you're done but would you like a separate nutrition thread, Navy? ;-)

Hoonercat wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Hoonercat wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Hoonercat wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Reducing sugar intake is the most significant and important dietary & lifestyle change pretty much anyone can make.

Wasn't this known as far back as the 70's but covered up by the food companies putting pressure on the White House who then did the same to the WHO?

Doubt it. Sugar is calories, same as protein and fat. In actual fact, per gram, it's less calorie-dense than either lean protein or fat.
One thing with carbohydrate, low fat things (for example, yoghurts) are often bulked with carbohydrates instead of the fat. So they're not as low calorie as you might expect.

But AFAIK not all calories are equal, nor are all carbs. Carbs that are high in sugar cause spikes in blood sugar levels and contribute to weight gain, while complex carbs release slower so the body uses them at a more suitable rate. Athletes can manage a high carb diet with ease but your average Jo cannot, though carbs still should form part of the daily intake. Pro bodybuilders on their 'cutting' cut out as much carbs as possible for maximum fat loss.

All calories are equal, by definition. No-one (except diabetics) get spikes in blood sugar that aren't natural and they never go above a certain blood glucose level. The spikes, per se, contribute nothing to weight gain. If you eat a shedload of pasta or a shedload of table sugar, the effects re. weight gain are more or less identical. If you aren't burning the calories, no matter the source, you'll put on weight. Pasta calories don't magically become muscle while those from sucrose become lard. Athletes can manage a high sugar diet because they're simply burning it off. No more, no less. Bodybuilders are just reducing calories while pushing weight, therefore maintaining muscle at the expense of depleting adipose stores. The reduction of sugar isn't in any other way really significant.

Except that the shedload of sugar will go through your system far quicker than wholemeal pasta, giving your body less opportunity and time to burn it. If I eat 1000 calories of sugar which passes through my system in (for example) 3 hours, while sitting in the office, I'll burn less of those calories than if I eat 1000 calories of wholemeal pasta which passes through my system in (for example) 6 hours, which gives my body twice as long to burn it off at a similar activity level.

You'll 'burn' the sugar fine, if you mean 'metabolise'. Actually, depending on the shedload, you'll probably p!ss some out directly. If you mean that eating the simple sugar as opposed to the complex sugars (pasta) means you won't be as hungry so soon, you may have indirectly hit on an important point, but that's not the same thing at all. In actual fact, what do you mean by 'burn'? That doesn't mean anything here.
Let's assume you eat 1000 cals of sucrose or 1000 cals of pasta and nothing else over 6 hours. You might feel more hungry having eaten the sucrose by the end, but you'll have put on exactly the same weight.

Pr4wn wrote:I know you said you're done but would you like a separate nutrition thread, Navy? ;-)

Nah. I'm done. Honest. Clearly I'm not going to change their minds. Back to the budget...

TopHat24/7 wrote:OMG, you really are making yourself look stupid and ignorant now. "When many of our EU partners are still growing" - who is that again??!!

We've outstripped every EU country by miles for the last few years and none look close to catching up, not even Germany.  We've the strongest growth figures in the developed world, now that the Chinese wheels have fallen off the Oz economy.

But yes, your Tory-hate filled rhetoric means those lovely European socialists must definitely all be doing a better job. Let's ignore the flatlined GDP and massive unemployment stats......

Excellent. So when will the public get to see the benefits of this amazing economy? As for the massive unemployment stats, the overall EU figure is skewed by those countries who mismanaged their own economies (Greece, Portugal, Spain for example). You also need to consider the quality of jobs as well as the quantity, when a ridiculously large number of UK workers have to rely on state handouts to be able to afford a roof over their heads, with the tax payer subsidising business by making up the shortfall in wages. Economic growth means nothing to the majority of the population if it doesn't improve quality of life.

France's employment rates are shocking in comparison to the UK, to be fair.

But the quality of jobs is an important point. 1 million people on ZHCs in the UK. Does wonders for the unemployment rate but productivity statistics for the UK are abominable.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:"depends how you define" "I would call" "actually". Nice blurring of the lines there Toppy. Simply put though, the increasing of thresholds for income tax benefit higher earners, while doing very little for the lowest earners (most of whom already pay no income tax at all). If you want to debate semantics as to whether highest earners=rich and the converse, I really can't be bothered. There is IMO no moral justification for these tax cuts while the disables, those on benefits, the homeless, and the more vulnerable sections of society in general continue to be kicked on.

It's not blurring lines. I will be totally straight - I don't think earning £40-45k pa, especially in London, makes you rich.

Also these dud apprenticeships which is basically cheap labour from older people instead of the young people it is supposed to help.

Hoonercat wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:Acknowledged, I misspoke!

Rather, he has failed to control the price of housing, particularly in London. By not building more council housing and forcing housing associations to sell off their stock to landlords, you could argue that this is deliberately corrosive.

I like Germany's prospects far more than the UK's, especially if the UK votes to leave the EU.

Have they? How would that work??

I prefer the German economy to the UK's in many ways, but let's not outright lie about outperformance.

Some details of the housing association policy can be found here: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/14/tory-housing-association-right-to-buy-policy-attacked-big-business

Germany has had it worse than the UK recently but for me at least, their prospects look better. Their state has more assets and their public services (including education) are far superior to those of the UK, which appear to be deteriorating.

A housing association cannot sell its occupied housing stock to 'landlords'. It's as simple as that. Legal requirement to be a 'Registered Provider'.

It can only be in reference to back door, i.e. social/council tenants buying under RTB and then ending up at somepoint turning it into BTL, which is what happened a lot last time.

But they do sell to tenants who buy on behalf of private companies, who then give the tenant a pay off for making themselves homeless (and a very small pay off at that). It's been going on for at least 16 years and possibly longer.

No, they don't/can't.

Sell to tenants who in turn, as private unregulated individuals, may then trade on or convert to BTL.

navyblueshorts wrote:We're way off topic, but I have to respond to this.

TopHat24/7 wrote:It isn't as simple as that though.  It's about knowing how your body reacts to the different foods you put in it.  As someone has already mentioned, sugar (particularly overly refined/processed) causes your insulin to spike and your body reacts negatively as a result, both in how in treats your current energy reserves and level but also how it 'tricks' your mind into decided what to put in next.

Hmmm. Your insulin 'spiking' is what it's meant to do. It isn't unhealthy. In the slightest. Your body releasing insulin in response to a glucose bolus is as far from 'negative' as it's possible to be. It's the response that's evolved over billions of years. It's what's meant to happen and routes glucose into glycogen, down the glycolytic pathway amongst other things and yes, into fat. Let's get away from the "refined/processed" as well, as if that's somehow significant. It's only glucose that causes insulin release. The only relevance of refinement etc is if it increases the overall % glucose content of a sugar foodstuff.

TopHat24/7 wrote:Fat doesn't cause your insulin to spike.  Same as it doesn't cause diabetes.  Whilst it is double the calories per gramme it is a lot easier to control and manage than sugars.  Therefore saying you just need to burn more calories than you take on, regardless of the make up of that intake, is overly simplistic, unrealistic and unhelpful.  Especially as it is near impossible to know how many calories you actually burn in a day.

Oh dear. Fat (by which I mean adipose) absolutely causes diabetes, the metabolic syndrome and much more. It's directly responsible for Type 2 diabetes. It causes decreased insulin-sensitivity at the peripheral tissues with the knockon that pancreatic β-cells over compensate and eventually flake out. It's no more easy to 'control' than sugar. Fat (dietary) is just as much a contributor to excessive visceral adipose as dietary sugar or protein, if taken in excess leading to continual weight gain. 'Fat' has a multitude of effects on basic physiology. Far too many to go into here. I'm sorry it's hard to hear, but my take is not simplistic or unhelpful.

TopHat24/7 wrote:My comments re exercise are not out at all, when in the context of losing weight.  I wasn't talking about being in a healthy starting position and just maintaining it (which is what the '20-30 mins a day' is relevant to). Trust me, I've been there and I've done that.  Reasonable exercise + poor diet = weight gain (or, at best, static weight).  To drop weight WITH poor diet you have to be doing an absolute tonne of exercise. For example, 4 pints of lager equates to almost 1,000 kcals - this would take the average person over an hour of vigorous exercise to burn off. I weight a heafty 110kg still and it still took me 45 mins to burn off 800 kcals this morning before work, which meant an hour of actual gym floor time.

The sugar tax is balls but your understanding of diet, nutrition and exercise isn't that great either.

Yes, as I acceded to above, diet is a major component of weight loss. I don't dispute that but it isn't all sugar. I do have a serious dispute with the flawed biochemistry/nutrition that's underlying your belief that it was sugar (and, apparently, only sugar) wot did it. You may also be confusing weight loss with re-distribution as a result of exercise. Muscle has a higher density than lard. Exercise will gain you muscle and lose lard, but you may well even gain weight as a result. Depends on the start point.

I'm done with this I'm afraid. Congratulations on the weight loss, it's not easy to get it off and keep it off. If a régime has worked for you, that's excellent.

I guess my biochemistry degree etc etc means I do indeed have no knowledge of nutrition/exercise/metabolism etc. The fact I work with at least 5 (off the top of my head) human metabolic physiologists obviously hasn't rubbed off in a positive way either. My bad...

Fair play. I feel told! Though I'd note that personal experiences are important and what is simple for a scientist to see in a black & white lab scenario is very different to practical real world advice.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Hoonercat wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:Acknowledged, I misspoke!

Rather, he has failed to control the price of housing, particularly in London. By not building more council housing and forcing housing associations to sell off their stock to landlords, you could argue that this is deliberately corrosive.

I like Germany's prospects far more than the UK's, especially if the UK votes to leave the EU.

Have they? How would that work??

I prefer the German economy to the UK's in many ways, but let's not outright lie about outperformance.

Some details of the housing association policy can be found here: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/14/tory-housing-association-right-to-buy-policy-attacked-big-business

Germany has had it worse than the UK recently but for me at least, their prospects look better. Their state has more assets and their public services (including education) are far superior to those of the UK, which appear to be deteriorating.

A housing association cannot sell its occupied housing stock to 'landlords'. It's as simple as that. Legal requirement to be a 'Registered Provider'.

It can only be in reference to back door, i.e. social/council tenants buying under RTB and then ending up at somepoint turning it into BTL, which is what happened a lot last time.

But they do sell to tenants who buy on behalf of private companies, who then give the tenant a pay off for making themselves homeless (and a very small pay off at that). It's been going on for at least 16 years and possibly longer.

No, they don't/can't.

Sell to tenants who in turn, as private unregulated individuals, may then trade on or convert to BTL.

As a former council tenant, I can assure you that they do/did (in fact, the Daily Mail ran a story on it last year, as much as I hate to mention the Mail). And while 16 years ago, they may not have knowingly done so, I can't imagine for one minute that the govt aren't aware of it by now, and AFAIK haven't brought in any legislation to stop it. We were offered £3k to buy our council property and move out (in 2000/2001) with the money being supplied by the letting company who would let it out before selling it after (from memory) 5 years (I believe there was a time related condition when buying a council property that it couldn't be sold on within a certain time).

It was still a choice and decision you made and not the government selling to a company. That private individuals act in self interest for their own greed is not a transfer of moral responsibility from the private to the public.

TopHat24/7 wrote:It was still a choice and decision you made and not the government selling to a company. That private individuals act in self interest for their own greed is not a transfer of moral responsibility from the private to the public.

1. I told them where to go, even though we were buying our own home in the following few months. 2. I didn't say the govt were selling directly, the point was that they know it goes on but do nothing to stop it, AFAIK as it was still being reported last year.

Hoonercat wrote:But they do sell to tenants who buy on behalf of private companies

TopHat24/7 wrote:Fair play. I feel told! Though I'd note that personal experiences are important and what is simple for a scientist to see in a black & white lab scenario is very different to practical real world advice.

Absolutely. Lab environments, even with human test subjects, aren't the real world. It's a complex subject at the end of the day. Less sugar intake is a good thing for most people but this tax is (probably) not going to help much.

Hoonercat wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:It was still a choice and decision you made and not the government selling to a company. That private individuals act in self interest for their own greed is not a transfer of moral responsibility from the private to the public.

1. I told them where to go, even though we were buying our own home in the following few months. 2. I didn't say the govt were selling directly, the point was that they know it goes on but do nothing to stop it, AFAIK as it was still being reported last year.

Hoonercat wrote:But they do sell to tenants who buy on behalf of private companies

You are still talking about a transfer of moral responsibility from the private individuals taking decisions to the government who is a passive component in order to blame somebody else.

I disagree with RTB, but council tenants flogging on their properties to make a quick buck is THEIR negative action not the government's.

navyblueshorts wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Fair play. I feel told! Though I'd note that personal experiences are important and what is simple for a scientist to see in a black & white lab scenario is very different to practical real world advice.

Absolutely. Lab environments, even with human test subjects, aren't the real world. It's a complex subject at the end of the day. Less sugar intake is a good thing for most people but this tax is (probably) not going to help much.

Agree there! Though time will tell I think.

Excluding lactose and fructose heavy drinks was a mistake, IMO. Fruit juice was disasterous for my weight gain and there's more sugar is most fancy chain coffees than any soft drinks.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35831125

The most sugary soft drink, Jamaica Ginger Beer, has 15.7g per 100.

Welch's 100% Purple Grape Juice...... has 16.5g per 100.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Hoonercat wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:It was still a choice and decision you made and not the government selling to a company. That private individuals act in self interest for their own greed is not a transfer of moral responsibility from the private to the public.

1. I told them where to go, even though we were buying our own home in the following few months. 2. I didn't say the govt were selling directly, the point was that they know it goes on but do nothing to stop it, AFAIK as it was still being reported last year.

Hoonercat wrote:But they do sell to tenants who buy on behalf of private companies

You are still talking about a transfer of moral responsibility from the private individuals taking decisions to the government who is a passive component in order to blame somebody else.

I disagree with RTB, but council tenants flogging on their properties to make a quick buck is THEIR negative action not the government's.

It's wrong, yet the government does nothing to stop it. Why? This is surely something that should be regulated.

Are the government meant to step in and stop every potentially negative action a private individual takes of their own accord?

That, my friend, is communism. No thank you.

Not a poll fan, but a lot of yesterday's budget has certainly gone down poorly (unsurprsinigly):

The Times have a new YouGov poll in tomorrow’s paper, conducted after Wednesday’s budget. It’s not good news for George Osborne.

Every budget has positive and negative parts, and it’s the same here: some parts of Osborne’s budget are popular, some aren’t. Increasing the personal allowance is popular (83% say its a good idea), as is cracking down on international tax avoidance (81%), freezing fuel duty (74%) and the sugar tax (62%). People are more divided over the increase to the higher rate threshold (46% say it’s good, but 37% the wrong priority), and are negative about the cut in corporation tax (32% good idea, 43% wrong priority). The worst ratings are for the cuts to disability benefits for people reliant on aids or appliances. Only 13% of people support the disability cuts, 70% think they are the wrong priority at the present time, including 59% of Tory voters.

Budgets are more than just the sum of their parts of course. After each budget YouGov ask the same question about whether people think the budget was fair or unfair, this year 28% thought the budget was fair, 38% unfair. Both of last year’s budgets were seen as more fair than unfair, so were the budgets of 2014 and 2013 (past figures are all here). You have to go all the way back to 2012 to find the last time an Osborne budget was seen as unfair… the omnishambles budget. That is not a good precedent.

Meanwhile voting intention stands at CON 33%, LAB 34%, LDEM 6%, UKIP 16%. This is very much in line with the ICM poll earlier in the week that had Labour and Conservatives equal. People were understandably wary of reading too much into one poll, but we now have two polls both showing Labour and the Conservatives neck-and-neck, suggesting something is genuinely afoot.

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/

TopHat24/7 wrote:Are the government meant to step in and stop every potentially negative action a private individual takes of their own accord?

That, my friend, is communism. No thank you.

That, my dear Mail reader, is not what I'm saying, is it?

TopHat24/7 wrote:Are the government meant to step in and stop every potentially negative action a private individual takes of their own accord?

That, my friend, is communism. No thank you.

That depends on your viewpoint. A more appropriate question might be 'Should the government step in to stop greedy businessmen taking advantage of the poor?' Right To Buy is hailed as a means to help those who cannot afford to buy their own property and move up the social ladder, not to further line the pockets of the already-rich, who would rather grab the large discount for themselves than see those beneath them profit from it.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Hoonercat wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:It was still a choice and decision you made and not the government selling to a company. That private individuals act in self interest for their own greed is not a transfer of moral responsibility from the private to the public.

1. I told them where to go, even though we were buying our own home in the following few months. 2. I didn't say the govt were selling directly, the point was that they know it goes on but do nothing to stop it, AFAIK as it was still being reported last year.

Hoonercat wrote:But they do sell to tenants who buy on behalf of private companies

You are still talking about a transfer of moral responsibility from the private individuals taking decisions to the government who is a passive component in order to blame somebody else.

I disagree with RTB, but council tenants flogging on their properties to make a quick buck is THEIR negative action not the government's.

I'm not sure why you're failing to grasp this, but they are not their own properties, they are bought by the tenant on behalf of the property co, using money belonging to the property co, for which the tenant receives a very small payment to make themselves homeless, thus becoming a burden on the housing system while the property co take the discount that was intended for the tenant.

Hoonercat wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Are the government meant to step in and stop every potentially negative action a private individual takes of their own accord?

That, my friend, is communism. No thank you.

That depends on your viewpoint. A more appropriate question might be 'Should the government step in to stop greedy businessmen taking advantage of the poor?' Right To Buy is hailed as a means to help those who cannot afford to buy their own property and move up the social ladder, not to further line the pockets of the already-rich, who would rather grab the large discount for themselves than see those beneath them profit from it.

This attitude is a large part of what's wrong with this country.

So you're condoning what's happening here then? You're condoning over 40% of the properties in this scheme now being in the hands of private landlords?

Hoonercat wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Hoonercat wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:It was still a choice and decision you made and not the government selling to a company. That private individuals act in self interest for their own greed is not a transfer of moral responsibility from the private to the public.

1. I told them where to go, even though we were buying our own home in the following few months. 2. I didn't say the govt were selling directly, the point was that they know it goes on but do nothing to stop it, AFAIK as it was still being reported last year.

Hoonercat wrote:But they do sell to tenants who buy on behalf of private companies

You are still talking about a transfer of moral responsibility from the private individuals taking decisions to the government who is a passive component in order to blame somebody else.

I disagree with RTB, but council tenants flogging on their properties to make a quick buck is THEIR negative action not the government's.

I'm not sure why you're failing to grasp this, but they are not their own properties, they are bought by the tenant on behalf of the property co, using money belonging to the property co, for which the tenant receives a very small payment to make themselves homeless, thus becoming a burden on the housing system while the property co take the discount that was intended for the tenant.

1) IS THE COMPANY BUYING THE PROPERTY? NO.
2) IS THE TENANT BUYING THE PROEPRTY? YES.
3) DOES THE TENANT GET PAID FOR ITS (AT BEST) 'MIDDLE MAN' POSITION FACILITATING A TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY FROM STATE TO CORPORATE OWNERHSIP? YES.

Again, I'm not sure what you're struggling with so much. The tenant, acting in purely their own self interest to make some quick cash, uses ITS position under RTB to buy a property before immediately transfer ownership to a business for a cash bung.

The tenant isn't forced to do anything. It is not obligated to do anything. IT uses ITS status under RTB to make a quick buck. Where the financing comes from is irrelevant.

Pr4wn wrote:So you're condoning what's happening here then? You're condoning over 40% of the properties in this scheme now being in the hands of private landlords?

I think I've been pretty categorical that RTB is a poor policy which I do not support.

My point is that it genuinely disgusts me how much private feckless individuals try to transfers the burden of responsibility (whether moral or otherwise) onto the Government for actions they take of their own free will. After trade unions and unrecognised preferential treatment of women it is probably my biggest bug bear in life - blame culture.

One of the purposes of government is to create legislation that protects the population, be that from murderers, fraudster or from greedy individuals that are looking to take advantage of a scheme that's not meant for them.

Legislation should be drawn up to stop this from happening.

Got to say, I'm a fan of the sugar tax. It sends a negative message to people, and if that sticks in their minds ten it may help. I've been teaching Year 6 about sugar this week, and just having the fact that these things will cost more money cos the government is against them (basic terms) has provoked thought.

I'm always confused by sugar. I drink eight cans of regular coca-cola a day (yes, yes, terribly unhealthy) but I only weigh around 7.5-8 stone. Can't say I partake in a great, or even moderate, deal of exercise either.

Ignorance is bliss, so I'll carry on in this way.

Pr4wn wrote:One of the purposes of government is to create legislation that protects the population, be that from murderers, fraudster or from greedy individuals that are looking to take advantage of a scheme that's not meant for them.

Legislation should be drawn up to stop this from happening.

Where do you draw the line though? In terms of inhibiting private individuals' decision making and action taking where completely legal??

Can they sell 1 yr later? 10 yrs? Can their kids inherit the property? If they can can they sell? If they can inherit but can't sell can they rent?

Basically you're looking to massively encroach on personal freedoms and laws of estate because some people did something you didn't like but was totally legal and you want/need to blame the government.

Personally I'd just scrap RTB.

Anyways, enjoy the (very good so far) debate, all. I'm off to Sri Lanka for Easter. Cheerio!

Enjoy mate. Safe journey.

Iain Duncan Smith has dramatically quit the cabinet, branding cuts to benefits for the disabled in George Osborne’s as Budget “indefensible”.

Lmf*o the biggest c*nt of them all

Just in case any f*cker thinks IDS is a man of principle...

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2016/03/17/ids-loses-legal-challenge-to-keep-universal-credit-problems

Easy enough connection to make. Pity the poor sod who replaces the scummer.

On a vaguely related note....tophat goes to Sri Lanka...IDS resigns.






.....Elopement?

Man resigns over the enactment of cuts he voted for. All very odd.

Been a funny 12 or so hours on Twitter. Reminds me that, in the end, there are right and left wing Kumquat and its hard to say whether I want any of them to have happy political lives

Hilarious that IDS is trying to get away with this like he has some kind of conscience.

His resignation was about one thing, putting more pressure on Osborne and trying to destroy his political career.

As Rowley said, IDS voted for these cuts and presided over the most brutal welfare cuts in Britain's history. Now the man that lives in his father-in-law's manor for free is trying to act like he's a man of the people.

Pr4wn wrote:Hilarious that IDS is trying to get away with this like he has some kind of conscience.

His resignation was about one thing, putting more pressure on Osborne and trying to destroy his political career.

As Rowley said, IDS voted for these cuts and presided over the most brutal welfare cuts in Britain's history. Now the man that lives in his father-in-law's manor for free is trying to act like he's a man of the people.

He may have been part of a Cabinet whose majority agreed these proposed cuts, but he may not have been in favour of them in that Cabinet. I'm not an IDS supporter by any means, but I don't necessarily believe the guff that other Tories are saying either.

So he was fine with the first round of brutal cuts (he actively supported them) but this second round was just a bridge too far? He's a worm. If he didn't support the first round of disability cuts he should have resigned back then.

All this is is an attempt to oust Osborne and eventually Cameron so that Johnson and his cronies can take over.