(not satire – it’s David Cameron!)
David Cameron has today announced his supposedly big policy idea which is supposed to win him the election.
It’s a return to one of Thatcher’s failed policies from the 1980s – the so-called ‘right-to-buy’.
The policy failed over 30 years ago because all it has done is to put huge numbers of former council flats in the hands of multi-millionaire landlords who are demanding extortionate rents.
As a good illustration of the kind of people who have benefited from the policy, the son of Thatcher’s ‘right-to-buy’ housing minister now owns 40 ex-council homes himself:
Son of Thatcher’s ‘right-to-buy’ housing minister now owns 40 ex-council homes
Cameron has no ideas of his own and is reduced to trying to copy failed policies from over 30 years ago.
Cameron is nothing more than a pound shop Margaret Thatcher.
.
Please feel free to comment and share. Thanks:
Pride's Purge 
Pingback: Son of Thatcher’s ‘right-to-buy’ housing minister now owns 40 ex-council homes | Pride's Purge
Nobody will notice chaps.
After all, the plebs only have the memory of a Goldfish.
LikeLiked by 1 person
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/dumping-the-poor-nick-cohen-unravels-the-homesforvotes-scandal-engulfing-dame-shirley-porter-and-reveals-that-her-successors-on-westminster-council-are-still-1407226.html
IT HAS A NAME ITS CALLED HOMES FOR VOTES.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on My Blog News.
LikeLike
NEWSSPORTWORLDFOOTBALLBUSINESSARTS & ENTSPEOPLELIFEVIDEOTECHVOICESTRAVELINDYBESTi100STUDENTMONEY
OFFERSSHOPDATINGPROPERTY SEARCH


Dumping the poor: Nick Cohen unravels the homes-for-votes scandal engulfing Dame Shirley Porter and reveals that her successors on Westminster council are still . . .
A A+




23
By NICK COHEN
Sunday 16 January 1994
WESTMINSTER City Council, the Tory flagship condemned last week for ‘improper and disgraceful gerrymandering’, is still trying to push the poor and the homeless out of central London.
Confidential documents, seen by the Independent on Sunday, reveal that despite the public outrage about the affair Westminster is currently using its contacts at the highest levels of the Conservative Party in an attempt to remove the homeless by defining them away.
The council is asking the Government to allow all local authorities to save money by cutting drastically the numbers of homeless people they are obliged by law to rehouse. If the plans are accepted by ministers, tens of thousands of destitute people across Britain could be denied priority places on council house waiting lists.

This controversial proposal has come to light just days after the District Auditor recommended in his preliminary report that 10 former councillors and officers (including one who is now a Tory MP) should be forced to pay back the pounds 21m their policies cost ratepayers, and be disqualified from standing as local councillors. That case involved an attempt to manipulate elections whereas the new proposal does not, but a common theme links the two: in both cases the council demonstrates a determined reluctance to accept responsibility for housing the poor people within its boundaries.
Last week’s revelations about what the auditor, John Magill, variously described as the ‘disgraceful’, ‘wilful’, ‘unlawful’, ‘unauthorised’ and ‘improper’ decisions of Westminster Council, were based on events between 1986 and 1988. His report describes how Dame Shirley Porter, the heiress to the Tesco fortune who was then council leader, with her Conservative colleagues and some council officers, produced a two-track strategy to ensure that the Tories were returned to power in the marginal local authority.
One track dealt with the homeless, whom the Labour Party had organised and put on the electoral roll before the closely fought 1986 council election. They were regarded as a danger to the Conservatives, and a policy document drawn up for the local Tory leadership said in 1986 that the council must examine the costs of ‘homeless / down and outs who are not our natural supporters’.
****The other track involved house sales. The Conservatives decided that home ownership – at very low levels in central London – should be increased so that a natural and permanent Conservative majority could be manufactured in Westminster. This was to be achieved by setting aside 10,000 council homes for sale to Westminster residents or to people from outside. Vacant council homes – where tenants had died or moved on – were to be sold at a rate of 500 a year. Most of the ‘designated’ homes were in eight electoral wards with fragile Tory majorities. By promoting owner-occupation in the target wards, a paper for the Tory leadership explained in 1987, the politicians would encourage ‘a pattern of tenure which is more likely to translate into Conservative votes’.****
ITS CALLED GERRY MANDERING MR CAMERON
LikeLike
“put huge numbers of former council flats in the hands of multi-millionaire landlords who are demanding extortionate rents.”
Which is the intention of our “Poundshop Thatcher” Prime Minister, which amply demonstrates the feeble minds of the Tories in expecting the same ruse will work again. Hopefully Cameron is facing his last few weeks in No.10.
LikeLiked by 2 people
1st i was a socialist…then i bought my council house….now there are 5m on the waiting list…millions homeless…right wing voter pool expanded…protecting house prices @ all costs….houses deliberately kept in short supply…right wing inflation offset sink…http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2011/feb/5000-new-council-homes-pledged-under-snp in 2012 the snp built 14800 new houses, and have also ended the right to buy…
LikeLike
Well…
Imagine that local councils built high quality homes in quantity, especially during economic downturns when need was greatest (and there was labour available).. then during boom times they could RTB/sell them. Thus realizing profits – so less council tax or more services – as well as providing decent low-cost social housing, and making sure that house building matched population increase. And being a counter-cyclical economic stimulus.
That would actually make sense as a policy. Financial sense, social sense, etc.. the only people to lose out would be slum landlords.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Cameron is all mouth and shoddy, Primark trousers.
LikeLike
David ‘Shoddy Trousers’ Cameron
LikeLike
I for one refuse to vote for anyone wearing shoddy trousers.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Britain Isn't Eating.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on patricknelson750.
LikeLike
So, while interest rates are low people are encourage to borrow to buy their housing association property.
When interest rates go up and the same people can’t afford to pay their mortgages, the building societies kick them out, (with the help and compliance of our police), then sell them off to property speculators who will rent them out at extortionate rents putting pressure on the housing benefit system.
Hasn’t this happened before some time?
LikeLiked by 2 people
This is a desperate policy to bribe people to vote Tory, sadly it works and people are sucked into it because they think only think of themselves. Classic Tory divide and conquer.
LikeLiked by 1 person
mervyn
in a debate in the scottish parl it was stated that between 1997 and 2007 labour built 6 new council houses…keir hardie must be burralin in his grave….
during that time labour made no attempt to end that practice nor build millions of much needed homes….see snp record in link, despite budget restrictions, above…
the vast majority of the uk pop is crammed into 3m acres of the 60m acre or 5% of uk land mass….less than 12% of the land mass actually being built on, much badly utilized…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Tom, you should post links to your blogs articles in Twitter.
I have retweeted several of them and wonder if there has been an increase in your diffusion rate?
Your blog, your preference, your choice.
BtP
[Thanks – but I already do: @ThomasPride] – TOM
LikeLike
Overburdened Donky, during that period how much money did Joke McConnell return to London of his unspent Scottish pocket money.
How many died because of his inaction on social issues?
But he is now has his ermine wraparound.
Priorities, priorities.
Me, myself and I.
LikeLiked by 1 person
We really need a return to Local Housing Co-ops – Get Rid of BIG Corporations
LikeLiked by 1 person
I still can’t understand why these Poundland shops or Poundshops are doing so well when all they are really selling is cheapo tat?
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Beastrabban’s Weblog and commented:
Tom Pride here tells you exactly what this policy is: a rehash of Thatcher’s right to buy from the 1980s. And he’s exactly right about the consequences. Many people saw their homes transferred from the local councils into the hands of private housing associations, who immediately jacked up the rents. The result of this is the current chronic shortage of council housing, also described on their blogs by Johnny Void and Mike over at Vox Political, amongst many, many others.
As for the description of Cameron as a ‘pound-shop Maggie Thatcher’, that’s becoming increasingly true across a broad range of policies. A week or so ago the British forces in the South Atlantic were even strengthened for an attack on the Falklands, or so it was reported on MSN. Perhaps Dave was hoping the Argies would win, so he could be a great war leader, like Winston Thatcher?
If they do, then this time both we and the Falkland Islanders will be sunk. We managed to beat the Argentinians because we had the support and assistance of both America and Chile. I doubt such aide will necessarily be forthcoming this time round.
LikeLike
Pingback: Finishing the Banknote Imaging | aspiblog
Cammy is a great war leader he will soon buy his Baron title I am sure,,, ,like all his ilk..war on anyone who cant fight back is the tory way ,from Fiji to to India ,Hong Kong to Manchester,
Year 1700 to Year 2015 the Tory way . a.”Great” book they will write one day ,starring Herr this or Baroness that….failing that they will remake Chitty Chitty Bang Bang ..they love that before bed with Nanny and an illegal rent child the child catcher has brought them. Weekend brings class A drug snorting parties and a bop to Abba and they really dont give a shit anymore what their lessers think 🙂
LikeLike
Reblogged this on My Glass Cage and commented:
Normally I have something irreverent to say, but Tom Pride always beats me to it. “Pound shop Marageret Thatcher” LOL
LikeLike
Almost fell off the chair laughing when I heard how they are planning this will work. Goes something like this:- Housing Associations will be obliged to let their tenants buy their property at reduced price. They will be re-imbursed, by the government, who in turn will be re-imbursed by the local Councils who will be expected to sell off any “high value” council property when it becomes vacant and also use that money to build cheaper council houses!!!!!!! Anybody can see this is never going to work. why does Cameron only see complicated shuffling around of money as the answer to any problem. Cut the crap and just build more council houses!
This whole scenario is flawed on every level. To start with, the majority of people in what is now termed “social housing” will never be able to buy their own home, as to get a home from the social sector you have now to be not just poor but usually have other health/mental/social issues. Those properties that do get bought will be the “nice” ones only thus reducing decent housing stock available. Councils to sell off “valuable” homes when they become vacant!
Er, what “valuable” council properties are left? all the decent houses have already been sold leaving only flats and the more grotty places. And surely, when and if, a “valuable” council property were to become vacant, then there is a long list of other people waiting for it? Why is there the implication that these people don’t deserve a
“valuable” home but should wait for cheaper properties to be built in it’s place?!
This plan will never work – too complicated and will not deliver the homes we need – FOR RENT – now! Just put money directly into building, acquiring, converting properties for AFFORDABLE, Council rent! simple.
LikeLike
Yes and I am sure Estate Agents will be happy about this putting them out if business
LikeLike
“The policy failed over 30 years ago because all it has done is to put huge numbers of former council flats in the hands of multi-millionaire landlords who are demanding extortionate rents.”
Okay, so let me disagree with this one – by agreeing in part with one of your other commentators.
I’ll quote someone who used to canvas for the Labour party back in the 80s. “You always knew on an estate when it was no use trying to persuade them to vote Labour – if they had replaced the old small mail box with a new big one, then even without a new door or a new porch, you knew they’d bought the property. And there’s nothing like a mortgage for turning a socialist into a Tory.”
And then when the house price boom of the late 80s let many of those former tenants buy new houses priced at over a £100K, they felt as if they were really wealthy. So they kept on voting for the parties (Blue Tory or Red) which spoke to them.
On the other hand –
Round my part of the world (Tyneside) many ex-council homes are still in the hands of owner-occupiers. And many of those which are being let out are not owned by millionaires. Sometimes the landlords are the previous owner-occupiers who cannot find a buyer for them, but can rent them out. We have many reluctant landlords.
I suspect many Northern cities will show much the same pattern – they are short of good quality “social housing”, but repairing old housing stock would help a lot.
I don’t know where you are based, but the housing situation up in my part of the world is not a stark divide with millionaires on the one hand and homelessness on the other. Doubtless we have both, but our problems and solutions are very different from those of (to take the obvious example) London.
Of course we have very few Conservative MPs either.
LikeLike
good points. So, the proposed new “right to buy” scheme would not help in your part of the country either? You, like us Londoners, still need good quality council housing for rent. But the government(s) are stubbornly refusing to build new or maintain existing stock. Fail to see how selling off the “valuable” properties will help – that just smacks of social segregation. We have the situation here where previous areas that contained council housing have now become very sought after and so, for instance, private buyers will pay £500,000 for an ex council flat. Why should we let that happen? It just pushes the “not rich” (I hesitate to say poor) out and creates ghettos – why should “social” housing be segregated and second-rate?
The thing is they will not tackle the problem head on, they always devise complicated schemes which ultimately are for the benefit of the private developer not the end user.
You are right, the housing situation “down south” is different to yours. Friends from Newcastle tell me that you can still get a council house there! I am a single (not intentionally) mother who has been on the housing list of the outer London borough where I live for 20 years! bringing up the children in privately rented accommodation which I cannot afford and offers no security. We are a “hard-working” family but none of the help-to-buy schemes will help me – I’m too old now and too poor. Now to top it all the Council have a new rule that you cannot get a council place with your adult children, so we all have to go on the register separately for one-bed places!!!
It’s grim down South!
LikeLike