FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to Politics

Got it wrong .....

Jump to newest
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Is it weak to admit that you got it wrong?

For example social housing governments since the 1970's have failed to build new "council house's". 250,000 used to be built but that's fallen dramatically. We still need that amount but never build enough! Affordable housing is the "new spin" but why can't governments except that some people will never be in a position to buy their own property. They got it wrong!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Is it weak to admit that you got it wrong?

For example social housing governments since the 1970's have failed to build new "council house's". 250,000 used to be built but that's fallen dramatically. We still need that amount but never build enough! Affordable housing is the "new spin" but why can't governments except that some people will never be in a position to buy their own property. They got it wrong!"

Governments don't seem to understand that if you are wrong the best thing you can do is own your mistake.

Most people will respect someone or an organisation which says "we were wrong, this is what we will do to correct the mistake."

Trying to hide or put spin on a mistake is juivinile.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston

Since the end of the 70's and the rise of monetarism in a faux laissez faire economy (we have a mixed economy, just the state owned parts are owned by foreign states) the roll of government has been to transfer wealth from the state to the 'market' and thus from the poor to the wealthy. There has been no getting it wrong by successive governments or on the political right. The fact that there are both hidden homeless sofa surfing and openly destitute sleeping on the streets wherever you go in Britain and that 70% of the population (including doctors, nurses, police and armed services have become 10% poorer in the last 10 years while the richest 1% have seen their wealth double is testimony to how successful right wing governments have been in pursuing this policy and persuading the British to support them in this endeavour.

In direct relation to housing, why would a state commited to passing property and wealth from the poor and the state to the wealthy build state owned housing when it can subsidise wealthy property developers and private landlords with taxes raided from the poor?

Remember that the poorer you are the greater a % of your income is taken in taxes.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *mmabluTV/TS
over a year ago

upton wirral


"Is it weak to admit that you got it wrong?

For example social housing governments since the 1970's have failed to build new "council house's". 250,000 used to be built but that's fallen dramatically. We still need that amount but never build enough! Affordable housing is the "new spin" but why can't governments except that some people will never be in a position to buy their own property. They got it wrong!

Governments don't seem to understand that if you are wrong the best thing you can do is own your mistake.

Most people will respect someone or an organisation which says "we were wrong, this is what we will do to correct the mistake."

Trying to hide or put spin on a mistake is juivinile."
If governments admit they are wrong they are attacked for doing a u turn,maybe it is our fault !

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Or that of the media..... politicians of all colours are running scared.

BTW it is a longer term problem than "since the 70s"

The last government that supported the building of 250,000 + social houses...was Harold McMillan!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *LCCCouple
over a year ago

Cambridge


"Is it weak to admit that you got it wrong?

For example social housing governments since the 1970's have failed to build new "council house's". 250,000 used to be built but that's fallen dramatically. We still need that amount but never build enough! Affordable housing is the "new spin" but why can't governments except that some people will never be in a position to buy their own property. They got it wrong!

Governments don't seem to understand that if you are wrong the best thing you can do is own your mistake.

Most people will respect someone or an organisation which says "we were wrong, this is what we will do to correct the mistake."

Trying to hide or put spin on a mistake is juivinile.If governments admit they are wrong they are attacked for doing a u turn,maybe it is our fault !"

You have a point.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central

I think it's a great thing to admit that you have become wiser, having learned from mistakes.

One huge detrimental move was selling council houses but not allowing councils to reinvest the money into new stock - especially as there were huge waiting lists at that time, which have only grown since.

The incisive post about the direction of money, from state and the poorer to the very wealthy in recent years, covers it all really. Particularly awful for the UK as much of the money disappears overseas into tax havens.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

One huge detrimental move was selling council houses but not allowing councils to reinvest the money into new stock - especially as there were huge waiting lists at that time, which have only grown since.

"

£692m from council-home sales in 1980–1, £1.394bn in 1981–2, £1.981bn in 1982–3..... every last penny of this and from sales over the following years was sucked up by the treasury leaving nothing for the councils to re-invest and no annual income from renting.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston


"One huge detrimental move was selling council houses but not allowing councils to reinvest the money into new stock - especially as there were huge waiting lists at that time, which have only grown since.

The incisive post about the direction of money, from state and the poorer to the very wealthy in recent years, covers it all really. Particularly awful for the UK as much of the money disappears overseas into tax havens.

"

Someone gets it. It is a pity so many don't and actually support policies designed to make them poorer.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *nleashedCrakenMan
over a year ago

Widnes


"Since the end of the 70's and the rise of monetarism in a faux laissez faire economy (we have a mixed economy, just the state owned parts are owned by foreign states) the roll of government has been to transfer wealth from the state to the 'market' and thus from the poor to the wealthy. There has been no getting it wrong by successive governments or on the political right. The fact that there are both hidden homeless sofa surfing and openly destitute sleeping on the streets wherever you go in Britain and that 70% of the population (including doctors, nurses, police and armed services have become 10% poorer in the last 10 years while the richest 1% have seen their wealth double is testimony to how successful right wing governments have been in pursuing this policy and persuading the British to support them in this endeavour.

In direct relation to housing, why would a state commited to passing property and wealth from the poor and the state to the wealthy build state owned housing when it can subsidise wealthy property developers and private landlords with taxes raided from the poor?

Remember that the poorer you are the greater a % of your income is taken in taxes."

This statement that the rich, and in particular the top 1%, have got richer while the poor and everyone else have got poorer in the UK, is often touted as fact but there is never any link or even quotes from any statistics to back the statement put with the statement. Maybe you could provide some?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *nleashedCrakenMan
over a year ago

Widnes


"

One huge detrimental move was selling council houses but not allowing councils to reinvest the money into new stock - especially as there were huge waiting lists at that time, which have only grown since.

£692m from council-home sales in 1980–1, £1.394bn in 1981–2, £1.981bn in 1982–3..... every last penny of this and from sales over the following years was sucked up by the treasury leaving nothing for the councils to re-invest and no annual income from renting."

Was it? At the time I remember that the money had to be put into special, separate accounts but still held by the councils. Much later the money was aloud to be released. If your saying that the money was indirectly taken by the treasury by cutting government grants to councils you may have a point but if you're saying the money was directly payed to the treasury or taken directly from the special council accounts set up to receive the money from council house sales then that's simply not what happened.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By *nleashedCrakenMan
over a year ago

Widnes


"One huge detrimental move was selling council houses but not allowing councils to reinvest the money into new stock - especially as there were huge waiting lists at that time, which have only grown since.

The incisive post about the direction of money, from state and the poorer to the very wealthy in recent years, covers it all really. Particularly awful for the UK as much of the money disappears overseas into tax havens.

Someone gets it. It is a pity so many don't and actually support policies designed to make them poorer. "

And yet the government takes a larger share of the national wealth now than it has at anytime since WWII. How does that fit in with taking from the state to give to the wealthy. More populist BS I suspect. It's either the fault of the immigrants, the muslims, the Liberal elite, the wealthy or some other group that most people don't belong to, isn't it?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top