Rishi Sunak priorities

[eccles]

It's the Labour conference and the next election will be fought on the economy.
Rachel Reeves says Labour will slash government consultancy spending while at the same time adding another one by commissioning an independent enquiry on HS2.

[Furby]

The news said Keir Starmer has a list of priority to do things too but I missed when they explained what they were.

[OurCreature]

Speaking to BBC One’s Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg at the start of Labour’s annual conference in Liverpool, Starmer said his party would set a target of 1.5m new homes over five years, and would strengthen guidance to ensure developers included sufficient affordable housing.

There - a Priority for Sir Keith.

Elsewhere he is quoted as saying he would aspire to build between 250,000 - 300,000 houses a year, so that shows by itself that 1.5 million new houses over 5 years* isn't going to happen. In some magical way this is going to be provided by the private sector and include 'sufficient affordable housing'.

That's enough to convince me that this is a loud-sounding nothing. If Sir Keith really wants to provide affordable housing for those who can't afford mortgages on current house prices or can't afford mortgages at all, he ought to launch a big programme of municipal housing new build of properties for rent. They might even be good quality homes as well - I've lost count of the number of times the Homes Under The Hammer presenters have extolled the virtues of ex-local authority properties.

Whether the construction industry has the capacity for such a level of new build is, of course, a completely different matter which nobody seems to have thought about.

* correction - I originally wrote 'a year' which was a typo!

[Furby]

All the governments of recent times seem to ignore that for many people council houses are the only affordable option and will always be. Minimum wages and old age pensions will never afford private rents. If the government built houses they could also choose to build the needed basic but well built homes and more one bed flats. Developers arent charities and of course what to build so called luxury homes and most new flats are 2 bed as more profit but it doesn't help the affordable housing.

Affordable is also 80% of market rent and still beyond means of many workers never mind the lowest paid and pensioners and unemployed and should be against the descriptions act. Building more affordable even if developers agree to build them doesn't really solve the housing problems.

Rishi had to go and say things about the war but when he gets back the lost by elections are waiting for him. Nadine dorries seat had a huge majority so even by by elections standards its a big loss. The Tories do seem to have a secret mission to lose and not deal with after effects of COVID and war energy.

[dianakc]

All the governments of recent times seem to ignore that for many people council houses are the only affordable option and will always be. Minimum wages and old age pensions will never afford private rents. If the government built houses they could also choose to build the needed basic but well built homes and more one bed flats. Developers arent charities and of course what to build so called luxury homes and most new flats are 2 bed as more profit but it doesn't help the affordable housing.

Affordable is also 80% of market rent and still beyond means of many workers never mind the lowest paid and pensioners and unemployed and should be against the descriptions act. Building more affordable even if developers agree to build them doesn't really solve the housing problems.

Rishi had to go and say things about the war but when he gets back the lost by elections are waiting for him. Nadine dorries seat had a huge majority so even by by elections standards its a big loss. The Tories do seem to have a secret mission to lose and not deal with after effects of COVID and war energy.

I don't often get drawn into political discussion, but I have to say I think you are 100% right re "affordable" housing. I live in Blackpool which has high deprivation. The town is dying and where derelict buildings are pulled down they put a car park then build 4 bed houses in green spaces. I blows my mind.

[OurCreature]

Blackpool which has high deprivation. The town is dying.............

I think this has been true of Blackpool for a very long time, though a lot of people who see only the Golden Mile probably don't know that. I remember the first time I visited Mrs Rowntree in 1972 (first woman mayor of Fleetwood alderman etc etc) she took me for a drive from Lytham along the coast road and up along the Golden Mile and so back home to Fleetwood; she lived just off the sea front. On that drive she told me all about the locality and remarked that when you got off the sea front in Blackpool and 100 yards inland it was a completely different town and it had quite a lot of deprivation back then.

Mrs Rowntree was fiercely proud of her town, and told me that whenever one source of income had ended another had usually turned up. Right now the main route to safety seems to be Fisherman's Friend, the factory employing quite a lot of people. Even so, on my recent visits to the town the centre just gives a small hint here and there of better days in the past. The older folk must have been greatly shocked when a few years ago the police discovered a big cannabis farm in a closed-down store on Lord Street.

[dianakc]

Blackpool which has high deprivation. The town is dying.............

I think this has been true of Blackpool for a very long time, though a lot of people who see only the Golden Mile probably don't know that. I remember the first time I visited Mrs Rowntree in 1972 (first woman mayor of Fleetwood alderman etc etc) she took me for a drive from Lytham along the coast road and up along the Golden Mile and so back home to Fleetwood; she lived just off the sea front. On that drive she told me all about the locality and remarked that when you got off the sea front in Blackpool and 100 yards inland it was a completely different town and it had quite a lot of deprivation back then.

Mrs Rowntree was fiercely proud of her town, and told me that whenever one source of income had ended another had usually turned up. Right now the main route to safety seems to be Fisherman's Friend, the factory employing quite a lot of people. Even so, on my recent visits to the town the centre just gives a small hint here and there of better days in the past. The older folk must have been greatly shocked when a few years ago the police discovered a big cannabis farm in a closed-down store on Lord Street.

Yes, I have lived here all my life (I flirted with Manchester for a year or two ) and while there are some lovely places in the town, there is a lot of poverty, as there always has been. Regeneration in the areas that are derelict would be preferable I believe.

[Wildrover]

I can remember being surprised a couple of years ago that Blackpool was ranked 330 out of 330 local councils for deprivation. Couldn't find that article but this one is similar: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-4 ... d-49812519 . I always found Hull and Middlesborough very deprived in comparison.

I have always really enjoyed visiting Blackpool - as a teenager we used to go to Blackpool clubbing about once a month and stayed in B&Bs off-season for £2-3. Always a great night. My brother-in-law still lives in Lytham so I still get up there once a year - it does astound me that considering how poor it is supposed to be things like parking charges and fish & chips are more expensive in Blackpool than in Hertfordshire. It's almost as if they don't want people to visit..

[Wildrover]

All the governments of recent times seem to ignore that for many people council houses are the only affordable option and will always be. Minimum wages and old age pensions will never afford private rents.

This is spot on. MYF has been living with me for 2 years now so we are going to rent out her little 2.5 bed semi. The letting agent reckons we should put it on the market for £1,500 a month which seems ridiculous to me - however he valued the house at £450K which is about right judging by Zoopla/Rightmove prices and rental rates are 4% of the value of the house so annual rennt should be £18K, hence £1,500 a month. It just seems a hell of a lot out of someone's monthly salary to me but I grew up in an era where 1/3 of your pay was rent, 1/3 was bills and 1/3 was savings, pensions and fun things. But to Furby's point, if you can't afford £1,500 a month then 80% of that is £1,200 a month - you'd still need an income of aboutt £40K a year to be able to afford that rent and pay your bills if you have a young family. Life does seem a lot tougher for 30-somethings today than 20-odd years ago.

[OurCreature]

fish & chips are more expensive in Blackpool than in Hertfordshire

That does surprise me, WR - though perhaps Blackpool people don't buy their fish and chips from the same chippies as their visitors do.

I remember when I first visited TK (from the early days of the old Board) and his wife Carol they hadn't long moved to Thornton Cleveleys from somewhere near Hertfordshire and Tony told me that the first time he went to buy groceries etc in one of the markets he felt as if he was stealing from the stallholders because prices were so cheap compared with what they were used to down South.

[Wildrover]

You're right - many things are cheaper especially beer in a pub. The point I was making was that the things that the average "visitor for the day" spend money on are very expensive.

[Furby]

Its the king's speech today which I still can get used to it not being the queen's speech.

So more priorities added to rishi list.

The king/queen's speech should be like those work meeting where you have to update on action points from previous meeting. They seem to give speeches and never do anything on the list.

The new king Charles won't be happy having to read out the crack on with fossil fuels item on speech. Unless we are going to stop using oil makes nonsense planet wise to buy it elsewhere so might as well have our own. Logically that makes sense but the protestors are religious about it aren't they and no one ever asks them how they got there and are wearing clothes and shoes without oil.

[Wildrover]

Polly Toynbee enjoyed slaggng off the speech in yesterday's Grauniad:- https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ak-britain . It's about time she retired as her comments are so ideologically biased and her statistics so obviously cherry picked she is making the Graun as bad as the Mail - I've enjoyed reading the Graun and the Mail over the years but they have become significantly more extreme and polarised over the last few years so they are now like two cheeks of the same arse.

For example take this corker from her article "France is unhindered by a tax-to-GDP ratio of 48%, compared with the UK’s tax take of 33.5. And it shows. You get what you pay for, and the Institute for Government’s survey of UK public services reveals that almost all of them are declining, crippled by underinvestment since 2010." She neglects to say that the OECD average in the report from which her figures are taking is 34.1%. i.e. the UK is about average whereas France taxes its citizens significantly more. The report says exactly what you would expect - most countries tax 30-something % of their GDP, the few 40-something % countries are the high tax socialist economies of Scandinavia, France, Italy and Belgium and the Americas and a few randoms tax 20-something %.

The simple explanation is that in high tax economies the higher tax pays for more services, whereas in lower tax economies individuals are expected to fund these themselves from the money they don't pay in extra tax. The real argument is that in high tax economies these services are funded solely by workers and businesses paying higher tax and effectively pay for everyone's services whereas in lower tax economies people who can't afford to pay don't get the services. This is the conversation that really needs to be had but Toynbee and her colleagues never state this openly for fear of alienating the people who would end up paying for everything. I should add for fairness that the Mail is just as bad the other way - bleating on about tax cuts with no comment on the implication of those tax cuts on services and welfare.

[OurCreature]

I ceased reading Ms Toynbee's column a very long time ago for the reasons you state, WR. She reminded me of this.

[Furby]

Inflation is 4.6% so rishi has got one priority.

Not all as good news as they are telling it though because 4.6 is still more than 2% that the bank of England has to write excuse notes for.

[Wildrover]

It's an improvement but it's stiil pretty much the worst in Europe - virtually all EU countries are now between 3.5 and 4%.

I missed your post OC - the resemblance is striking.

[Furby]

Rishi has 5 new priorities now they are
1. Debt
2. Tax
3. Energy
4. Business
5. Education

[Furby]

The new budget hasn't done anything for me but I suppose that's on purpose. Reducing national insurance means only working people get the benefits of the extra money.

They do keep saying want people back at work and I am probably one of the people they mean but am outside scope as don't claim benefits. Always annoys me when they say people get to work etc because yes good idea but it's the employers that need telling. No point looking for work if employers want different sorts of people . Just because everyone can do something doesn't mean are jobs willing to accept lower quality workers that's where it fall down. Work placements is the only way but they tried that already and was abused with employers using it to get free labour and sacking real people lessons are never learned. Saying people can work from home is also all very well but they need good quality computers and internet to do that don't they which is unlikely with long term unemployed. Also it's not less anxiety having people text and email 300 times a day is just as bad as being at work listening to them. The advantage of being "on the sick" is that they legally aren't allowed to contact you and have to wait until you ring in sick to have a go at you.

How can they say isn't inflation causing though giving working people a few hundred pounds extra to spend it must have an effect. Removing non working not yet pensioners from the people getting more money cuts it down a little bit but can't be that much.

[OurCreature]

Removing non working not yet pensioners from the people getting more money cuts it down a little bit but can't be that much.

I am not so sure about that; IIRC there are 4 regular contributors to this board (including me) who packed in work before reaching State Pension age but I have no idea whether as a group this Board is typical of the average Joe Public group.

[Furby]

With the non working pensioners I meant that stopping just them having more money doesn't help much with inflation because they aren't the ones mostly buying all the new things causing inflation. Anyway inflation is down to 3.9 (still twice the bank target) so whatever the logic it's worked. Though once prices are already doubled how much more do they need to go up anyway.

2 houses in my road are for rent again and it's over 1000 pounds now for a 1.5 roomed northern terraced with nowhere to park. It's beyond mad now.