"National Security can't come at the cost of Social Security" - WTAF?

yes absolutely and many don’t rent them out but just hold them as a store of value

Hedge funds will more than likely buy up housing stock on behalf of foreign investors.

Or the government could buy them.

Hedge funds will more than likely buy up housing stock on behalf of foreign investors.

Exactly, although I never said I would cap them below cost. Housing Associations seem to manage just fine without charging ££££ for substandard housing.

I realise it would cause some short-term disruption and pain, but we cannot allow housing costs to keep spiralling the way they are. Housing is not a commodity to profit from; it is a basic human need. We don't live on a big enough landmass to have enough of it to also use it to line the pockets of the fortunate.

So the market would become flooded with properties as they all sold up then, driving down prices.

Well there would be no houses to rent then as no one would be a landlord if they can’t cover their costs

No, I would cap private rents thus reducing the welfare bill and making it easier for low income working families who rent.

Thats logical though? Who else would you be paying rent to and presumably that's what housing benefit is. Landlords aren't charities.

You'd also be moving people away from job opportunities and education choices. I live in one of the most deprived areas of the country, so one of the places @nearlylovemyusername would move people to.

We have plenty of cheap housing, including social housing. What we don't have plenty of is jobs, colleges and training centers, properly functioning public transport and healthcare.

There is reason housing is cheap, no one has any money coz there are no jobs and no buses to the places where there are jobs.

The lack of money, opportunities and education also paves the way for high crime and high levels of addiction.

Moving more skint people here won't reduce the welfare bill, it will create ghettos and eventually lead to riots.

People seem to find it unimaginable
to cap rents, yet not understand that the biggest net beneficiaries of HB are landlords.

No, I would cap private rents thus reducing the welfare bill and making it easier for low income working families who rent.

So you would move families with 2 working parents, barely scraping by but don’t qualify for any government support to areas of the country that are less well resourced for transport, health?

So you would move families with 2 working parents, barely scraping by but don’t qualify for any government support to areas of the country that are less well resourced for transport, health?

So you’d move households with one parent not working to areas of the country that are less well resourced for transport, health? Retired people away from their family and support network so they have to rely on social care? Are you sure that’s a good idea?

So you’d move households with one parent not working to areas of the country that are less well resourced for transport, health? Retired people away from their family and support network so they have to rely on social care? Are you sure that’s a good idea?

Surely our PM releases that without National Security there is no Social Security? One is entirely dependent on the other.

If people can't pay their rent, they will become homeless as will their children. It costs a lot of money to provide temporary accommodation, more than would be saved.

If people who provide for themselves and aren't entitled to benefits can't pay their rent, they move further, to less desirable areas, to smaller properties, commute longer to their workplaces and basically suck it up. No matter how much they like the areas they used to live in and what support network they have.

I strongly believe that housing support should only be paid to those who work within 1h commute in the area (this is average commute time for London, adjust accordingly for other regions). If members of household don't work, they should be moved to much cheaper area full stop. Kids can be schooled everywhere in the country so not an excuse.

This would save much more than 4bn I think.

Didn't he give millions/billions in contracts to Indian companies?

lol. Most of the G in GDP is government spending on public goods and services, like infrastructure, education, defence, health system, social welfare including the salaries of all government employees. But a good chunk of the G isn’t on day to day operating costs, quite a bit is spent on research & development. These are often contracts for start up UK businesses on the cutting edge of technology and innovation. The £20bn/yr spent here is an investment by the government that absolutely results in growth. Many businesses could not have succeeded or generated any wealth without such government investment. The funds for this investment comes from taxes.

So, you can spend wealth to create more wealth. That’s what an investment is- spending with the expectation of a return.

Governments also create jobs- 18% of jobs in the UK are public sector. No business contributes more to job creation. Which then means a stronger C in GDP.

The economy as measured by GDP is a balancing act and there are ways to cheat the calculations.

AB didn’t say social security was his first priority.

Actually that was me. Paying our fair share towards common defence isn’t a penalty ffs.

AB didn’t say social security was his first priority.