Impressed £67.5 billion... nope... 117.4 billion, and rising.

Scouse

Dennis Quaid lover
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
31,265
1) Let me say I suspect the category of homes you've picked and the figures of low income aren't likely to be related to each other, in essence I would be surprised to see a person on low income able to afford either of those types of houses.
Shitloads of semi detatched houses are rental properties. I would like some evidence for your assertion - but the next point will render your whole argument null and void I suspect:

2) The majority of homes in the UK have cavity walls (https://assets.publishing.service.g...cal-release-estimates-of-home-insulation-.pdf) which is a lot cheaper to insulate.
From your document, almost the first sentence:
There are 26.7 million homes in Great Britain. Of these 23.3 million have lofts, 18.9 million have cavity walls with the remaining 7.8 million having solid walls
That's nearly 30% of the UK housing stock having solid walls.

No plan to insulate is actually a plan if it leaves 30% of the UK housing stock un-insulated.


I'll deal with the last two together - because 3) doesn't actually make a point really:
3) I would like to see more go to renewables, but from what I've read on how such figures are calculated it seems part of it comes from charging a reduced rate of VAT on Gas, Electricity, etc.
4) I don't like subsidising fossil fuels but I also don't want to subsidise those who can easily afford to do it.
It looks very much like some nebulous feeling of jealousy is preventing you supporting pragmatic solutions.

"You don't like subsidising fossil fuels". Good. Neither of us do. Lets stop that. We agree on that point.

For the rest - we haven't got time to piss about with some sort of class war idiocy here - lets end fossil fuel subsidy and use that money to fix the insulation issue. You won't be paying more - because we'll have ended fossil fuel subsidy. You'll be paying less - and for jobs that once done are done, not subsidy that's continues on in-perpetuity.


Your position means we cut off our nose to spite our face because you feel some "undeserving" might get a handout - instead of the handout that fossil fuel companies are already getting. It's bonkers m8.
 

Scouse

Dennis Quaid lover
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
31,265
And the facepalm. Fair enough. You don't want to subsidise people who can afford it.

One question and I'll leave you alone:

How do you, practically, separate them out and then force them to spend their hard-earned on insulating their houses. (And at the same time - include those that rent) - all in the next ten years - given that we don't currently have enough companies to do the work, or the supply chains in place to do this. How does that work then?
 

Embattle

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
11,261
1) Just like you have none linking the type of house and income.
2) 70% aren't single walled.
3) A certain amount of single walled property owners are more than likely easily able to afford insulation costs.
4) Jealous, I'm not sure of what since this house already has insulation.
5) No I just don't like paying for well off people to install insulation.
6) Government schemes always have a defined monetary limit, if you allow anyone to apply I guarantee you those who can least afford insulation will miss out.

I would personally would follow some form of carrot and stick approach.
 

Scouse

Dennis Quaid lover
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
31,265
Glad you're not in a management position ;)
 

Raven

Happy Shopper Ray Mears
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 27, 2003
Messages
41,674
Parasitic landlords certainly shouldn't be given any help on improving their properties/investments. Can't afford it, sell it. Tough tities, perhaps someone desperate for a house can buy it instead.
 

Raven

Happy Shopper Ray Mears
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 27, 2003
Messages
41,674
Not really no. Why should a private invester have tax/government funding? Make it mandatory, yes, make landlords pay for it, yes. Can't afford it, oh well, time to sell.
 

MYstIC G

Official Licensed Lump of Coal™ Distributor
Staff member
Moderator
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
11,800
Not really no. Why should a private invester have tax/government funding? Make it mandatory, yes, make landlords pay for it, yes. Can't afford it, oh well, time to sell.
Because it attracts investment of private wealth into areas that government don't bother funding any more. Unless I missed the bit where we've got no housing crisis because the government builds and maintains more homes than we need...
 

Scouse

Dennis Quaid lover
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
31,265
Why should a private invester have tax/government funding?
Like the fossil fuel industry at $11m a second?

Pragmatically we need to upgrade our entire housing stock - and quickly.

The government is the only entity in a position to be able to do that in the timescales required. So we do all of the housing stock, regardless of the who, and pay for it by ending subsidy of our most polluting industries - subsidy that largely goes directly into the pockets of the already rich.

In every single way that's a massive improvement. Environmentally, financially and from a social justice standpoint.

And because you and Emb hate landlords you couldn't get behind that and would end up seeing the status quo maintained or ineffective action taken at too slow a pace.

We won't meet our targets, the human race doesn't make it, we lay massive environmental waste and make huge swathes of the natural world extinct - because humans think like this.
 

Raven

Happy Shopper Ray Mears
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 27, 2003
Messages
41,674
Because it attracts investment of private wealth into areas that government don't bother funding any more. Unless I missed the bit where we've got no housing crisis because the government builds and maintains more homes than we need...
That is the ideal, sold to us by the rich, but the reality is people buying up stock to rent out and are pricing private buyers out of the market. Parasites hoover up huge swathes of new builds with zero investment to the property or area except for purchase and a few coats of magnolia.
 

Scouse

Dennis Quaid lover
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
31,265
That is the ideal, sold to us by the rich, but the reality is people buying up stock to rent out and are pricing private buyers out of the market. Parasites hoover up huge swathes of new builds with zero investment to the property or area except for purchase and a few coats of magnolia.
And whilst you're whining about that, the world burns.

The separate issue is how do we make sure the UK housing stock is insulated as quickly as possible.

After that (or even at the same time) government can do something about the housing market. But it won't - because we, as a country, vote Tory (and Labour didn't do much when they were in power either).

However - insulate we can. And must.
 

MYstIC G

Official Licensed Lump of Coal™ Distributor
Staff member
Moderator
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
11,800
That is the ideal, sold to us by the rich, but the reality is people buying up stock to rent out and are pricing private buyers out of the market. Parasites hoover up huge swathes of new builds with zero investment to the property or area except for purchase and a few coats of magnolia.
That's a result of supply and demand where supply has not been correctly addressed and is still not being correctly addressed. That's certainly something to lay at governments door. However your "big scary evil slumlord" theme is a really low level generalisation and doesn't mesh with things like the existance of housing associations.
 

Raven

Happy Shopper Ray Mears
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 27, 2003
Messages
41,674
Housing associations are very different to the practice of buying a package of 5, 6, 7 new build houses, usually before they are even built and then renting them out for twice the cost of a mortgage a month.

I have zero sympathy for them. Make it as unattractive as possible. They won't invest in improvements (insulation is moot as all new builds are already insulated) point stands though, if you buy a second home simply for personal wealth generation then tough luck, pay to bring it up to standard or sell it. No different from anything else.
 

Scouse

Dennis Quaid lover
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
31,265
45% of landlords in the UK own just one property. They move house, or move in with a partner, and instead of selling they rent out their house instead - because like most people they're just doing what they can to get by. And yes, it means they're not poverty stricken, but it doesn't mean they're rich (or parasitic). This is only 21% of the sector.

The rest - 17% - own almost half of the rental properties in the UK. Big landlords - who squeeze their assets on the basis of what they can get away with. The Tories made people with more than 16 properties exempt from tax on mortgages - so they can lend for free and offset interest against their tax bill whereas the little guy can't.

The state of the housing stock is by-design.

NONE of this has to do with insulation - which cannot be fixed using existing mechanisms. We don't have enough fitters, we don't have enough materials. We need to spin up an entire industry - and only government can fund that.

And they've got the money - they stop funding fossil fuels, we can do it. Easily.
 

Gwadien

Uneducated Northern Cretin
Joined
Jul 15, 2006
Messages
18,422
Government pays for insulation and also forces the landlord to reduce rent to the tenants as a part of the agreement? I don't see the problem with that.

I do see the problem with people being upset about the money given to the oil industry yet the same people aren't complaining that occupiers of homes are having to pay more to energy providers than they should be if their home was properly insulated, seems like another form of subsidy to me.
 

Scouse

Dennis Quaid lover
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
31,265
Government pays for insulation and also forces the landlord to reduce rent to the tenants as a part of the agreement? I don't see the problem with that.
Fantasy.

I pointed out the tax breaks given by the government to big landlords is by design.

So you can fantasize about kicking landlords all you like - but it's not going anywhere, ever. It's a pointless (and, frankly, petty) argument whilst the world is, quite literally in some cases, on fire.

We need to insulate the houses. Period. Fixing one problem at a time. Or we won't fix any of them.

I do see the problem with people being upset about the money given to the oil industry yet the same people aren't complaining that occupiers of homes are having to pay more to energy providers than they should be if their home was properly insulated, seems like another form of subsidy to me.
It is.

End all subsidy. Insulate.
 

Raven

Happy Shopper Ray Mears
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 27, 2003
Messages
41,674

Thanks, Mr Putin, how very generous of you.

Now perhaps we will actually stop being reliant on foreign states for our energy needs.

Also, everyone sticks their heating on early in celebration. Energy suppliers make a fortune.
 

Embattle

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
11,261
Government pays for insulation and also forces the landlord to reduce rent to the tenants as a part of the agreement? I don't see the problem with that.

I do see the problem with people being upset about the money given to the oil industry yet the same people aren't complaining that occupiers of homes are having to pay more to energy providers than they should be if their home was properly insulated, seems like another form of subsidy to me.
Like I stated earlier the way I understand the figures is the government technically doesn't give much to the energy companies at all, what appears to make the bulk of our subsidises is the government charging a lower rate of VAT on domestic energy. So commercial users of energy are charged the standard VAT rate of 20% whereas domestic users are charged 5% thus there is a difference of 15% is considered a subsidy, I suspect another chunk of the subsidies being listed are the from the result of a freeze to the fuel duty escalator/stabiliser over the last 11 years. Even if we weren't in the time of high energy prices adding another 15% to the cost would be governmental suicide at the moment.

I still oppose a blanket give away of insulation, there should be a element of free insulation for low income earners and then a incentive for all others whether that is VAT reductions, grants, etc. which should match and hopefully exceed any benefits for fossil fuels. They should ultimately cross over for a while, green methods should get an increase and fossil a decrease but in the end the government will have to get taxes from green methods since at a certain point there won't be enough fossil fuel users to support the state.
 

Scouse

Dennis Quaid lover
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
31,265
Also, everyone sticks their heating on early in celebration. Energy suppliers make a fortune.
Still haven't had the heating on since April. Proper wool blankets are 100% for the win :)

To be fair, wool as a material is FTW completely. It's warm in the cold, cool in the heat, never smelly unlike artificial fabrics...
 

dysfunction

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
9,444
Still haven't had the heating on since April. Proper wool blankets are 100% for the win :)

To be fair, wool as a material is FTW completely. It's warm in the cold, cool in the heat, never smelly unlike artificial fabrics...
I find it itchy so definitely not a FTW
 

Scouse

Dennis Quaid lover
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
31,265
I find it itchy so definitely not a FTW
Depends on the wool and how it's been woven/treated.

All of my outdoor base layers are merino wool - and I wear that inside during the day under my work shirts because it's bloody amazing. It's soft, smooth and non-itchy.
 

Raven

Happy Shopper Ray Mears
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 27, 2003
Messages
41,674
Still haven't had the heating on since April. Proper wool blankets are 100% for the win :)

To be fair, wool as a material is FTW completely. It's warm in the cold, cool in the heat, never smelly unlike artificial fabrics...
You won't have wool when they stop murdering sheep.
 

Raven

Happy Shopper Ray Mears
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 27, 2003
Messages
41,674
I wear underpants as a base layer. I do have some decent wool socks though.
 

Raven

Happy Shopper Ray Mears
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 27, 2003
Messages
41,674
I wish the BBC would quietly fuck off. You just need to read their pathetic attempts at "fact checking" to realise they are done. The rest is just copy/paste from somewhere else.

Edit, I am genuinely wondering what I get for my enforced £13 a month subscription fee?
 
Last edited:

Scouse

Dennis Quaid lover
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
31,265
You're feeling a bit negative at the moment aren't you @Raven old bean :)

Chill dude. Get yerself camping :)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom