magnetman

Lovely. I think that boat won Ricky tug of war at least once. The text towards the end of the advert is rather shocking !! Take the Bolinders out and put a Lister HB2 in it. What?

I remember one on the Gt Ouse near Godmanchester being like that. It was quite impressive how many craft could be accomodated in the chamber. Not as impressive as the name of the place though.

Obviously property prices would need to go a lot lower. I'd say 1/3 of current 'values' or less would be appropriate. This would put more people in a position where they can buy property. Local authority would have bought back the right to buy scam properties and have them available to let at reduced rates to people who can demonstrate need and local connections. This could also help with 'levelling up' because people would tend to stay in their home areas rather than living in areas they have no connection to. I know what you are getting at and you are correct to an extent but that argument is a vicious cycle and simply leads to fewer and fewer people being able to afford to buy a home. From the point of view of a society it would be wiser to ensure people can have their own home otherwise bad things will start happening. The basic issue is obviously overpopulation but that's not going to get sorted out in a hurry is it. I suspect a lot of people actually have no idea what it is like to live "close to the edge" and can't fully appreciate the fact that shelter is a basic need and not a commodity to be traded.

Like I said if you can't afford housing you can get local authority help. This is a welfare state and quite well known. Another side effect would be a very big reduction in the price of housing because the 'hoarding' problem would disappear. Therefore more people would be able to afford housing, by definition. The argument that rental properties alleviate homelessness is a red herring.

Ban multiple property ownership. Each adult / married couple to be allowed to own one property. No more. This would cause a large drop in property values so no government would be able to do it due to the voting pleb issues. It would be technically quite interesting to put this sort of policy to a plebiscite and see what people actually think about the acceptablility of some people owning multiple properties and just bleeding others for profit on something which is a necessity not a luxury. At the same time you get people who will never have a chance in their entire lifetime of owning their own home. Crap situation innit. Obviously it can't happen but it does seem sensible to me as a non property owner who also has no intention of ever buying any property under any circumstances. I do have children but I expect they will sort their own stuff out. Start with compulsory purchase of ex local authority properties which have been bought by tenants at a reduced rate. The buy-back price paid to have the same reduction. It might put some people in an awkward position but guess what. If you can't afford housing and can prove it then in a lot of cases you can get a council house. This was the idea in the first place. Subsidised rent reduced housing for people who need it. Then of course Thatcher thought maybe she could get some more votes and did the scam, which wrecked the whole setup. Anyone who is a tenant in a council property should be offered the right to buy then if they accept it they have demonstrated they can raise funds and are given 6 months notice to vacate the property. None of this can happen because people who run the place have their fingers in the pie.

A strong argument for these simply being copies of someone else's painting with a bit of alteration so it doesn't look too much like a rip-off.