Would you march for more affordable housing?

moggylover

Yes

captainhaggis wrote: »

So they haven't really been paying rent at all? They've been living in these homes rent free but in reality have been paying installments toward the purchase price of the property

:mad:

The selling off of council housing stock is/was a bad thing for all but those who were looking for an easy/cheap way of doing what others make a hell of a lot of effort to do.

In the 30 years that they had rented, my parents had already paid out a darned site more than the £2,600 that the house actually cost to build (that included the land) and the minimal costs involved in maintaining it during that period: and the £12,000.00 they actually paid for it was a very nice profit for the Council which went straight into Central Governments pockets not into re-building affordable/rentable homes;)

My father worked from 14 until 65, and fought for his Country during the last war, and he paid his taxes and quite probably paid towards the education of your ilk;). The buying of his house went against ALL of his staunchly socialist ideals - but since it was the only "benefit" his service and hard work and honesty ever got him it was a well deserved retirement bonus and not anything that cost you or others a penny;)

It still took my mother and I more than 2 years (and a hike in the cost due to "market forces") to persuade him and only the fact that the rent was rising faster than the mortgage at that time finally shifted him: quite honestly more because he realised the political tide had turned more fully in favour of the less than honest and less than decent and that he was only cutting off his nose in sticking to his ideals.

moggylover

Yes

julieq wrote: »

Couldn't agree more, Moggylover. The problem is really what you do about antisocial behaviour wherever it comes from. But you're fighting years of prejudice, which isn't helped by the behaviour of some of the people in the sink estates. There's an entire philosophical argument to have about how much of that is inherent and how much is conditioned by the environment they're in, and whether improving the mix of the environment would improve attitude and behaviour. Thatcher tried that by introducing owner occupation into the estates, and failed. So the next experiment is extracting people from the estates into owner occupied area.

Which is all fine, except when the experiment is taking place in a field next to your house which used to be green space. Then anyone would get a little uppity and nervous.

It's in a sense the same argument about education, that if you provide an influx of "middle class" children into failing schools, they will pull the standards up via both higher expectations and parents pushing the school to perform better. It's a reasonable intellectual argument and we can all nod our heads to it until it comes to the time we're at the sharp end and choosing a school ourselves. Unless as a society we choose to jump all at the same time, no-one will take the chance willingly.

So you either force the change (and risk a backlash) or you don't change.

Actually, your comments about Education are also richly proved around here as very few are sent away to private education and my sons go to school with the children of doctors, lawyers, (even bank managers unfortunately:D) as well as those of farm labourers and shop assistants.

They see wider perceptions of what "is out there" and there certainly seems to be a good percentage of children who move themselves out of the poverty wages of their parents: although unfortunately this almost always means they have to move from the area.

It doesn't mean that no-one fails in the system: there are always going to be those that are really not academic in any way and fall by the wayside, but the numbers are far fewer and the system works better and with a lot less hassle for the teachers who do not have to fear their pupils.

captainhaggis

No

moggylover wrote: »

My father worked from 14 until 65, and fought for his Country during the last war, and he paid his taxes and quite probably paid towards the education of your ilk;). The buying of his house went against ALL of his staunchly socialist ideals - but since it was the only "benefit" his service and hard work and honesty ever got him it was a well deserved retirement bonus and not anything that cost you or others a penny;)

Hmmmmm, I'd probably agree with you more had my father not have done exactly the same as yours, including the national service (25 years with the RAF) (my mother did about 10, too) but NEVER lived in our bought a council house.

I don't mean to sound critical of those who buy their houses - they've taken advantage of a great opportunity they'd be daft to ignore. My criticism is of the government giving them the opportunity to do so in the first place.

moggylover wrote: »

not anything that cost you or others a penny;)

Not sure I agree love. Had your father not purchased his council house that property would still be in the housing stock and there would be less need to build new local authority houses. And my tax money is most certainly paying for that.

moggylover

Yes

lostinrates wrote: »

I think it depends on what you are considering ''affordable housing''. A high rise, or prefab block of four wouldn't go down well. nor anything placed without sympathy and consideration,, but, say, one of the more modern green solutions for modernists...or traditionally, something akin to tradition farmers cottage row.....not so heinous surely? a popular use of such space locally has been for holiday cottages: most of which would (and do as winter lets) be perfectly aethetically acceptable ''traditionally'' as low income housing.

I agree outdoor space is important, and over looked. It would remain not an issue in this circumstance.

I would agree about the farmers cottage row - have no time for the modern green solutions as they are not going to be affordable housing ime:o.

I suppose it would depend just how much land each of those houses were going to end up with. I personally think we need to be looking to have larger gardens not smaller ones (although I understand that if you have an acre or more you are not leaving the house sadly without using some of that) and the chance to get children running around, growing their own and in touch with more skills than they currently seem to learn.

However, the problem will remain that the majority wanting planning permission in their garden are going to be totally against that going to people who do not have the "right" income or who may not be to their "taste" and so we will still have the old "not in my back yard" situation:o

moggylover

Yes

captainhaggis wrote: »

Hmmmmm, I'd probably agree with you more had my father not have done exactly the same as yours, including the national service (25 years with the RAF) (my mother did about 10, too) but NEVER lived in our bought a council house.

My father left the RAF as they were not keen to keep all of their radio ops at the end of the war, and joined the fire service before going on to train as an engineer. He had no home to return to after the war (and no family) so lived rough (what a wonderful thanks for his war service) for a period until lodgings could be found local to the fire station.

Of course, during the 25 years service in the RAF your family would have been entitled to forces housing - which was of course rented, just not Council:D


I don't mean to sound critical of those who buy their houses - they've taken advantage of a great opportunity they'd be daft to ignore. My criticism is of the government giving them the opportunity to do so in the first place.

Not sure I agree love. Had your father not purchased his council house that property would still be in the housing stock and there would be less need to build new local authority houses. And my tax money is most certainly paying for that.

Just as his tax money paid for a lot of other things in his day! It is the swings and roundabouts that provide the BASIC fabric of our society and I remain totally sickened by the never-ending whines of those who begrudge their taxes (and yes there were such even when I was a youngster) whilst usually living far better lives than their true worth to a Country, its economy or its people justify;)

I'm not quite going to manage the higher rate tax bracket myself this year - but then I have only been back in action for one year! I still pay LESS actual income tax than I did on a lower wage over 20 years ago;). Granted, I could pay a lot more in stealth taxes if I wanted to get into conspicuous consumption (which I am not stupid enough for) and I do pay a hell of a lot more in Council rates (which is wholely down to the fact that they realised they could hit pay dirt when the Poll Tax was introduced).

I do not object to my taxes being used to build council housing at all (or pay for schools and hospitals and bin collections and the like) - I VERY much objected to them being used to bail out a bunch of theiving no good bankers who had sold us all down the river and were now sucking the life blood as well!

I have a stake in MY country - and I believe that a better society for ALL is the only way that we will ever solve the problems of unemployment, anti-social behaviour, etc., that so many bang on about but would hate to have to invest in removing:D

ess0two

No

carolt wrote: »

And the joke is...?

It'll achieve sweet FA,:rotfl:

moggylover

Yes

Not sure I agree love. Had your father not purchased his council house that property would still be in the housing stock and there would be less need to build new local authority houses. And my tax money is most certainly paying for that.[/QUOTE]


Just wanted to come back to this one: at the time that he bought his Council House, they could have built another just like it for the money he paid (on top of all the rent he had previously paid:rolleyes:) and so it was the lack of sensible investment in re-building by the then Tory regime that means you might have to put a few pennies to each house now;)

StevieJ

carolt wrote: »

And the joke is...?

If housing is not affordable where does everyone live

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

No

julieq wrote: »

In any case, it's good to see the bears agreeing with Hamish that the solution to the supply/demand problem causing excessive HPI is to build more affordable homes.

Yes, but I do hope they don't do it too often, or I'll have nobody to argue with.;)

If there were a rash of repossessions, the most likely outcome is banks setting up divisions to operate initially repossessed houses for rental income rather than flood the market and risk capital loss. They would inevitably become big players in the private rental market and buy and sell houses. This would shift ownership in the rented sector from essentially amateur landlords to ruthlessly efficient commercial organisations. Beware of what you wish for.

And people thought the Wilsons had power to drive up rents and house prices with a few hundred houses.

Imagine the big corporates chasing ever increasing yield and profits, but with tens or even hundreds of thousands of houses to force up prices.

Nice...:D

Harry_Powell

carolt wrote: »

I can see your points, but disagree.

I think there's plenty they can and should do to sort out the mess they've created.

1. Build loads and loads of social housing.
Where? Build them in nice places where they drag them down or isolate them in large areas that become sink estates?

2. Bring back security of tenure and rent limits for tenants.
I agree, but this has to work both ways, with security for landlords too. How would you like to have to buy yourself out of your rental lease?

3. Remove tax perks for landlords.
Then no one would BTL and there would be less choice available for those who wish to rent.

4. Insist on income multiples for mortgages.
They do already.

5. I could go on for hours, but I'll leave it there.
Probably for the best...

Hi carolt, my responses above. I normally feel your posts are extremely well thought through but I'm disappointed that you seem to be all over the place on this one.