a third of brits lived in council housing

IveSeenTheLight

dopester wrote: »

The Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition government was formed in May 2010.

Home ownership was was decreasing whilst Labour were in power. It's a little more complex than immediately blaming Conservatives for a fall in home ownership after 13 years of Labour and credit galore.

Totally agree. Home ownership had started to decline under the Labour government. I wasn't blaming the Tories for this

Do you think the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition government are putting in the fundamentals to increase owner occupancy percentages in the coming years from current levels?

blueboy43

birkee wrote: »

So what happened?

You watched too much Shameless ?

Radiantsoul

birkee wrote: »

I find it interesting that so many people seem to think they know what Maggie's motives were for selling Council houses.
Most politically motivated ranting.
Could it be that the motive was to give more Council tenants the chance to own property, and therefore be more responsible citizens?
What some Council tenants did to Council property was totally unacceptable, but the 'do-gooders' wouldn't let them be kicked out onto the street.

How many people bought their Council house, and made it a much better property, only to find the Council tenants next door, tried to make a theirs a slum house?

I suspect Mrs T had several motives. I am pretty sure she saw great value in private ownership, probably imagine well tended gardens and volunteer litter patrol. I am also sure she saw it as creating a large number of people with attitudes that made them more likely to vote Conservative. I suspect she probably regarded those values as a good thing.

StevieJ

pqrdef wrote: »

Selling council houses did a lot to help change that. Many many people who expected to die poor suddenly found they could leave their offspring a tidy sum.

I have not seen that phrase used since the endownment debacle where it seemed to find its way onto all the mis-selling claims, did you claim?

ninky_2

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

There are areas of the country where private rentals are CHEAPER than social housing. Are you suggesting they are subsidised?

interesting if true.

as is the thought that anything that is charged at lower than market price (even if that doesn't mean an actual loss) is a subsidy.

it's just a way of looking at profit i suppose.

if you could charge more for something then don't that is a subsidy? have to say i don't see the world in that way.

ninky_2

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

How did that work out?
Was there not 13 years of Labour?
Did home ownership decrease under the Labour government?

no but that's the way it seems to go. more people feel better off under a labour government but then fail to see that they are better off precisely because we've had a labour government - and they tend to have a short memory and forget what social improvements have actually been made. instead they tend to look at those they feel are getting something for nothing (e.g. immigrants / those on benefits) and so start voting more right wing. in turn this means cuts in public services, areas become deprived again and more people once again think they would benefit from a labour government. continue to fade.....

of course there are those that always vote one way or another but those aren't the people who influence election outcomes.

ninky_2

Running_Horse wrote: »

In America they have gradually abolished housing projects, and nobody seems to be arguing for them to return.

in america they have tent cities. and they do have social housing because my friend's mum (a professor) lives in one on the upper east side new york.

IveSeenTheLight

ninky wrote: »

interesting if true.

as is the thought that anything that is charged at lower than market price (even if that doesn't mean an actual loss) is a subsidy.

it's just a way of looking at profit i suppose.

if you could charge more for something then don't that is a subsidy? have to say i don't see the world in that way.

Neither do I.
When I have to market my property, I do regularly consider marketting at under market value.
Why, because it is balanced by an extremely low void period.

I have been able to regularly increase the rental between tenants, so whilst othe properties may be able to get an additional 2.5%, they could be losing that in their void periods.

Another trick I utilise is to seperate the property from the garage and market that seperately.
whilst the markey is attaining a 2.5% reduction in monthly market rate, I'm gtting an additional 9.275% through the garage rental.

IveSeenTheLight

ninky wrote: »

no but that's the way it seems to go. more people feel better off under a labour government but then fail to see that they are better off precisely because we've had a labour government - and they tend to have a short memory and forget what social improvements have actually been made. instead they tend to look at those they feel are getting something for nothing (e.g. immigrants / those on benefits) and so start voting more right wing. in turn this means cuts in public services, areas become deprived again and more people once again think they would benefit from a labour government. continue to fade.....

What social improvements are you referring to?
In line with the OP, have they improved / increased social housing?

ninky wrote: »

of course there are those that always vote one way or another but those aren't the people who influence election outcomes.

Indeed, it's extremely interesting how weighted a vote is depending on the area and how the government target the swinging voter areas to try and win the seat.

Of course you can understand why they do it, but is it really looking at what's best for the UK?

It would be refreshing for politions to stop trating the public like kids, lay the facts on the table, treat the UK as a whole (while certain countries have not yet achieved independance ).
Strip everything down to basics and make them transparent.

Of course I'm wandering into Utopia and something were never likely to see.

LydiaJ

ninky wrote: »

according to this 41% of private rentals are in "poor condition" - so if the aim of council home sell off was to improve the housing conditions and rights of the population as a whole it has failed miserably.

http://www.upad.co.uk/blog/2011/03/41-of-private-rental-properties-are-in-poor-condition-2/

The private sector may be booming but standards of accommodation remain low. 1.4 million privately renting households are living in properties rated as "non-decent". That's 41% of the 3.4 million households who rent privately in England.
Under the criteria set down by the department of communities and local government, to be classed as “non-decent”, a property fails three or more of these minimum standards. These include a kitchen no more than 20 years old with “reasonable space and layout”, a bathroom less than 30 years old and good insulation against noise plus energy efficient features. Flats must have communal spaces of adequate size and properties of all kinds must be of an appropriate size for the number of tenants.

vivatifosi wrote: »

I'll watch the programme because it sounds interesting. However I'd argue that you can't compare housing standards in the 1970 with now and expect them to come out better. Look at the criteria above and ask how a 1970s house would have met them.

Taking the standards above, why does a kitchen need to be no more than 20 years old in order to be habitable? If it is older and made of say solid oak and built to last does it mean that it fails to function? In the council house I grew up in, which was built in the 1970s, we didn't have a fitted kitchen. The vast majority of bathrooms never had a shower, but if I rented a Victorian house with an original bathroom then that too would fail to make the grade above, even though people would often pay extra now for a roll-top bath!

As for insulation and soundproofing, my parent's victorian house with original sash windows wouldn't meet this criteria either, even though it's far from a dive. It's not really surprising when the criteria are such that 41% fail to meet the grade. I don't know of any houses in the 1970s that had double glazing, I think I saw my first DG window in the 1980s, so very few houses back then would have passed by such standards.

A newer kitchen or bathroom does not make a good house IMO, I'm more worried about people who live in houses with damp, or rot, or infestations, or in horrid high-rises, or who don't have enough bedrooms so their kids sleep in the conservatory. They are the ones I feel sorry for, and thankfully that's a much smaller percentage than 40%.

Those seem to me to be stupid standards. My parents' house (which they own) wouldn't meet any of them apart from the "sufficient space" one. Standards shouldn't be about the age of the kitchen or bathroom, but about whether things work and are in good repair, and of course the absence of mould, rot, pests etc as viva suggests.

Over on the house renting buying etc board, they get lots of threads about "my property is awful - how do I make my LL sort it?" They don't get people on there complaining that the kitchen is old, but rather that the cupboards don't shut properly, or the boiler doesn't work, or there's condensation or other things along those lines.