The death of 'social' housing

tbs624

olias wrote: »

Ever wondered why some people still insist everything is Thatcher and the Tories fault ..

The decimation of our social housing stock *was* down to Thatcher and the Tories - it's not some kind of urban myth.

poppysarah

tbs624 wrote: »

The decimation of our social housing stock *was* down to Thatcher and the Tories - it's not some kind of urban myth.

And labour refused to build more...

In fact labour have decimated the housing stock by at least 800,000 = pathfinder scheme of John Prescott ...
That's done more to devastate the UK than selling off council houses.

Flyboy152

poppysarah wrote: »

And labour refused to build more...

In fact labour have decimated the housing stock by at least 800,000 = pathfinder scheme of John Prescott ...
That's done more to devastate the UK than selling off council houses.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

You mean the project that demolished ten thousand homes and replaced them with fifty thousand homes?

Decimated 800,000.......:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: that would make eight million council houses in the UK. :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

I_luv_cats

They were sold off by who ever (doesn't really matter) because

(a) some areas they wanted the votes

(b) they were costing too much money to maintain, they flogged them to transfer the problem to the Leaseholder.

(c) other political motives

pararct

Thatcher flogged off the stock as it was part of her entire plan around the big bang in the city. Overnight it created a massive mortgage market right at the time the banks were being de-regulated and the Building societies were turning themselves into banks. At the time none of this was obvious but 30 years on it is now easy to see the damage it has done to the UK economy. Also drove property values mush higher than they would otherwise have been which is never a good thing.

In fact the main reason the economy is so shot now is due to the amount of debt held in both the general population and the banks. Most UK banks are by definition insolvent and would crash bankrupt tomorrow without the Government guarantees. The problems have their roots back in the de-regulation and the selling off of the social housing stock was part of that de-regulation.

eeeeeee

my apprentice has been waiting 11 years up here in the north west; hes not on a lot of money hes" 34 years old ... a flat came up near too here 2 weeks ago ... it went too a single man who has been in our country 3 weeks ... hows that fair >?

Running_Horse

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

Ever wondered why the Toris sold council houses at a discount to peope who could have afforded to buy on the open market (other than the obvious gerrymandering and buying of votes)?

Ever wondered why councils don't build more social housing when the need is blindingly obvious?

Ever wondered why Labour didn't stop council house sales, or why they didn't build more houses (private or council) when they were in power for three terms?

The truth is government has always been poor at providing good quality homes, and usually just build horrible ghettoes for the welfare underclass.

I can't help thinking there must be a better way of providing good quality rental homes with security of tenure for those working hard on low incomes. And if you refuse to work, why should the taxpayer build you a free house?

Flyboy152

eeeeeee wrote: »

my apprentice has been waiting 11 years up here in the north west; hes not on a lot of money hes" 34 years old ... a flat came up near too here 2 weeks ago ... it went too a single man who has been in our country 3 weeks ... hows that fair >?

Yeah.....of course it did. :wall:

Flyboy152

Running_Horse wrote: »

Ever wondered why Labour didn't stop council house sales, or why they didn't build more houses (private or council) when they were in power for three terms?

The truth is government has always been poor at providing good quality homes, and usually just build horrible ghettoes for the welfare underclass.

I can't help thinking there must be a better way of providing good quality rental homes with security of tenure for those working hard on low incomes. And if you refuse to work, why should the taxpayer build you a free house?

Please name the people who want a free house built and refuse to work.

Mind you, I wouldn't mind a free house, I'd hate to be tied to the brewery.

Running_Horse

Flyboy152 wrote: »

Please name the people who want a free house built and refuse to work.

Mind you, I wouldn't mind a free house, I'd hate to be tied to the brewery.

I know several, but won't be naming them. It would be interesting to know what percentage of social housing is allocated to the unemployed nowadays. Certainly more than in previous generations.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/8572859/Ed-Miliband-Labour-must-be-party-of-grafters.html

The news story above appeared a couple of hours after my post. It would be great if this country really did reward those who make an effort, rather than rewarding socially destructive behaviour and those who manipulate the system.

But I'll believe it when I see it.

There are five million on the waiting list now. Would bulding one million new homes (highly unlikely) reduce the waiting list by that amount? Or would it create unrealistic expectations and a rush of new applicants? There must be a better way of providing decent housing, rather than waiting for the state to do it.