Cons Mistake On Bedroom Tax - Not Enough Small Houses Anyway

grizzly1911

CLAPTON wrote: »

Very interesting.

I didn't know we had a surplus of 3 and 4 bed properties and a shortage of 1 and 2 bed places.

Encouraging really, as we can correct this situation a lot more cheaply than if the opposite had been the case.

I doubt we do have a surplus of either but I guess it is like solitaire(the board game with balls) if you haven't got a space to move into (or in this case a few spaces) you can't easily get the ball moving.

Then of course we add in the special needs properties and those 3 bed high rise units that aren't suitable for families or the infirm (or for any normal person probably).

ILW

Wookster wrote: »

Labour's mistake: spending money like it was going out of fashion... oh and not building enough houses.

You have to wonder what they did spend it on with nothing to show for it.

CLAPTON

grizzly1911 wrote: »

I doubt we do have a surplus of either but I guess it is like solitaire(the board game with balls) if you haven't got a space to move into (or in this case a few spaces) you can't easily get the ball moving.

Then of course we add in the special needs properties and those 3 bed high rise units that aren't suitable for families or the infirm (or for any normal person probably).

I we much doubt that property 'liquidity' is a real problem;
councils and housing trusts have empty property come available all the time

people die, marry, move because of jobs or family reasons and anyway swaps could easily be arranged if there was the will to do it.

grizzly1911

ILW wrote: »

You have to wonder what they did spend it on with nothing to show for it.

I wouldn't say that homes have been heated and cars/lorries run with imported fuel, we have imported foreign cars, TVs, washing machines, I pads/phones (and their equivelants), foreign holidays. We have exported wages in the shape of call centres for our service sector.

No doubt the Far and Middle East has done nicely out of it

DecentLivingWage

Weird situation anyway when a 1 bed flat in London is exorbitant compared to a 3 bed semi in Bolton- is that scheme still in existence where property owners could only build 'mixed developments?' Large/small. owners/social housing?

DecentLivingWage

Look like the Nos have it, they were fighting split down the middle of the Cons/Lib Dem cabinet til the last minute but they have decided to drop the minimum price for alcohol plan - probs Osborne cant afford it any more due to outside pressures, Shame , it would have saved lives and health and the NHS would have made the money back in the long term, liver disease etc is happening much more in young families.

CLAPTON

ILW wrote: »

You have to wonder what they did spend it on with nothing to show for it.

the sole purpose of economic production is consumption:

capital goods are only a way of increasing consumption in the future by making sacrifices now.

so if people enjoyed life, improved their homes, bought flat screen TVs, had nice haircuts, went on memorable holidays, replaced crumbling schools, reduced waiting times in hospitals, cycled round the countryside, played sport, had a few beers with their mates etc then they have done the things that are the made possible by economic activity.

we enter the world with nothing and leave with nothing.

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

They are making an even bigger mistake with universal credit.

Under the proposed new system, tenants in receipt of housing benefit will have their money paid directly to them, rather than, as now, direct to the landlord, as part of a drive to build financial resilience by encouraging saving and budgeting skills among households used to living week-to-week in a cash economy.

But trials have shown that tenants don't pay their rent and fall into arrears

Southwark council, which is one of six areas piloting the change, says that arrears have soared since it started testing direct payments. It is advising ministers that however laudable the ideals, in practice the policy could be disastrous for many vulnerable tenants, and could leave landlords handling debts of millions of pounds.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/patrick-butler-cuts-blog/2013/feb/19/universal-credit-direct-payments-tenants-face-arrears-southwark

A Universal Credit trial of a first group of tenants in Torfaen South Wales has resulted in an increase in arrears from £20,000 to £140,000 in just seven months from July to January. Chief executive Duncan Forbes of Bron Afon Community Housing who have 950 tenants receiving direct payment of their housing benefit said the rise in arrears was ” significant”.
“That was a group of people who had a good track record of payment and pretty low level of arrears, thrust into a position where they are now in significant arrears.”

http://www.property118.com/index.php/universal-credit-trial/37434/

Some landlords are saying they will pull their properties out of the market for those on benefits.

grizzly1911

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

Some landlords are saying they will pull their properties out of the market for those on benefits.

If you don't get paid you don't supply.

Poorly thought out policy doomed to failure.

N1AK

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

They are making an even bigger mistake with universal credit.

But trials have shown that tenants don't pay their rent and fall into arrears

Some tenants.

Some people abuse alcohol lets ban it and only allow it to be distributed by the government. Some people eat too much so supermarkets should be shut and food parcels supplied directly from the government...

If you allow people freedom then obviously some of them will screw it up. I'm not sure that we should just assume that anyone who is in need of benefits is too stupid/ignorant to manage their finances; and if they are then we should be solving that issue so they could one day live independent of state aid rather than handling it all for them so that they aren't capable of moving off of the states teat.