Homeless figures treble amongst private rental tenants

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

This is a constant battle for me. It's now even prevelant when you post articles with people saying "no, what he actually thinks or means is".

Maybe you just have a deep lack of understanding of how the English language works. Perhaps you lack the analytical skills to decipher what people mean based on what they say. Maybe you just see words on a page and take them at face value. I don't know if I pity how you see the world in black and white or whether I'm envious.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Even if you quote words, it's simply turned around into "poor journalism". Unless of course the article says HPI will increase, then it's defacto.

Pots and kettles? I don't think you read your own links let alone take the time to interrogate the source data or release? You're highly reliant on journalists to help form your opinion.

IveSeenTheLight

antrobus wrote: »

I disagree, I believe that the root cause was the failure of the last Labour government to build.

Under Thatcher 549,170 social housing completions (1980-1989); under Blair 228,770 social housing completions (1998-2007). Given that the UK population grew by some 800,000 under Thatcher the build figure looks reasonable, but a build of 228,770 would appear totally inadequate to deal with a population growth of 2.4 million.

Interesting point.
You've cited the build rate, but what was the sell off rate?

I do not disagree that there was insufficient building during the Blair years.

antrobus

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Interesting point.
You've cited the build rate, but what was the sell off rate?

I do not disagree that there was insufficient building during the Blair years.

DCLG have some numbers for annual social housing sales for England. They have 970,558 sales for Thatcher and 573,690 sales for Blair.

Of course, the interesting thing about the build figures, is that almost all the social housing built under Blair was built by Housing Associations. Over 10 years Labour built a paltry 3,500 actual council houses.

onlyroz

I've asked it before but got no answer so I'll ask it again. Where are all these "homeless" people? I don't believe they are all sleeping in shop doorways because we'd be stepping over them every time we went out into the street.

If they've gone back to their parents then they're not really homeless are they? If they're sleeping on a mate's sofa then at least they've got a base to look for something more permanent.

So where are they all?

System

wotsthat wrote: »

Maybe you just have a deep lack of understanding of how the English language works. Perhaps you lack the analytical skills to decipher what people mean based on what they say.

This drives me insane.

Numpty: "I think we should ban water!"

Normal person "So you want everyone to die of thirst?"

Numpty: "I DIDN'T SAY THAT OMG stop putting words in my mouth!"

The issue clearly is with Mr Numpty who doesn't understand what his initial comment would mean later on.

CLAPTON

onlyroz wrote: »

I've asked it before but got no answer so I'll ask it again. Where are all these "homeless" people? I don't believe they are all sleeping in shop doorways because we'd be stepping over them every time we went out into the street.

If they've gone back to their parents then they're not really homeless are they? If they're sleeping on a mate's sofa then at least they've got a base to look for something more permanent.

So where are they all?

the question has been asked and answer many times.


there is in fact little homeless in the UK as people solve homelessness but increasing occupancy of property.

so people house share, stay at home, sofa surf, use of B&B etc.

when people talk about homelessness they mean there is insufficient for peoples wants and what is generally seen as 'reasonable' needs.

IveSeenTheLight

antrobus wrote: »

DCLG have some numbers for annual social housing sales for England. They have 970,558 sales for Thatcher and 573,690 sales for Blair.

So, interestingly you cite Thatcher era as having built 550k properties but sold 970k (in England only)
A net loss of just over 420k social homes.

Blair era built less, but also sold off less under the RTB, contributing a nett loss of circa 350k.

Of course, there is the gap in between and we know that social housing decreased by circa 1.5 million since the 1980's.

BTL increased by circa 2 million over the same time period, hence an increase of 500k rentable homes, but of course with the population increasing 7.5 million again over the same period, there is still a chronic shortage of social / private rental properties.

onlyroz

CLAPTON wrote: »

so people house share, stay at home, sofa surf, use of B&B etc..

So are such people officially classed as homeless when it comes to compiling the statistics?

Generali

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

So, interestingly you cite Thatcher era as having built 550k properties but sold 970k (in England only)
A net loss of just over 420k social homes.

Blair era built less, but also sold off less under the RTB, contributing a nett loss of circa 350k.

Of course, there is the gap in between and we know that social housing decreased by circa 1.5 million since the 1980's.

BTL increased by circa 2 million over the same time period, hence an increase of 500k rentable homes, but of course with the population increasing 7.5 million again over the same period, there is still a chronic shortage of social / private rental properties.

However, to take the historical view, there was an explicit change in housing policy under Thatcher.

From the Atlee Government onwards there was an ideological view that council housing should house all people. Not the people in the Cabinet of course but pretty much everyone else.

The Thatcher Governments had an alternate view which was that the majority of people should own their own houses as part of the 'property owning democracy'. People who owned their home rather than having it cheaply rented to them by the state had no financial stake in their community and so would tend not to do the things that would make their community a better place to live.

Once that ideological shift takes place fewer social homes are needed so it is completely reasonable, given that shift in viewpoint, for the houses currently tenanted to be sold.

Again taking the ideological view, if we want more owners rather than tenants changing landlords then it needs to be made simpler & cheaper for current tenants to buy where they're living already.

RTB effectively gave tenants a deposit that they wouldn't otherwise have had.

Generali

onlyroz wrote: »

So are such people officially classed as homeless when it comes to compiling the statistics?

Most of them aren't.