Homeless figures treble amongst private rental tenants

Jason74

CLAPTON wrote: »

In reality, you have no interest in proposing a workable private sector housing system.

Your vision is a state run subsidised social housing system, offering life long tenancies at cheap rates irrespective of continuing need or level of income.

And once again, you take somebodys post, draw inferences that aren't there, and set out a statement based on that. I'm not the first person to pick you up on this, and I wont be the last.

For the record, your inference is not what I am saying at all. I do think that that growth of private renting in recent years at the expense of both social housing and owner occupation is a bad thing based on the current model of private rental provision. I think that the model needs to change significantly if it is going to be fit for purpose for many of the people who need to live in it. I'm also of the view that if the required changes cause landlords to exit the market, so be it. Better that than to allow the current situation to continue.

I also believe that a large scale social house building programme is reqired, as I simply don't believe that "the market" will ever build homes in anything like the required numbers. As it happens, I also believe that the social sector is in need of reform. In partiular, I would like to see it more used as a pathway to home ownership, and incorporate a system of variable rents so that the subsidy element of social housing changed with people's incomes in a way that both supported people through changing circumstances and is fair to the taxpayer.

Essentially I think that the whole UK approach to housing isn't working, and needs radical reform. I also think that there currently isn't the political will to address this, although that may well change in the next 10-20 years. The model I have in mind does indeed involve a smaller proportion of private rental, and growth in both other two tenancy types, but it is not "state run subsidised social housing system, offering life long tenancies at cheap rates irrespective of continuing need or level of income".

Of course, many people will legitimately disagree with me on the above, and that's what a debate board is all about. What debate isn't about, is just plucking statements out of thin air and attributing them to people. You've done this so many times that there is simply no point in debating with you. Going forward, I wont be replying to any posts made by you, and I would appreciate if you would do me the same courtesy.

CLAPTON

Jason74 wrote: »

Going forward, I wont be replying to any posts made by you, and I would appreciate if you would do me the same courtesy.

I will, of course, comment on ideas, proposals, comments as I see fit.
You are equally free to do so or not to do so as you see fit:

hardly needs saying really.

Jason74

CLAPTON wrote: »

I will, of course, comment on ideas, proposals, comments as I see fit.
You are equally free to do so or not to do so as you see fit:

hardly needs saying really.

Pity. I would really appreciate it if you simply ignored my posts. Would be better for everyone that way. That is certainly how I will be dealing with you from now on. I post on a number of boards on various topics, and have never felt the need to deal with another poster on any of them in this way. But in your case, this is the best way forward.

CLAPTON

Jason74 wrote: »

Pity. I would really appreciate it if you simply ignored my posts. Would be better for everyone that way. That is certainly how I will be dealing with you from now on. I post on a number of boards on various topics, and have never felt the need to deal with another poster on any of them in this way. But in your case, this is the best way forward.

you may, of course self censor if you wish : I believe in an open forum with people able to express their views on any relevant topic.

I don't accept your attempt to impose censorship on others.

I determine what is best for me and allow others equal freedom.

Sadly the left has always been somewhat authoritarian and intolerant of opposing views.

princeofpounds

I also believe that a large scale social house building programme is reqired, as I simply don't believe that "the market" will ever build homes in anything like the required numbers.

There is no free market in building homes.

Vast amounts of people in rented accommodation could probably afford to build a home very easily if they had access to land with planning permission.

The build cost is very low - less then half the price of an average house in the SE.

The only reason it is difficult to create homes (in economic, not administrative terms) is the artificial scarcity of land that can be built upon.

People talk about the difficulty of accessing credit, and that was a major problem from 09 until recently, but that is a blink of an eye in housing terms. Such vast amounts of credit are only needed because the capital cost of housing is inflated by the economic rent that must be paid to landowners and in a smaller way, via S106, local authorities.

The only reason government social housing has the capability to build vast numbers in a short amount of time is that it can basically get special rules made to ease its passage.

They are still built by the building industry. It's not as if they are being built by gangs of town hall civil servants.

Jason74

CLAPTON wrote: »

you may, of course self censor if you wish : I believe in an open forum with people able to express their views on any relevant topic.

I don't accept your attempt to impose censorship on others.

I determine what is best for me and allow others equal freedom.

Sadly the left has always been somewhat authoritarian and intolerant of opposing views.

This post of course sums up beautifully why debating with you is a waste of time. I am a long way from being "authoritarian and intolerant of opposing views". Indeed, the some of the posts I have enjoyed most have come from the likes of George Howell, Bill Jones (who accurately described you as having "the debating style of a five year old"), and Hamish. All of whom I disagree with on most topics. I come here precisely to enjoy opposing views. They challenge my own perspectives, and it's the posters I disagree with who I generally learn something from.

However, what you do is something very different to that. You simply take what people post, decide what you want it to mean (which often has very little to do with what has actually been posted), and post an aggressive reply based on that. As I say, I'm by no means the first to pull you up on that.

Anyway. I think the sensible thing for me to is simply to not bother with this forum going forward. A shame in some ways, as I have enjoyed reading the posts of many, and debating with a wide variety of views. Thanks and goodbye to all those I have enjoyed debating with.

mayonnaise

All the best, Jason. :wave:

CLAPTON

Jason74 wrote: »

This post of course sums up beautifully why debating with you is a waste of time. I am a long way from being "authoritarian and intolerant of opposing views". Indeed, the some of the posts I have enjoyed most have come from the likes of George Howell, Bill Jones (who accurately described you as having "the debating style of a five year old"), and Hamish. All of whom I disagree with on most topics. I come here precisely to enjoy opposing views. They challenge my own perspectives, and it's the posters I disagree with who I generally learn something from.

However, what you do is something very different to that. You simply take what people post, decide what you want it to mean (which often has very little to do with what has actually been posted), and post an aggressive reply based on that. As I say, I'm by no means the first to pull you up on that.

Anyway. I think the sensible thing for me to is simply to not bother with this forum going forward. A shame in some ways, as I have enjoyed reading the posts of many, and debating with a wide variety of views. Thanks and goodbye to all those I have enjoyed debating with.

of course you are right about my style.
and in your socialist utopia, such a debating style would be banned?

Graham_Devon

Jason74 wrote: »

However, what you do is something very different to that. You simply take what people post, decide what you want it to mean (which often has very little to do with what has actually been posted), and post an aggressive reply based on that. As I say, I'm by no means the first to pull you up on that.

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".

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.

Hope you stick around though understand completely the frustration caused when you are constantly told what you mean regardless of your written word.

antrobus

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I fully agree.
The root cause was the social housing sell off....

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.