Right to buy to be extended

stator

Voyager2002 wrote: »

But what would that do to house prices? And most of us rely on house prices going up in order to live after retirement.

Your retirement plan is to drain funds from the younger generation?

hpifever

If this crap policy goes through, fraud will be rife!

vivatifosi

cells wrote: »

of the three types of housing

owners
private renters
social renters

the lowest occupancy rate is in the social reentered sector. what that means is, on average, if you sell a social house you will find that more people live in it post sale.

the housing works more efficiently in housing people.

Part of the issue here though is length of tenancies. If you have pensioners as sole occupants of three bedroom coucil houses, then this is naturally going to lead to a greater degree of under occupation. Therefore would it not be better to have regular tenancy reviews, rather than selling off at a subsidy? Smacks of rectifying one problem with a different one.

cells

vivatifosi wrote: »

Part of the issue here though is length of tenancies. If you have pensioners as sole occupants of three bedroom coucil houses, then this is naturally going to lead to a greater degree of under occupation. Therefore would it not be better to have regular tenancy reviews, rather than selling off at a subsidy? Smacks of rectifying one problem with a different one.

The most logical thung would be for the state to rent out the properties in the same way as the lrivate sector at the going rate.

but if thats what they are to do why does it need to be state owned. We don't have state owned farms or corner shops and there is no lack of them

ukcarper

cells wrote: »

The most logical thung would be for the state to rent out the properties in the same way as the lrivate sector at the going rate.

but if thats what they are to do why does it need to be state owned. We don't have state owned farms or corner shops and there is no lack of them

Didn't you answer this yourself when you said state can borrow at a lower rate.

purch

cells wrote: »

The most logical thung would be for the state to rent out the properties in the same way as the lrivate sector at the going rate.

but if thats what they are to do why does it need to be state owned. We don't have state owned farms or corner shops and there is no lack of them

I guess you don't know much about Farming.

In rural areas ther are lots of Farms owned by the county council and rented to Farmers.

Very few Farmers own their own Farm.

You will also find that over the last decade social rents have risen by by more than inflation, and usually at the maximum allowed by the lease in an attempt to get them to more closely match private rents.

Trying to compare private rentals with social rentals, and complaining about a subsidy just because one rent is higher than the other is a confusion many have. They are different products entirely.

kwmlondon

vivatifosi wrote: »

Part of the issue here though is length of tenancies. If you have pensioners as sole occupants of three bedroom coucil houses, then this is naturally going to lead to a greater degree of under occupation. Therefore would it not be better to have regular tenancy reviews, rather than selling off at a subsidy? Smacks of rectifying one problem with a different one.

I think that this is all tinkering, to be honest. I can see how there's some good arguments but they all get so obscured by the moral objective behind the policy. I really want to see more social cohesion, and if that's achieved by getting more people into work and more people owning their own houses then I'm comfortable with that, but I worry that social cohesion will suffer. It's the people at the fringes of our society we need to bring in, not exclude. That's much harder and more expensive in the short term, but pays off massively in the long-term.

This policy smacks of short term thinking and is not a product of a government who can plan more than a couple of years ahead.

wymondham

If this is truly for social needs, then they should sell all the expensive ones in London whilst building the new ones up North when they can build four or five times the amount...


this way it gets rid of renters in London as more people will have immense pride and feel rich whilst creating massive slums up north.....


I think I'll become a Conservative MP as I'm getting into the mind-set of thinking up brilliant ideas that can't possibly go wrong!

Graham_Devon

CLAPTON wrote: »

lets say it is true that there are nurses, police, shop workers field engineers etc.

why was a particular nurse, police officer, shop worker etc selected for the privilege of having a subsidised house for life?

were they more deserving than their colleagues, lucky ?

why do their colleagues have to pay more than them : are they less deserving?

I don't think tenancies are for life now? I may be wrong, but pretty sure they were axed some years ago now?

That's not to say a paying tenant will be moved or that they are checked each year for eligibility. However, don't think the tenancy for life clause is still there.

As for "why does a fireman deserve to be picked". It's likely they live in an area where house prices outstrip local wages. They will likely have other issues too, such as children etc and are therefore on the council waiting list.

These people are not just "picked", it's not just "luck of the draw"... there is a whole bidding system in place where people have priority based on their circumstances over others. I assumed you knew about the bidding system to be honest. But it appears you have huge issues with how council housing operates, but no actual understanding of how it operates.

My issue was you defined people in council homes as the "undeserving class" which would seem quite offensive. If someone has enough points to be able to bid on these places (which are in some cases rare as hens teeth), it's likely that life hasn't dealt them the greatest hand. Many will have disabled partners or children etc.

Moby

Priti Patel just got mauled by Eddie Mayer on pm. Ouch they should have stopped the interview. Absolutely no idea, (other than a growing economy) as to how these policies are to be paid for. It must be the magic money tree they always accuse labour of using.