Tory housing association policy was condemned by their own minister 18 months ago!

cepheus

Perhaps the Tories are so desperate for populist policies, they will repeat the disastrous sell off of council properties which led to the long term shortage of social rented accommodation. However, this statement from the Tory housing minister 18 months ago proves they fully understand the problems, and are far more concerned with helping rich landlords than reducing the tax burden on the average citizen.

.....the hapless (and hopeless) former Tory housing minister wrote in a letter 18 months ago that “If housing associations are obliged to consistently sell off their stock at less than market value, they might find it difficult to borrow which could impact adversely on their repair and maintenance programmes and affect the future provision of affordable housing. The government does not consider that it would be reasonable to require housing associations to sell these properties at a discount. Any increase to the discount available under the Right to Acquire would only be possible through upfront central government subsidy, potentially incurring a high liability for the public purse”.

http://www.michaelmeacher.info/weblog/2015/04/even-the-tories-naked-bribery-has-now-gone-pear-shaped/

CLAPTON

cepheus wrote: »

Perhaps the Tories are so desperate for populist policies, they will repeat the disastrous sell off of council properties which led to the long term shortage of social rented accommodation. However, this statement from the Tory housing minister 18 months ago proves they fully understand the problems, and are far more concerned with helping rich landlords than reducing the tax burden on the average citizen.



http://www.michaelmeacher.info/weblog/2015/04/even-the-tories-naked-bribery-has-now-gone-pear-shaped/

the policy aim ought to be a total elimination of social housing as it damages the lives of those that live there and is a massive unfair subsidy made by other poor people.

cepheus

CLAPTON wrote: »

the policy aim ought to be a total elimination of social housing as it damages the lives of those that live there and is a massive unfair subsidy made by other poor people.

Sorry, forgot I was on the private landlords board for a minute!

Housing experts call for clampdown on rogue landlords

The great housing benefit scandal

Nine billion pounds of taxpayers' money goes to private landlords every year in housing benefit. And the Institute for Public Policy Research estimates that at least £3bn of that money is spent on poor quality accommodation annually. That's a lot of public money. And some private landlords are getting rich at our expense while, in some areas, 70% of privately rented homes don't meet the government's decent homes standard.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32381471

the_flying_pig

CLAPTON wrote: »

the policy aim ought to be a total elimination of social housing as it damages the lives of those that live there and is a massive unfair subsidy made by other poor people.

sorry, and in English?

Graham_Devon

CLAPTON wrote: »

the policy aim ought to be a total elimination of social housing as it damages the lives of those that live there and is a massive unfair subsidy made by other poor people.

Presumably you'd wish to see the end of housing benefit too then?

Generali

cepheus wrote: »

Sorry, forgot I was on the private landlords board for a minute!

Housing experts call for clampdown on rogue landlords



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32381471

You're not.

It's hard to see why a select group should be provided with subsidised housing whilst the rest of us pay the going rate. When I lived in the City of London, one of the priority groups that went to the top of the housing list were people that worked in the Housing Department of the City of London Corporation!

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Presumably you'd wish to see the end of housing benefit too then?

We should subsidise people who need housing depending their circumstances. Subsidy should be temporary and subject to regular review. Nobody being subsidised should expect to live any better than an average comparable family.

A property does not need a subsidy.

Housing benefit system has probably been one of the most damaging aspects of our social support system.
It has driven rents up, encouraged landlordism, increased prices, created massive unfairness, encouraged the work shy and all at a very high cost to the ordinary people of the country.

CLAPTON

the_flying_pig wrote: »

sorry, and in English?

are you dyslexic too?

ukcarper

CLAPTON wrote: »

the policy aim ought to be a total elimination of social housing as it damages the lives of those that live there and is a massive unfair subsidy made by other poor people.

You do talk rubbish.

Moby

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Presumably you'd wish to see the end of housing benefit too then?

....followed by the re-introduction of the poor laws and workhouses and i've absolutely no idea what he means by 'ordinary' people.

CLAPTON

Moby wrote: »

.... i've absolutely no idea what he means by 'ordinary' people.

that is clearly the case