How Many Spare Houses Would We Have If ....

chucknorris

Graham_Devon wrote: »

London would be the same if were not for the socialist element of benefits and in work benefits. Though some suggest it's already going down the slum route with HMO's and people living 14 to a 3 bed terrace.

This conversion actually happened (I'm not making it up, honest), when we were marketing a house that we had just refurbished:

Me: We are hoping to attract tenants that appreciate the house and the good standard that we have refurbished it to, and will look after it and use the lounge and dining room as they are currently arranged.

Viewing prospective tenant: Yes we agree, and we really like it and we want to take it, but could we put beds in the lounge and dining room?

Graham_Devon

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Where would people live who need to/want to rent?

In the houses available to rent that the state has built?

We've a back catalogue of evidence for the pro's and con's of such a system.

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

"Winners"?!

!!!!!! is a "winner" and what country or state could you show me to prove yoru suggestions have worked anywhere, ever?

Seems to me, and the proof seems to imply that the "winners" as you call them (I'm taking it this is the wealthy, or those with the means to do something?) push those lower down the chain out.

Look at Mumbai. Hugely rich country and look at how some live. Look at other hugely rich countries surrounded by slums.

At no point in history has there ever been a country where the "winners" sort the country out for the benefit of all. In every single scenario you have people living in extreme poverty often working for the rich.

London would be the same if were not for the socialist element of benefits and in work benefits. Though some suggest it's already going down the slum route with HMO's and people living 14 to a 3 bed terrace.

The capitalist system is a failed system when it comes to providing for all. There are more thn often extreme divides all over the world where the system operates, especially where it operated without any restrain. The UK has restrain on the system.....leading to the scenerio in say, Kensington where only the poor and extremely rich can afford to live. No one in the middle can even touch the place.

the winners are those with a good food supply and a good water supply.
The housing problem in London and SE has been created by government.

The UK benefits system has helped created the house price rise, created a sub class of professional non-worker.

What sort of human right is there for a school teacher to live in one of the most expensive places on earth?

seven-day-weekend

Graham_Devon wrote: »

In the houses available to rent that the state has built?

We've a back catalogue of evidence for the pro's and con's of such a system.

But there will not be enough and therefore there will still be priority of allocation, and all the single parents/people with addictions/ people coming out of prison etc etc will be allocated them. Most people, and especially single people, won't stand a chance.

They still have to live somewhere.

I think affordable homes to rent or buy, in the private or maybe charitable sector, is the way to go, and let people chose the rented accommodation, not get allocated, unless there is medical need (and I don't mean drug addicts).

PasturesNew

I don't see it as a private/social provision argument....but about long-term.

When a council builds homes it still expects to have the same tenants (if they still wish to be) in 50 years' time and be holding property in 200 years' time.

When Mr & Mrs HutH-House buys homes they're thinking 2-3, or 4-5 years....

Then there are the fees.

What's needed is private provision of adequate housing, at sustainable prices, where people can feel it's "home" and not just "somewhere to store the boxes until the next move is thrust upon them".

CLAPTON

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

But there will not be enough and therefore there will still be priority of allocation, and all the single parents/people with addictions/ people coming out of prison etc etc will be allocated them. Most people, and especially single people, won't stand a chance.

They still have to live somewhere.

I think affordable homes to rent or buy, in the private or maybe charitable sector, is the way to go, and let people chose the rented accommodation, not get allocated, unless there is medical need (and I don't mean drug addicts).

By affordable housing I assume you mean heavily subsidised.
If the 'affordable' property is 'cheap' compared to those in the same area then there will be a vast demand for 'affordable ' homes.
So you either have a ballot or you have a allocation system.
No-one gets to 'choose'

Graham_Devon

CLAPTON wrote: »

the winners are those with a good food supply and a good water supply.

Well blimey, that's vague. Almost nondescript. I dunno where to go with that really, other than a plethora of other countries have access to those things ang still allow people to live in slums surrounded by the super wealthy.

What sort of human right is there for a school teacher to live in one of the most expensive places on earth?

There isn't one. And again, that's rather vague a question. but to spin your question on it's head, wheres the human right for the super wealthy to send their children to be taught by that teacher?

I'm assuming you can see the problem here. You always point out that the poor should do something and shouldn't demand things. That's grand. But the rich are demanding the services.

seven-day-weekend

CLAPTON wrote: »

By affordable housing I assume you mean heavily subsidised.
If the 'affordable' property is 'cheap' compared to those in the same area then there will be a vast demand for 'affordable ' homes.
So you either have a ballot or you have a allocation system.
No-one gets to 'choose'

Names out of hats then, so that everyone has the same chance.

CLAPTON

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Names out of hats then, so that everyone has the same chance.

good to teach the lesson that success isn't about working hard or gaining qualification etc but all depends upon a ballot.

obviously no-one would ever move out and lose all that subsidised accommodation

anyway what about the people who aren't successful ? Does your plan exclude them ?

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Well blimey, that's vague. Almost nondescript. I dunno where to go with that really, other than a plethora of other countries have access to those things ang still allow people to live in slums surrounded by the super wealthy.



There isn't one. And again, that's rather vague a question. but to spin your question on it's head, wheres the human right for the super wealthy to send their children to be taught by that teacher?

I'm assuming you can see the problem here. You always point out that the poor should do something and shouldn't demand things. That's grand. But the rich are demanding the services.

Even if we had a lot more accommodation available there would still be 'better' and nicer locations than others.
I am content that price would determine who lives there rather than by socialist dictate.

London transport isn't too bad: there is absolutely no logic that says the taxpayer should subsidise someone to live in Kensington.

There are no poor in the UK except for a small set of people with special difficulties.