London has developed 'Apartheid' style properties

TheBlueHorse

you know what I meant. ALLOWED THEMSELVES TO GET up the duff.

cells

stator wrote: »

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
You think they are building new council houses
:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Something like 1/3 of all new builds are social. In some boroughs/councils its 50% of all new builds

cells

TheBlueHorse wrote: »

the Govt and Council should provide NO homes for anyone (except a few disabled people that really can't work). Everyone else should fend for themselves. Especially young girls who get themselves up the duff.

There is definitely a need for social housing because the private rental sector in the UK can't really cator for the needs of some groups

if you are a small time BTL LL your not likely to take on the mentally unstable or people with drug or alcohol problems but of course theu need homes too

But we do have too much social homes. I think and upper limit should be 10% of the housing stock as social.

so if a particular council has more than 10% of the housing stock as social they should sell all the stock that becomes vacant until they are at the 10% mark.


TBH that might be too controversial. Maybe force those councils with more than 20% to sell all that become vacant. There is absolutely no justification or need for some councils to own > 40% of the housing stock in their areas its mental

antrobus

stator wrote: »

....You think they are building new council houses...

More are getting built now, than was ever managed under the last Labour government. Granted, a lot of them seem to be in Scotland; perhaps that's the SNP for you.

cells wrote: »

Something like 1/3 of all new builds are social. ....

20.69% of completions in 2013-14.

antrobus

purch wrote: »

You shouldn't need to scrabble about on the interet to try and justify what you have written.

Have some backbone.

But 'scrabbling about on the internet' is what cepheus does. You might as well ask a cow to stop eating grass.:)

Conrad wrote: »

I know liberal types like cephus in person.....

Liberal? Liberal?? There is nothing 'liberal' about the man.:)

JencParker

cells wrote: »

There is definitely a need for social housing because the private rental sector in the UK can't really cator for the needs of some groups

if you are a small time BTL LL your not likely to take on the mentally unstable or people with drug or alcohol problems but of course theu need homes too

But we do have too much social homes. I think and upper limit should be 10% of the housing stock as social.

so if a particular council has more than 10% of the housing stock as social they should sell all the stock that becomes vacant until they are at the 10% mark.


TBH that might be too controversial. Maybe force those councils with more than 20% to sell all that become vacant. There is absolutely no justification or need for some councils to own > 40% of the housing stock in their areas its mental

On what do you base the opinion that we have too much social house and how did you come up with the figure of 10%?

gazter

The-Joker wrote: »

And if more cuts to public spending go ahead as planned then the gap will get wider.

I suspect last min, the cuts will be postponed as usually happens.

If the cuts do happen it could be carnage out there........

Except the gap hasn't grown. Has it?

gazter

Apartheid? People in social housing are usually in receipt of housing benefit. Housing benefit will not cover the service charges. That's the only reason why.

cells

JencParker wrote: »

On what do you base the opinion that we have too much social housdid you come up with the figure of 10%?

I think the country needs some social homes to house the people no one else will touch. The alcoholics the drug users the mentally unstable the in and out of prison folk.

The figure of 10% should actually have been <10% it may even be less than 5%.

Clearly the current figure of 17% is too high to meet the needs of such groups and there are plenty of decent folk living in social homes.


PS if you have a desire for the state to keep the role as the nation's biggest landlord I don't think I can actually find a way to object to that. They can just become a market rent AST landlord. But of course most people who like social homes would object to that as its then not subsidised

stator

I think the behaviour of most slumlords over the past few decades since Maggy T deregulated all tenancies and took away all tenants rights has shown the need for a massive increase in social housing. Everyone should have the possibility of social housing if they can't buy. Private landlords are a leech on society and should be done away with.