Housing is an example of how Scotland makes better use of its powers than Westminster

CLAPTON

ukcarper wrote: »

But that's always your argument state subsidised for life which doesn't have to be the case but then your argument falls to bits if you don't use that argument.

What other negatives of social housing the problems with social housing now are the problems of society in general and now many private estates in the south east art suffering as much a social housing.

if things were different then things would be different:
at the moment things are as they are.
if they become different then my views might change

presumably yours wouldn't?

ukcarper

CLAPTON wrote: »

if things were different then things would be different:
at the moment things are as they are.
if they become different then my views might change

presumably yours wouldn't?

Obviously not as I think if the Government are going to rent property it might as well be it's own.

CLAPTON

ukcarper wrote: »

Obviously not as I think if the Government are going to rent property it might as well be it's own.

what an absurd proposition

ukcarper

CLAPTON wrote: »

what an absurd proposition

In your opinion but the banks and private landlords are making a lot of money letting property to the government and that profit could be the governments.

Generali

ukcarper wrote: »

In your opinion but the banks and private landlords are making a lot of money letting property to the government and that profit could be the governments.

I'm not sure if you've ever been to places like Elephant and Castle or Archway but the Government has shown itself over many decades to be spectacularly bad at building and owning housing.

ukcarper

Generali wrote: »

I'm not sure if you've ever been to places like Elephant and Castle or Archway but the Government has shown itself over many decades to be spectacularly bad at building and owning housing.

It's shown itself to be bad a lots of things but council estates were not that bad in the 60s and 70s and the present system isn't much better and a couple of private estates near me are rapidly going the way of some of the bad council estates in the area.

CLAPTON

ukcarper wrote: »

It's shown itself to be bad a lots of things but council estates were not that bad in the 60s and 70s and the present system isn't much better and a couple of private estates near me are rapidly going the way of some of the bad council estates in the area.

maybe try to write in English?

ukcarper

CLAPTON wrote: »

maybe try to write in English?

When all you can do is criticise someone's grammar it's a sure sign you are losing the argument

cells

stator wrote: »

Many council tenants couldn't get a private tenancy, so selling them off would just make a huge number of people homeless.
And as we've seen over the last 30 years, selling off houses to the private sector has just lined the pockets of greedy private landlords with housing benefit.

This is BS

at its peak owner occupation was over 70%, at its peak council stock was over 30%

This clearly means that if council stock was maintained at its peak homeownership could not have grow to what it has/had.

so unless you think renting off the council is better than owning you need to at least partially reconsider your views

cells

ukcarper wrote: »

It's shown itself to be bad a lots of things but council estates were not that bad in the 60s and 70s and the present system isn't much better and a couple of private estates near me are rapidly going the way of some of the bad council estates in the area.

Council estates probably harm people's life chances but even if you disagree I doubt you would try to argue they improve people's chances

If a palce like London sold off its council stock as it became vacant the near 100% council estates would go towards 50% over 25 years which woupd be a positive.

If nothing else there should be a re balancing of the stock. Councils like Hackney or Islington have nearly twice as many council homes as most London boroughs. They should sell their stock down. In my view there is no need to replace them and the money should be spent on more crossrail type projects but if you insist a private home in a London Borough with less council homes can be baught and become a replacement.