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

chucknorris

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I was talking about 'coining it in'.

or

You were talking about 'coining it in' in relation to rent:

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Well someone's sure coining it in aren't they ? ( And I don't mean the MP's, though they are too ).. Taking rent seven times higher than the social rent they themselves were paying, and a cheap house too. Those housing benefit bills for the Govt though.... Ouch.

As I pointed it out, it doesn't apply to everyone, specifically those that subsequently bought them on the open market. It would be interesting to see the figures, but I reckon most either stayed put or sold up, rather than let them out.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The people who sold them to you. Bought them at a big discount. Then took full market price from you.

Or haven't sold, but moved elsewhere and are currently letting them out at up to seven times the rent they themselves paid while living there. So yes, coining it in. I didn't mean people like you.

Current Tory policy is to extend RTB to LHA's also.

the rents reflect the shortage of housing rather than the RTB.

the rent people paid 20-30 years ago really has no relevance to anything

and of course there many SNP politicians and SNP supporters who fully supported and took advantage of those tory policies : why was that?

ukcarper

CLAPTON wrote: »

the rents reflect the shortage of housing rather than the RTB.

the rent people paid 20-30 years ago really has no relevance to anything

and of course there many SNP politicians and SNP supporters who fully supported and took advantage of those tory policies : why was that?

I don't see that selling a valuable asset at a large discount benefits anyone except the buyer.

Shakethedisease

CLAPTON wrote: »

the rents reflect the shortage of housing rather than the RTB.

the rent people paid 20-30 years ago really has no relevance to anything

and of course there many SNP politicians and SNP supporters who fully supported and took advantage of those tory policies : why was that?

Yes, the shortage of housing and councils and housing associations and what confidence they have in building more housing to add to the current stock... is actually the topic Clapton.

Is the Tories policy of RTB going to mean more in the way of housing building ? Or does the Scottish govt's policy of getting rid of RTB mean councils etc are now more likely to get on with building again ? What do you think about that ?

I think people from ALL political parties, and a lot who aren't really bothered about politics took advantage of RTB. My parents did too, and my dad is stalwart Labour. But like Ms Sturgeon's parents, they also still live in their home. Decades after buying it. They didn't sell or rent it out. Which seems to be one of the problems when it comes to market forces. Social rents (at the moment) are lower. RTB means those past social rental levels are now at market rent levels....in much, much greater numbers than ever before.

When a policy concerning individual opportunities starts having repercussions years later on wider society resulting in a housing shortage ? And an eye wateringly high housing benefits bill to the government. Then perhaps it is time for a rethink. Housing isn't a luxury.

baldelectrician

There is another thing on the horizon

Currently the Scottish Government are about to get control,of Housing Benefit (people may remember the 'more powers ' agenda just before the referndum, which translates as Scotland getting 15% control of welfare and 25% control of all tax revenues)

Getting back to the point- there is a good argument to be made that housing benefit payments should be linked to the landlord letting a dwelling to a minimum tolerable standard, otherwise housing benefit isn't paid.
This tied with the new provision for a private landlord to have the electrics, smoke detectors and heating to a precsribed enforcible standard makes things safer in Scotland

Mummyisbeauty

I think this is a 50/50 good and bad thing to be honeat. Whereas they will retain the housing stock for the next generations that need them the maintence charges on increasingly older properties is a stone around the councils that will increasingly eat into their funds.
Plus if house building doesn't increase and there is less property available as population increases property prices will rise as will rents for those waiting far down the council lists.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Yes, the shortage of housing and councils and housing associations and what confidence they have in building more housing to add to the current stock... is actually the topic Clapton.

Is the Tories policy of RTB going to mean more in the way of housing building ? Or does the Scottish govt's policy of getting rid of RTB mean councils etc are now more likely to get on with building again ? What do you think about that ?

I think people from ALL political parties, and a lot who aren't really bothered about politics took advantage of RTB. My parents did too, and my dad is stalwart Labour. But like Ms Sturgeon's parents, they also still live in their home. Decades after buying it. They didn't sell or rent it out. Which seems to be one of the problems when it comes to market forces. Social rents (at the moment) are lower. RTB means those past social rental levels are now at market rent levels....in much, much greater numbers than ever before.

When a policy concerning individual opportunities starts having repercussions years later on wider society resulting in a housing shortage ? And an eye wateringly high housing benefits bill to the government. Then perhaps it is time for a rethink. Housing isn't a luxury.

As I've already said, the dynamics of public sector building houses is different in areas where they form the majority of housing (Soviet style) and quite different in areas where there is both a shortage of housing and owner occupation is the desired model.

The issue is how best to meet the housing needs of all of the people and not how to build council houses.

To the extent that council houses simply displaces houses for owner occupiers then it's a bad thing : as evidenced by the many labour and SNP supporters who took advantage of the tory RTB (even if now they wish to stop others following).

The purpose of HA is to build houses : why do they need confidence to build? That's what they are there for.

High prices for rents and houses are due the shortage and not because Nicola's mother is a breathtaking hypocrite.

Is that the SNP dream : only OO houses for themselves and not for others?

People who bought RTB but now find it immoral can sell their homes back to the council at the original price.

CLAPTON

ukcarper wrote: »

I don't see that selling a valuable asset at a large discount benefits anyone except the buyer.

a 'valuable asset' has no value unless used or sold

although I don't approve of selling at a discount (I think the very best price should be obtained) nevertheless the money raised may be used for other socially desirable things.

chucknorris

CLAPTON wrote: »

a 'valuable asset' has no value unless used or sold

although I don't approve of selling at a discount (I think the very best price should be obtained) nevertheless the money raised may be used for other socially desirable things.

I tend to agree, but I think that there may be some merit in discounting. But I think the rules should be far more stringent, i.e. something like a 10 year (sliding scale) clawback clause rather than the the 3 years (assuming that is still the current rule).

Shakethedisease

CLAPTON wrote: »

As I've already said, the dynamics of public sector building houses is different in areas where they form the majority of housing (Soviet style) and quite different in areas where there is both a shortage of housing and owner occupation is the desired model.

The issue is how best to meet the housing needs of all of the people and not how to build council houses.

To the extent that council houses simply displaces houses for owner occupiers then it's a bad thing : as evidenced by the many labour and SNP supporters who took advantage of the tory RTB (even if now they wish to stop others following).

Errr well I guess that was the intention. But something has gone seriously wrong somewhere when..

Almost 1.4m households were in need of a council home last year, and just 42,870 were provided - the lowest figure for almost ten years.
Some councils have even been renting ex-council homes back from former tenants who bought them under Right to Buy - to sublet them to families in need.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/right-buy-two-out-five-6250393

The purpose of HA is to build houses : why do they need confidence to build? That's what they are there for.

Because they will constantly have to replace stock in order to keep the same numbers and same revenue coming in. It must be quite difficult to forward plan in terms of investment and growth.. when one is unsure how much will be left, or bought from them at the end of each year. See the article for details.

High prices for rents and houses are due the shortage and not because Nicola's mother is a breathtaking hypocrite.

Is that the SNP dream : only OO houses for themselves and not for others?

People who bought RTB but now find it immoral can sell their homes back to the council at the original price.

As above, it seems some councils are approaching them to do just that for renting. But for market rents.

Nicola's mother and father come to that. Weren't involved in politics at the time. They couldn't have forseen where their daughter would be some 30 years later. Blimey, you do make some strange leaps in your logic lol.