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

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

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

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

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.

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.

what has gone wrong (at least in the some parts of the country) is that we build too few houses because of the ridiculous planning laws (plus a few other factors).

I have no idea why scotland has too few houses : maybe the same reasons or maybe not: I really don't know: (I'm pretty sure though it will be the fault of the English).

HA have no duty to 'replace' stock : in fact they have no specific duties as they are answerable to no-one.
Building for sale is absolutely within the ethos of HAs.

Is social ownership of housing the aim of the SNP?

The demand for heavily subsubised quality homes (guaranteed for life) is massively more than the figure quoted : I would guess at least 10 million: council waiting lists are total nonsense.


Did Nicola's parents (and Labour people et al) support the Tory RTB plans? YES OR NO?

If they did then fine : if they didn't but took advantage then they are hypocrites:
Nothing to do with what their children have become: although the SNP silence on the issue is very telling.

Anyway it worked out well, because Nicola' parents and others did exactly the right thing even if for the wrong reasons.

Do you have no principles except that any end to independence is acceptable?

cells

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Really ? Well, I was one of the 17 year old pregnant teenagers Clapton was on about ( apart from the lying to the council bit ) but it was back in 1988. I did okay in the end.. most of us don't stay perpetual 'teenage doley mother's' forever you know. My life chances were neither harmed or enhanced by getting one. But back then most of my town lived in council houses. Even all the managers of the supermarkets, dentists, and lots of what we'd call 'middle class' I suppose. There was even an 'engaged couple's list'. There were a lot of council houses.

Mabye the fact they've gotten rarer these days is the reason why they are so hotly debated ? But back then, living in a council house wasn't really anything out of the ordinary. For anyone. At all.

It's not just London though is it ? It's just at the extreme end of the scale. But an AWFUL lot that were sold cheaply through RTB are now rented out privately at a whacking great cost to the housing benefits bill. Both councils ad LHA are scared to invest in building more in case they get sold off again.

Friday 14 August 2015

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/right-to-buy-40-of-homes-sold-under-government-scheme-are-being-let-out-privately-10454796.html

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.

You have only half the picture and draw wrong conclusions

For a start most the council homes were not sold off. Over 70% still remain. Another fact is that social homes continue to be built. In London 50% of new developments are social

As for council homes being normal sure they are and plenty of good people live in them. In fact some areas were 60% council homes that must mean there were doctors and professotlrs and hell even miltimillare businessmen and lotto winners just from the sheer size of the stock. However how can you justify the state providing 60% of the homes. That there is one of the bigger problems of the council house building program it wasn't spread evenly some councils went well overboard and it ruined whole boroughs for decades as theose boroughs became the magnets of the poor-er


as for landlords buying ex council stock tp rent to rentera whay wrong ir surprising about thatm the chepaper areas become the private rental areas as provite renters often care more about price than location. Its also true with non council homes. In my town there are the good bits abd the bad bits the BTL LANDLORDS buy in the bad bits as renters dint want to pay twice as mich rent to lice in the good bits. So its simple logic that ex council stock will end up as BTL stock. However this is not the state selling to BTL landlords at a discount.


As for the life chances on average being lower I stand by that being true. Clearly with 12+ million people living in council hes some of them will be amazing some will be future nobel prize winners but on the whole pittong lots of poor people together isn't generally a good idea. The government realised this and new developments are part social part private to try and make things a bit better

cells

To the people who like council homes and disapprove of RTB...

Please answer this. What percentage of the housing stock should be council (social) owned? To the nearest 5% please


Eg. I think council homes are important and think 45% of homes should be council/social....

Shakethedisease

cells wrote: »

You have only half the picture and draw wrong conclusions

For a start most the council homes were not sold off. Over 70% still remain. Another fact is that social homes continue to be built. In London 50% of new developments are social

As for council homes being normal sure they are and plenty of good people live in them. In fact some areas were 60% council homes that must mean there were doctors and professotlrs and hell even miltimillare businessmen and lotto winners just from the sheer size of the stock. However how can you justify the state providing 60% of the homes. That there is one of the bigger problems of the council house building program it wasn't spread evenly some councils went well overboard and it ruined whole boroughs for decades as theose boroughs became the magnets of the poor-er


as for landlords buying ex council stock tp rent to rentera whay wrong ir surprising about thatm the chepaper areas become the private rental areas as provite renters often care more about price than location. Its also true with non council homes. In my town there are the good bits abd the bad bits the BTL LANDLORDS buy in the bad bits as renters dint want to pay twice as mich rent to lice in the good bits. So its simple logic that ex council stock will end up as BTL stock. However this is not the state selling to BTL landlords at a discount.


As for the life chances on average being lower I stand by that being true. Clearly with 12+ million people living in council hes some of them will be amazing some will be future nobel prize winners but on the whole pittong lots of poor people together isn't generally a good idea. The government realised this and new developments are part social part private to try and make things a bit better

There needs to be more in the way of balance. Too many people can't afford to privately rent or obtain a mortgage. There's nowhere to put them.

They aren't building enough, or fast enough. And do provide sources (if you don't mind ) when you quote figures. It make things easier to understand. Are you saying that 50% of all building in London now is for social tenants ?

Because those percentages mean different things if the number is 1000, or 100,000 houses don't you agree. And while you say 70% of council homes were not sold off a link to that would be appreciated too.

On that basis, the implication of the Conservative manifesto plans is that all these new homes would have to be sold immediately on completion. And it would also be likely that any people moving out of an old Bemerton flat would see their former home sold on the open market too. All of a sudden we would have no rationale to build the new homes. If the older tenant left their existing larger flat, it would no longer be able to help a family living in overcrowding. All the benefits of a scheme like this fall away.

This is likely to be repeated across 'high-demand' areas of the capital: no new council homes will be built, and many of the existing ones will disappear whenever they become vacant. It simply isn't possible to reconcile this policy with the Communities Secretary's assertion last week that “if we want to maintain the chain of community - and a place for the next generation - then we must make sure we have the homes to welcome them to.”

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/07/theres-never-been-worse-time-sell-council-housing

Corbyn's patch it seems coincidentally.

James Murray is Executive Member for Housing & Development at Islington Council

Mistermeaner

If councils want more homes they don't need to build them themselves just make the land available and grant planning.

They can within these planning consents dictate the type of housing to be built, social, 1 bed 2 bed 10 bed etc.

Simple

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

There needs to be more in the way of balance. Too many people can't afford to privately rent or obtain a mortgage. There's nowhere to put them.

They aren't building enough, or fast enough. And do provide sources (if you don't mind ) when you quote figures. It make things easier to understand. Are you saying that 50% of all building in London now is for social tenants ?

Because those percentages mean different things if the number is 1000, or 100,000 houses don't you agree. And while you say 70% of council homes were not sold off a link to that would be appreciated too.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/07/theres-never-been-worse-time-sell-council-housing

Corbyn's patch it seems coincidentally.

James Murray is Executive Member for Housing & Development at Islington Council

Murray does indeed come from the same communist background as Corbyn

lets see

he believes
- a nice house built by the council and lived in my an unemployed person is a truely wonderful thing
- the exact same house lived in by an employed young teacher/utility worker etc as a tenant is a disgrace to Islington and he would never condone such a thing
- the every same house lived as an OO would be the ultimate crime and he sulk would for a year or so and refuse to allow a single house to be build ever again.

and all this supported by a SNP acolyte who supports all those SNP politicians who put their nose in the Tory RTB trough.

ukcarper

cells wrote: »

You have only half the picture and draw wrong conclusions

For a start most the council homes were not sold off. Over 70% still remain. Another fact is that social homes continue to be built. In London 50% of new developments are social

As for council homes being normal sure they are and plenty of good people live in them. In fact some areas were 60% council homes that must mean there were doctors and professotlrs and hell even miltimillare businessmen and lotto winners just from the sheer size of the stock. However how can you justify the state providing 60% of the homes. That there is one of the bigger problems of the council house building program it wasn't spread evenly some councils went well overboard and it ruined whole boroughs for decades as theose boroughs became the magnets of the poor-er


as for landlords buying ex council stock tp rent to rentera whay wrong ir surprising about thatm the chepaper areas become the private rental areas as provite renters often care more about price than location. Its also true with non council homes. In my town there are the good bits abd the bad bits the BTL LANDLORDS buy in the bad bits as renters dint want to pay twice as mich rent to lice in the good bits. So its simple logic that ex council stock will end up as BTL stock. However this is not the state selling to BTL landlords at a discount.


As for the life chances on average being lower I stand by that being true. Clearly with 12+ million people living in council hes some of them will be amazing some will be future nobel prize winners but on the whole pittong lots of poor people together isn't generally a good idea. The government realised this and new developments are part social part private to try and make things a bit better

Where are you getting your figure that 50% of new property in London is social I'm not sure that's right affordable maybe but that's a different thing. According to ONS in 2011 24% of London was social nationwide that figure was 17% Hackney and Southwark were highest at 42%.

cells

Shakethedisease wrote: »

There needs to be more in the way of balance. Too many people can't afford to privately rent or obtain a mortgage. There's nowhere to put them.

They aren't building enough, or fast enough. And do provide sources (if you don't mind ) when you quote figures. It make things easier to understand. Are you saying that 50% of all building in London now is for social tenants ?

Because those percentages mean different things if the number is 1000, or 100,000 houses don't you agree. And while you say 70% of council homes were not sold off a link to that would be appreciated too.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/07/theres-never-been-worse-time-sell-council-housing

Corbyn's patch it seems coincidentally.

James Murray is Executive Member for Housing & Development at Islington Council

Every council sets a percentage of new builds that have to be social. It varies council to council but the london plan is for 50% of all new builds to be social and in practise they get very close eg my london borough last year of all its new builds 49% were social. What thatvmeans in practise is that in London the social stock is increasing not falling

also I understand many people cant afford rents but many people cant afford nappies for their babies so should the state open up a nappy factory and give out free state nappies? The state needs to subsidise spme people that will always be true but that should be done by subsidising people not homes or products or services


Also you clearly dont know anything about the situation you say they aren't building enough council homes and that there aren't enough of them and then you ask me to tell you how many there are and hiw fast are they being built. How can you conclide there isnt enough when you dont know how mant there are?

anyway there is almost 5 million council/social homes today which house about 12 milloon people.

ukcarper

cells wrote: »

Every council sets a percentage of new builds that have to be social. It varies council to council but the london plan is for 50% of all new builds to be social and in practise they get very close eg my london borough last year of all its new builds 49% were social. What thatvmeans in practise is that in London the social stock is increasing not falling

also I understand many people cant afford rents but many people cant afford nappies for their babies so should the state open up a nappy factory and give out free state nappies? The state needs to subsidise spme people that will always be true but that should be done by subsidising people not homes or products or services


Also you clearly dont know anything about the situation you say they aren't building enough council homes and that there aren't enough of them and then you ask me to tell you how many there are and hiw fast are they being built. How can you conclide there isnt enough when you dont know how mant there are?

anyway there is almost 5 million council/social homes today which house about 12 milloon people.

I ask again where do you get your figures and is it social or affordable.

cells

ukcarper wrote: »

Where are you getting your figure that 50% of new property in London is social I'm not sure that's right affordable maybe but that's a different thing. According to ONS in 2011 24% of London was social nationwide that figure was 17% Hackney and Southwark were highest at 42%.

Affordable housing is social housing. Its a form of subsidised housing. Just like HA homes are social (in fact a lot of HA homes are ex-counil homes transfered to them)

The london plan is for 50% of all new builds to be social/'affordable' and in practice they get close to this eg 49% of all the homes built in my borough last year were social/'affordable'