Jeremy Corbyn wins economists’ backing for anti-austerity policies

MS1950

CLAPTON wrote: »

I know nothing of your circumstances nor that of your sister but
in what way has your sister reduced the housing stock available to people like her?

I'm surprised you have to ask - but just to clarify I referred to "the availability of decent affordable rented accommodation for people who need it"; not the notional stock of all homes.

However, here's a report of just the 3 years since discounts were raised in April 2012.

“Almost 30,000 council homes have been sold in the three years since Right to Buy discounts increased, with an estimated 3,337 replacements started......

When discounts were increased in April 2012, the coalition government promised any additional homes sold as a result of the increased discounts would be replaced ‘one for one’. The government is preparing to extend the discounts to housing associations”.

http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/30000-council-homes-sold-since-right-to-buy-discounts-raised/7010482.article

However, with the restrictions that existed on what councils could do with receipts from sales for most of the period since sales began in the early 1980s the longer term position on 'replacements' is almost certainly worse.

CLAPTON

MS1950 wrote: »

I'm surprised you have to ask - but just to clarify I referred to "the availability of decent affordable rented accommodation for people who need it"; not the notional stock of all homes.

However, here's a report of just the 3 years since discounts were raised in April 2012.

“Almost 30,000 council homes have been sold in the three years since Right to Buy discounts increased, with an estimated 3,337 replacements started......

When discounts were increased in April 2012, the coalition government promised any additional homes sold as a result of the increased discounts would be replaced ‘one for one’. The government is preparing to extend the discounts to housing associations”.

http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/30000-council-homes-sold-since-right-to-buy-discounts-raised/7010482.article

However, with the restrictions that existed on what councils could do with receipts from sales for most of the period since sales began in the early 1980s the longer term position on 'replacements' is almost certainly worse.

So presumably you are assumning that the people who bought their council house (and were living their) did not actually need that house?

Otherwise selling the council house, simply means a person needing a council house and renting becomes a person needing the same house but owns it instead.

Same people, same house : different funding.

MS1950

CLAPTON wrote: »

So presumably you are assumning that the people who bought their council house (and were living their) did not actually need that house?

Otherwise selling the council house, simply means a person needing a council house and renting becomes a person needing the same house but owns it instead.

Same people, same house : different funding.

No you can't presume that I assume anything of the kind.

In terms of the impact of 'right to buy' on "the availability of decent affordable rented accommodation for people who need it" – which, to remind you, is where this discussion started - to deal with your claim that sales “simply means a person needing a council house and renting becomes a person needing the same house but owns it instead”, a recent report revealed that:

“Nearly 40% of all council flats sold under the Right to Buy in England are now being rented out privately, according to exclusive research by Inside Housing.

Figures released by 91 councils under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), in the most comprehensive piece of nationwide research on the issue, show 37.6% of ex-council flats are likely being rented privately at market rents.

The research showed more than half the ex-council flats in six areas are now being let privately, with the highest – 69.6% – in Milton Keynes. Many councils rent back their former properties sold through the Right to Buy at market rates to provide temporary accommodation to homeless families. Some ex-local authority homes in London are advertised on Zoopla for more than four times the average social rent”.

http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/revealed-40-of-ex-council-flats-now-rented-privately/7011266.article

While on the question of 'replacements' for social homes sold a study by the IFS reported that:

“most of the receipts from council house sales [from the early 1980s to the late 1990s] were effectively transferred to central government rather than made available to local authorities for the construction of replacement council housing, the ‘Right to Buy’ policy was effectively the largest privatisation undertaken in the UK in this period, exceeding the proceeds from the sale of any of the major public utilities throughout the late 1980s and early 1990s”:

http://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/bns/BN162.pdf;

a practice that is still continuing:

“Responding to a Freedom of Information act request, the government confirmed almost a quarter of the £1.54bn raised through 22,900 right to buy sales since 2012 has gone straight into Treasury coffers.

Only £588.3m was left for councils to build replacement homes, with a total of £929.4m used for other purposes”.

http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/treasury-grabs-358m-of-right-to-buy-receipts/7007621.article

michaels

Bleugh, just watching Andy Burnham saying we should get rid of SATS..I guess like Labour did in Wales where educational standards have fallen off a cliff. Talk about accepting low ambition and failure

michaels

MS1950 wrote: »

No you can't presume that I assume anything of the kind.

In terms of the impact of 'right to buy' on "the availability of decent affordable rented accommodation for people who need it" – which, to remind you, is where this discussion started - to deal with your claim that sales “simply means a person needing a council house and renting becomes a person needing the same house but owns it instead”, a recent report revealed that:

“Nearly 40% of all council flats sold under the Right to Buy in England are now being rented out privately, according to exclusive research by Inside Housing.

Figures released by 91 councils under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), in the most comprehensive piece of nationwide research on the issue, show 37.6% of ex-council flats are likely being rented privately at market rents.
Great news, we are severely short of housing and private rentals tend to have the highest people per room density. Without the sales we would have people sleeping on the streets .
The research showed more than half the ex-council flats in six areas are now being let privately, with the highest – 69.6% – in Milton Keynes. Many councils rent back their former properties sold through the Right to Buy at market rates to provide temporary accommodation to homeless families. Some ex-local authority homes in London are advertised on Zoopla for more than four times the average social rent”.

http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/revealed-40-of-ex-council-flats-now-rented-privately/7011266.article
Why on earth are councils renting out there houses at below market rates, why should those lucky enough to get a council house receive a subsidy not available to the rest of us?
While on the question of 'replacements' for social homes sold a study by the IFS reported that:

“most of the receipts from council house sales [from the early 1980s to the late 1990s] were effectively transferred to central government rather than made available to local authorities for the construction of replacement council housing, the ‘Right to Buy’ policy was effectively the largest privatisation undertaken in the UK in this period, exceeding the proceeds from the sale of any of the major public utilities throughout the late 1980s and early 1990s”:

http://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/bns/BN162.pdf;

a practice that is still continuing:

“Responding to a Freedom of Information act request, the government confirmed almost a quarter of the £1.54bn raised through 22,900 right to buy sales since 2012 has gone straight into Treasury coffers.

Only £588.3m was left for councils to build replacement homes, with a total of £929.4m used for other purposes”.

http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/treasury-grabs-358m-of-right-to-buy-receipts/7007621.article

Just added a little logic above

MS1950

michaels wrote: »

Just added a little logic above

If you really think it's 'logic' - and you're not being 'post ironic' or anything – then to deal with your annotations in turn:

You actually that it's 'logically' 'great news' that most renters now have to rely on “private rentals [which] tend to have the highest people per room density”? - not much of a rebuff to my claim that 'right to buy' has adversely affected "the availability of decent affordable rented accommodation for people who need it”. And if you haven't noticed we do “have people sleeping on the streets”

As for those “lucky enough to get a council house receiv[ing] a subsidy not available to the rest of us” - the real scandal of public subsidy in the rental market is the explosion in the cost of housing benefit that begun with 'right to buy' and is almost certainly causally linked to it:

Housing Benefit costs 1778/79 - 2013/14

At 2014/15 prices

1778/79: 3.408 million claimants cost £3.341 billion = £980.34 per household

2013/14: 5.026 million claimants cost £24.582 billion = £4890.97 per household

Which is a 500% increase in the real cost per household of housing benefit; and the reality is probably worse as the size of households has tended to decline over that period so that this 500% increase in real costs per household is very probably paying to house fewer people. Plus, of course, that 'subsidy' is going to private landlords (including the 40% of 'right to buyers' now renting out) rather than to the now more poorly housed tenants

Figures taken from the spreadsheet 'Outturn and forecast: Budget 2015'

michaels

MS1950 wrote: »

If you really think it's 'logic' - and you're not being 'post ironic' or anything – then to deal with your annotations in turn:

You actually that it's 'logically' 'great news' that most renters now have to rely on “private rentals [which] tend to have the highest people per room density”? - not much of a rebuff to my claim that 'right to buy' has adversely affected "the availability of decent affordable rented accommodation for people who need it”. And if you haven't noticed we do “have people sleeping on the streets”

So if they were still council houses with fewer people per property could all the extra people who currently house share in ex council properties come and live at yours?

As for those “lucky enough to get a council house receiv[ing] a subsidy not available to the rest of us” - the real scandal of public subsidy in the rental market is the explosion in the cost of housing benefit that begun with 'right to buy' and is almost certainly causally linked to it:

Housing Benefit costs 1778/79 - 2013/14

At 2014/15 prices

1778/79: 3.408 million claimants cost £3.341 billion = £980.34 per household

2013/14: 5.026 million claimants cost £24.582 billion = £4890.97 per household

Which is a 500% increase in the real cost per household of housing benefit; and the reality is probably worse as the size of households has tended to decline over that period so that this 500% increase in real costs per household is very probably paying to house fewer people. Plus, of course, that 'subsidy' is going to private landlords (including the 40% of 'right to buyers' now renting out) rather than to the now more poorly housed tenants

If you don't have enough houses then the market will price those who can't afford out..in this case out onto the street....funily enough as a society we don't go for that sort of thing so instead we pay housing benefit to those who could not afford without, pushing up prices overall and forcing those who could pay for themselves into worse accommodation as they have to compete with subisdised housing benefit recipients. Would you rather we leave it to the market to allocate housing and stop subsidising those who can't afford the market rates?

Figures taken from the spreadsheet 'Outturn and forecast: Budget 2015'

Logic.......

CLAPTON

MS1950 wrote: »

No you can't presume that I assume anything of the kind.

In terms of the impact of 'right to buy' on "the availability of decent affordable rented accommodation for people who need it" – which, to remind you, is where this discussion started - to deal with your claim that sales “simply means a person needing a council house and renting becomes a person needing the same house but owns it instead”, a recent report revealed that:

“Nearly 40% of all council flats sold under the Right to Buy in England are now being rented out privately, according to exclusive research by Inside Housing.

Figures released by 91 councils under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), in the most comprehensive piece of nationwide research on the issue, show 37.6% of ex-council flats are likely being rented privately at market rents.

The research showed more than half the ex-council flats in six areas are now being let privately, with the highest – 69.6% – in Milton Keynes. Many councils rent back their former properties sold through the Right to Buy at market rates to provide temporary accommodation to homeless families. Some ex-local authority homes in London are advertised on Zoopla for more than four times the average social rent”.

http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/revealed-40-of-ex-council-flats-now-rented-privately/7011266.article

While on the question of 'replacements' for social homes sold a study by the IFS reported that:

“most of the receipts from council house sales [from the early 1980s to the late 1990s] were effectively transferred to central government rather than made available to local authorities for the construction of replacement council housing, the ‘Right to Buy’ policy was effectively the largest privatisation undertaken in the UK in this period, exceeding the proceeds from the sale of any of the major public utilities throughout the late 1980s and early 1990s”:

http://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/bns/BN162.pdf;

a practice that is still continuing:

“Responding to a Freedom of Information act request, the government confirmed almost a quarter of the £1.54bn raised through 22,900 right to buy sales since 2012 has gone straight into Treasury coffers.

Only £588.3m was left for councils to build replacement homes, with a total of £929.4m used for other purposes”.

http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/treasury-grabs-358m-of-right-to-buy-receipts/7007621.article

follow the people and not the houses.

people who 'needed ' council housing are now either
-still living in their rented council house
-still living in their now owned ex-council house
-living somewhere else funded by selling their ex council house

so except for the dead, no real change in the housing of people 'in need'


if there had been no RTB then the people living in the houses would in most cases still be there (or maybe their children) so there would be no empty council houses available for 'new' people in need.

The problem we face in a shortage of HOUSING and NOT council housing.

It seems that the RTB funded some new council housing which presumably would not have been built


and by the way 'treasury coffers' includes things like the NHS : sadly the use of the words and the choice of useless statistics shows the political bias of the authors rather showing concern for the housing of all the people

michaels

CLAPTON wrote: »

follow the people and not the houses.

people who 'needed ' council housing are now either
-still living in their rented council house
-still living in their now owned ex-council house
-living somewhere else funded by selling their ex council house

so except for the dead, no real change in the housing of people 'in need'


if there had been no RTB then the people living in the houses would in most cases still be there (or maybe their children) so there would be no empty council houses available for 'new' people in need.

The problem we face in a shortage of HOUSING and NOT council housing.

It seems that the RTB funded some new council housing which presumably would not have been built


and by the way 'treasury coffers' includes things like the NHS : sadly the use of the words and the choice of useless statistics shows the political bias of the authors rather showing concern for the housing of all the people

But even more, a proportion of those ex council houses are now in private rental with more people per house so actually without the sales the situation would be even worse.

MS1950

CLAPTON wrote: »

follow the people and not the houses.

people who 'needed ' council housing are now either
-still living in their rented council house
-still living in their now owned ex-council house
-living somewhere else funded by selling their ex council house

so except for the dead, no real change in the housing of people 'in need'


if there had been no RTB then the people living in the houses would in most cases still be there (or maybe their children) so there would be no empty council houses available for 'new' people in need.

The problem we face in a shortage of HOUSING and NOT council housing.

It seems that the RTB funded some new council housing which presumably would not have been built


and by the way 'treasury coffers' includes things like the NHS : sadly the use of the words and the choice of useless statistics shows the political bias of the authors rather showing concern for the housing of all the people

I notice that your first list doesn't include the 40% of 'right to buyers' 'living somewhere else funded by renting out their ex council house'...?

You claim that “if there had been no RTB then the people living in the houses would in most cases still be there (or maybe their children) so there would be no empty council houses available for 'new' people in need”, However, 'right to buy' has existed for around 35 years and council tenancies can only be 'inherited' once and then only by a family member living in the home at the time of the tenant's death; so that for many long term tenants where the tenancy was in the husband's name if he died his wife inherited, but the tenancy could not then be passed to any children even if still living at home (and many would not have been anyway) - so many homes would have become available over those years.

As for “The problem we face in a shortage of HOUSING and NOT council housing” - although it's beyond the scope of my time and inclination at the moment - I would have thought that any reasonable 'cost benefit analysis' of the use of public funds accrued from 35 years of sales, the current colossal expenditure on housing benefit to private landlords, plus the subsidies implicit in 'Help to Buy', might conclude that using those funds to stimulate more house building rather than their actual use would have contributed more to reducing that 'shortage'.