Largest review of housing in 10 years

antrobus

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I knew that already. Don't see what difference it makes to any of the points raised?

Perhaps if you knew that, you should have said so in your opening post. You have, of course, every right to start a thread knocking the Labour Party, if that's what you want to do. But I'm not so sure about why you were shy in admitting it.

Graham_Devon

antrobus wrote: »

Perhaps if you knew that, you should have said so in your opening post. You have, of course, every right to start a thread knocking the Labour Party, if that's what you want to do. But I'm not so sure about why you were shy in admitting it.

Why should I have done?

I didn't mention any political party or reference politics.

cells

There is perhaps an overlooked simple solution to all of this.

The government can sell 1 hackney 3 bed flat and buy in its place 10 terrace homes in stoke. It can keep 1 of the terrace homes in stoke as social so as to appease the socialists cries and it can sell off the other 9 on a right to buy style 70% discount to any London family willing to move out to stoke.

Thus selling 1,000 flats in Hackney and buying 10,000 terraces in stoke could allow a population shift of 30,000 out of London into stoke.

Repeat this in 50 towns and cities across the country and move 1.5 million people out of London

antrobus

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Why should I have done?

I didn't mention any political party or reference politics.

And yet the Redfern Review is a Labour Party initiative. If you knew that as you have claimed, how can the thread not reference politics?

antrobus

cells wrote: »

There is perhaps an overlooked simple solution to all of this....

I can't see how your simple solution has been overlooked. The Redfern Review isn't expected to issue its conclusions until the summer. There is still time for you to make a submission for their consideration.

Butti

CLAPTON wrote: »

you clearly do not know what 'affordable housing' actually means.
'Affordability' has an entirely different meaning.

Affordability has about numerous different meanings depending on how how you measure it;
Ratio : 25-30% of net income
Access : Can people actually get the housing, are they barred by not being able to access funding or are the properties not available
Can First time buyers get on the ladder

The government currently define it as the LHA (local housing allowance - crudely speaking the level set for housing benefit rates or 80% of market rents. You don't have to be a genius to see this level is not necessarily "affordable "....or to understand the building of "affordable rent" properties at 80% is partly why the welfare bill has gone up. As suggested by Grant Shapps MP in 2010 we have "let housing benefit take the strain".

CLAPTON

Butti wrote: »

Affordability has about numerous different meanings depending on how how you measure it;
Ratio : 25-30% of net income
Access : Can people actually get the housing, are they barred by not being able to access funding or are the properties not available
Can First time buyers get on the ladder

The government currently define it as the LHA (local housing allowance - crudely speaking the level set for housing benefit rates or 80% of market rents. You don't have to be a genius to see this level is not necessarily "affordable "....or to understand the building of "affordable rent" properties at 80% is partly why the welfare bill has gone up. As suggested by Grant Shapps MP in 2010 we have "let housing benefit take the strain".

its important to distinguish between the 'affordable housing' which has a special, welled defined but poorly understood meaning as you describe;
and the general use of 'affordability' which has a common sense but poorly defined meaning.

so, for example, many people think that when ministers talk about 'affordable ' housing they are referring to FTBs rather than council/HA rented property