Housing Before BTL

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

I would surmise that much of the council housing in these areas arose as much of these areas were heavily bombed during the war. As much of the housing was all very poor and unsanitary
it was a short step to demolish huge areas and build council housing

I was about to say that is a good point but I dont think its correct. Although you are probably correct that there was more bomb damage in inner city areas than outer city areas I dont think that was a big factor. For example the biggest council estate in the country is located in Hackney. It was not built from the rubble of bomb damage but was a piece of hackney marshes taken for the project and empty land like that could have been allocated in a lot of the outer London areas instead or elsewhere in the country.

Also it was clear that there was a continual and persistent decline in the population of inner London from 1931 to 1991 the population of inner London went from nearly 5 million to about 2.5 million.

Demand was falling continuously yet the councils decided to overbuild in London and especially inner London so much so that inner London was at close to 2.0 residents per property while the rUK was at 2.5 residents per property in 1991. By 1991 we had the illogical amazing situation where the zone 2 inner London had less people in it than rural towns across England.

And of course the 1990s was a period when inner London (due to the overbuilding and massive population decline) was far too cheap. That has mostly reversed over the last 20 years though.


Anyway I still maintain that there was no need for inner London to become over 50% social housing. If there was bomb damage there could have been a mix of private and social house building in inner London. But as it turns out its not been that bad a decision as demand in inner London has finally recovered. Now though is a good time to sell down the inner London social stock from over 40% to under 20%

cells

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Blatantly stupid argument.

If you need me to go over the reasons, just let me know.

However, I'd be highly surprised if you need someone else to provide you with all the problems and hazards associated with buying houses and giving them to people.

I can't decide whether stating this sort of stuff is simply looking for attention or not?

I dont think its something that will be done but I would not object to the government buying a terrace house in the midlands or north and giving it away totally free to a council tenant in London.

The vacated house/flat in London could then be sold off.

You buy for £50-100k a house in the midlands or north and you sell the council flat in London for £300-500k.

The social tenant wins by becoming a homeowner, the state and taxpayer wins by getting the difference of £200-450k which should be spent partly on improving London infrastructure further (eg more crossrails) which will create further jobs and economic activity


You also have further social benefits. You decrease the population of London (which is growing at twice the rate as the rUK) while increasing the population of the midlands and north which could do with the additional spending of the +1 household there. You also get rid of people in inner London who would be no worse off in bradford or stoke and in its place will be someone who would otherwise have to commute hours each way every day taking up road/rail capacity

Graham_Devon

cells wrote: »

You also have further social benefits. You decrease the population of London (which is growing at twice the rate as the rUK) while increasing the population of the midlands and north which could do with the additional spending of the +1 household there.

Oh, so your cleansing the population now too?

One point. How do you think the person next door is going to react? Month in, month out going to work to pay off their mortgage - and their next door neighbor sitting sweet in a house that's been given to them because they happened to live in London?

cells

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Oh, so your cleansing the population now too?

One point. How do you think the person next door is going to react? Month in, month out going to work to pay off their mortgage - and their next door neighbor sitting sweet in a house that's been given to them because they happened to live in London?

hopefully they would be quite happy about it as the £50k terrace next door would have someone in it rather than be empty and a magnet for crime

They should also be happy in that the £200-450k difference the government made in the movement could be used to lower their taxes or improve their services and they should be happy that the local town has a bit more demand due to the +1 household spending for things they need and want


plus what I suggest already happens. People buy their london council homes, sit out the five year period, and then sell and move to stoke on trent pocketing the difference. My idea is just that without the pretense and at a lower cost and lower barrier

why are you so against social tenants becoming owners? you want forever dependence?

cells

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Oh, so your cleansing the population now too?

One point. How do you think the person next door is going to react? Month in, month out going to work to pay off their mortgage - and their next door neighbor sitting sweet in a house that's been given to them because they happened to live in London?

also the neighbor next door is paying about £20 a week in interest for their house next door not slaving away while the pensioner moved out of London sits at home tending to the terrace they were gifted.

Graham_Devon

cells wrote: »

also the neighbor next door is paying about £20 a week in interest for their house next door not slaving away while the pensioner moved out of London sits at home tending to the terrace they were gifted.

OK, so I've come to a conclusion. You are either trolling or you simply don't get it.

Either way, I can't be bothered with such ridiculous arguments.

The person who has bought their house is not simply paying £20 a week in interest - they are paying off the mortgage too.

Simply giving people houses is fraught with so many issues and hazards I'm surprised you even think it's worth writing about.

Mrs_pbradley936

Many people including me lived without electricity, indoor toilet or central heating. The war made sure that housing was scarce hence overcrowding was "normal" for decades until the New Towns came along.

Plus in those days birth control was only available if you were married and plenty of babies was a sign of fertility in women and virility in men. Equal rights for women had not arrived hence any women that did work earned far less.

molerat

I remember the outside loo and gas lighting. We moved from my grandmother's house to the "posh" council estate when I was about 5 - houses built in 1950 so around 10 years old. We later moved to the next street, the "posh" one. We were in the posh estate - the newer one across the other side of town had filled up with a lot of the less desirable families and was a bit of a no go area.

mwpt

Sounds like housing has improved a great deal since the 'old days'. Only in the last decade or two that we seem to be going backward in the UK.

HornetSaver

So Churchill, Eden, Macmillan not having the greatest record on social housing is a free pass to say that BTL has changed things for the better?

I don't deny that the balance was wrong pre-Thatcher - social housing should be the exclusive domain of those who can't stand on their own two feet in the free market. But that's also why I do not agree with housing benefit in the private sector - if there was sufficient social housing for those who require it, the free market would function properly for those who do not. I also don't deny that the Major and Blair focus on quality but not quantity was correct up until around 12 years ago, because up until then the housing market was functioning as it should (the boom of the late 90s and early 2000s was simply compensating and then going slightly beyond the previous bust, in real terms).

The ball was dropped in the 2005-2010 and 2010-2015 parliaments, where quantity of social housing was clearly the order of the day in order to protect those for whom the sustained housing price rise was starting to bite, and in and of itself this would have prevented the market from overheating. Governments of all colours clearly failed.