More Conservative policy on housing revealed

slipthru

Turnbull2000 wrote: »

And once again those caught in the middle (of social and unaffordable housing) are pi**ed on.

I totally agree with you, but the way i see it is, instead of people hating people who for whatever reason find themselves in a low rent property, let's hate the goverment for letting private rents spiral out of control.

I'm a dreamer if i had it my way it would affordable housing for all not just the poor. Because the way i see it it's the middle classes who get taken for a ride, and not just in housing.

guppy

Is it me or politicians continuously devising ways to torment those who earn just enough not to get benefits or a council house, but still earn way below the average...

People said the Tories "bribed" voters by selling off council houses cheap, this looks like an even more blatant attempt to do the same thing! Thankfully I can't see this one making it to the statute book.

Melissa177

lynzpower wrote: »

:wall: @Me !!

You're not alone - 9/10 of my friends have called me Melanie at some point by accident.

Melissa177

lynzpower wrote: »

Your not an idiot melanie

http://england.shelter.org.uk/advice/advice-3136.cfm heres something on council tenancies, the types

housing associations http://england.shelter.org.uk/advice/advice-6570.cfm

Thanks for this!


However, say I go away for a year to work somewhere, what incentive would there be for me to rent out my flat and ease the housing shortage? I would be scared to come back and find I was without a home.

You'd drastically reduce the number of flats for rent overnight, back to what it was in the early 80s when people were complaining there was nowhere to rent.

Melissa177

guppy wrote: »

Is it me or politicians continuously devising ways to torment those who earn just enough not to get benefits or a council house, but still earn way below the average...

People said the Tories "bribed" voters by selling off council houses cheap, this looks like an even more blatant attempt to do the same thing! Thankfully I can't see this one making it to the statute book.

I was discussing this policy over dinner this evening with a friend of mine in the Labour Party - he reckons that the saving in repairs to social houses alone would justify a 10% equity stake in property, plus the decrease in crime.

You'd need to do a proper analysis obviously, but one of the things RTB was so successful in doing was giving people pride in their own properties, encouraging them to look after their homes and communities, and also reducing the massive taxpayer bill. I think there is a massive problem in this country with welfare dependency and social immobility - we need to make it easy for people to move up the ladder. At present, social mobility has been greatly decreased in the past ten years - not good.

Guy_Montag

Melissa177 wrote: »

Thanks for this!


However, say I go away for a year to work somewhere, what incentive would there be for me to rent out my flat and ease the housing shortage? I would be scared to come back and find I was without a home.

You'd drastically reduce the number of flats for rent overnight, back to what it was in the early 80s when people were complaining there was nowhere to rent.

This apparently happened to some of my family after the 19xx rent act (not sure which one, it was a few generations ago).

It's interesting that countries like Germany, &, I think, France seem to manage with security of tenure & rent controls & have a far greater proportion of renters than here.

olly300

With social housing a tenant will typically get an indefinite tenancy, with the option, I believe to pass it on to a near relative, should they pass away. This is always assuming they pay their rent & behave themselves

Where I live if you are luck enough to get social housing to rent, you get 12 months probation. Therefore if you annoy the neighbours in any way and they make complaints to the council/housing association you are made to move out. (I only know this because I had a relation who managed to swing a housing association place and have looked at my council tenancy rules.)

I was discussing this policy over dinner this evening with a friend of mine in the Labour Party - he reckons that the saving in repairs to social houses alone would justify a 10% equity stake in property, plus the decrease in crime.

I bet the areas where this would be most affective are in areas where:
1. You get probation as a new tenant i.e. if you cause trouble you are out asap
2. The majority of the properties around you are privately owned either due to RTB or because they always have been.

For example I know people who live in council flats and houses that are not part of council estates and some are in fact in expensive parts of London. Paying these tenants extra money because they behave is a waste as they already live in a nice place and are the type of people who would behave anyway. (Or do illegal stuff but have enough commonsense to ensure they are not caught.)

You'd need to do a proper analysis obviously, but one of the things RTB was so successful in doing was giving people pride in their own properties, encouraging them to look after their homes and communities, and also reducing the massive taxpayer bill.

Watching programs and talking to two people whose parent's got council homes in the 50's they had pride in their homes.

Maybe councils should be allowed to be stricter like those old fashion housing associations I thinking of places like Port Sunlight, where there are rules on how you must treat your property, so if you want a house/flat you have to treat it properly otherwise you will be chucked into a b&b.

I think there is a massive problem in this country with welfare dependency and social immobility - we need to make it easy for people to move up the ladder. At present, social mobility has been greatly decreased in the past ten years - not good.

Actually it's been decreasing since the 1970's. http://cep.lse.ac.uk/about/news/IntergenerationalMobility.pdf

Everybody I know has various theories i.e. decline of manufacturing, automation of jobs , getting rid of Grammer Schools, Thatcher, Bliar......

Guy_Montag

Melissa177 wrote: »

I was discussing this policy over dinner this evening with a friend of mine in the Labour Party - he reckons that the saving in repairs to social houses alone would justify a 10% equity stake in property, plus the decrease in crime.

You'd need to do a proper analysis obviously, but one of the things RTB was so successful in doing was giving people pride in their own properties, encouraging them to look after their homes and communities, and also reducing the massive taxpayer bill. I think there is a massive problem in this country with welfare dependency and social immobility - we need to make it easy for people to move up the ladder. At present, social mobility has been greatly decreased in the past ten years - not good.

But don't you see that whether it is cost effective or not it is hideously unfair:

1)Congratulations you have your council house with all the benefits I outlined above, but not just that in five years you'll get a bonus to move elsewhere, or you can buy at a discount.

2)Sorry mate there's no social housing for you (it's all be sold off), you'll have to rent privately (if you're lucky you can rent an ex-council house).

My theory why social mobility has dropped is HPI (it's the root of all evil don't you know;)).

I can just afford to buy a house, though I choose not to for personal reasons. I am just outside the top 30% of earners in the country, but regionally I'm in the top 20% (according to the ONS). So I'm pretty well paid & all I can afford is a run down two-bed terraced in a run-down area, & that's in the cheapest part of the country.

What about someone who isn't that well paid? How can they aspire to own their own home? Not 10% of it, but 100% free & clear? What is the point in slaving away in a factory for £12k pa when house prices are rising faster than you can earn, let alone save, the money? Better to take the dla & try to get a council house, at least then you might be able to get it at a knock-down rate.

Guy_Montag

olly300 wrote: »

Where I live if you are luck enough to get social housing to rent, you get 12 months probation. Therefore if you annoy the neighbours in any way and they make complaints to the council/housing association you are made to move out. (I only know this because I had a relation who managed to swing a housing association place and have looked at my council tenancy rules.)

& after the probation?

olly300

Guy_Montag wrote: »

& after the probation?

They have to take you to court which takes longer.

But don't you see that whether it is cost effective or not it is hideously unfair:

But life is unfair....

(Sorry I couldn't resist) I just think it's a waste of taxpayers, including my, money.