Brexit, The Economy and House Prices (Part 2)

ukcarper

BobQ wrote: »

As a matter of fact selling Council Houses started well before that, in the sixties at least. Right to Buy and preventing Councils rebuilding more council houses was Thatcher's legacy which also lead to increasing homelessness as many tenants joined the property ladder while the real poor were not able to be housed.

Before then Councils were trusted to manage the size of their housing stock.

True I personally have no objection to council houses being sold but I believe they should have been replaced. Although the council housing situation in the south east was not as great as younger people seem to imagine. It was very difficult to get council housing and private rental was also harder to find, as a child in the 60s I lived with my parants and sister in what would now be classed as sunstandarded 2 bed house no hot water, heating, bathroom or inside toilet as my parants were not able to get a council house.

Rusty_Shackleton

Absolutely, people in social housing shouldnt be forced to leave their home when they can afford and want to buy, but the money should have been spent on replacement stock. The problem is the UK government seems determined to squander every windfall it gets. Given were discussing this on MSE, would anyone care to argue blowing a windfall is a prudent move?!

ukcarper

Rusty_Shackleton wrote: »

Absolutely, people in social housing shouldnt be forced to leave their home when they can afford and want to buy, but the money should have been spent on replacement stock. The problem is the UK government seems determined to squander every windfall it gets. Given were discussing this on MSE, would anyone care to argue blowing a windfall is a prudent move?!

Perhaps you could elaborate on how these windfalls were squandered.

Nobbie1967

Rusty_Shackleton wrote: »

I find it funny they're called Migration Watch - they certainly watch IMmigration and publish lots of press releases (its not research) about evils of immigration, but they don't seem to take any notice of EMmigration... How we have a society that pushes away some of our talented labour, and export our elderly in rather large numbers to countrys like Spain where, contrary to popular opinion, they are a burden on their new areas.

Why would pensioners from U.K. be a burden on Spain? They are spending their savings and uk funded pensions in the Spanish economy and I believe medical costs are refunded by U.K. government.

GreatApe

Rusty_Shackleton wrote: »

Absolutely, people in social housing shouldnt be forced to leave their home when they can afford and want to buy, but the money should have been spent on replacement stock. The problem is the UK government seems determined to squander every windfall it gets. Given were discussing this on MSE, would anyone care to argue blowing a windfall is a prudent move?!

So what is the correct amount of social housing?

And what makes you think it was so good?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPm2Ia_Y_zk

BobQ

Rusty_Shackleton wrote: »

Absolutely, people in social housing shouldnt be forced to leave their home when they can afford and want to buy, but the money should have been spent on replacement stock.

Well, I would say that if they can afford to leave it they should be encouraged. Not advocating means tests but some form of an incentive to move and free up a council house.

The problem is the UK government seems determined to squander every windfall it gets. Given were discussing this on MSE, would anyone care to argue blowing a windfall is a prudent move?!

In this case the Councils were simply prevented from spending the proceeds which is not squandering it, simply a lost opportunity. But I think something was wasted because the Councils had to fund homeless people being placed in private accommodation and others were claiming benefits to fund private landlords.

BobQ

GreatApe wrote: »

So what is the correct amount of social housing?

And what makes you think it was so good?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPm2Ia_Y_zk

It is not difficult to forecast demand for things

It was better than much of the private housing. For a start it was properly maintained.

Rusty_Shackleton

GreatApe wrote: »

So what is the correct amount of social housing?

And what makes you think it was so good?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPm2Ia_Y_zk

I would argue social housing should cover all demand for it, not just those covered by statutory requirements, but i think we can all agree while councils are spending millions housing people temporarily in B&Bs they should definitely have enough to house that demand (i.e. Those LAs have a statutory responsibility to house due being vulnerable /have kids etc. As opposed to those who simply apply for council housing).

Its really quite irrelevant if you or I think its was/is good housing, if people want it its clearly better than the alternatives open to them. If youre saying social housing isnt good enough, thats not a reason for less social housing, its a reason to improve it!

ukcarper

Rusty_Shackleton wrote: »

I would argue social housing should cover all demand for it, not just those covered by statutory requirements, but i think we can all agree while councils are spending millions housing people temporarily in B&Bs they should definitely have enough to house that demand (i.e. Those LAs have a statutory responsibility to house due being vulnerable /have kids etc. As opposed to those who simply apply for council housing).

Its really quite irrelevant if you or I think its was/is good housing, if people want it its clearly better than the alternatives open to them. If youre saying social housing isnt good enough, thats not a reason for less social housing, its a reason to improve it!

How would define who is entitled to social housing, there certainly wasn't enough to satisfy demand 50 years ago. The housing market should be diverse and those that can afford to rent privately should do so.

GreatApe

BobQ wrote: »

It is not difficult to forecast demand for things

Social housing was not demand driven or anything of sanity or logic or needs driven it was simply political. The labor councils build as much as they could to import as many poor people as they could to their areas so MPs like Corbyn and Abbot could have eternal majority off the back of mostly poor locals and poor immigrants

How do you explain places like Hackney Islington Tower Hamlets being nearly 60% social housing?

What I am trying to point out is that, even if there is a need for social housing it is a small need probably around the 10% mark. That means some areas clearly have far too much social housing especially inner London Zone 2 London is ridiculus

You have a million people using the trains to get into zone 1 to go to work and you have the zone 2 councils (mostly labor) who build far too much social housing displacing private housing starts and put in the unemployed or the people who really dont need to be close to z1

If there is a housing problem in the South East its at least partly, probably a big part, to do with the allocations of council homes in inner London.

Of course some detail like that isnt important for the lefties, council homes are great nothing went wrong nothing could have been done better and thatcher was the devils child

It was better than much of the private housing. For a start it was properly maintained.

That is also a myth go look at the videos of the estates in the 1970s 1980s and 1990s you can see residents berate the council and say things like if this was private rental stock you lot would be in jail

Watch this its 8 parts long but interesting

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGRLyHyLf8A