Brexit, The Economy and House Prices (Part 2)

GreatApe

ukcarper wrote: »

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.

In many ways we had a 'social utopia' in housing about 12 years ago before the mass EU migration

70% owned, 20% were in social 10% rented privately (a min of 10% is needed for mobility/students etc). So for all intents and purposes everyone either owned or was in social.

Yet the lefties dont look at 2005 and say yes that was the high point, because its so recent and a time of boom and neolibeeral high they cant claim it a good period

They have to go back to the 60s/70s/80s when both ownership was lower and private renting was higher and pretend that was the golden age.

GreatApe

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)

But there can NEVER BE ENOUGH which clearly proves its not about housing its about subsidy.

Parts of inner East London got to 60% social housing, 20% private rental, 20% ownership (im sure other parts were also stupid like that but since I lived in inner East London I know the figure for there). And even then people were crying there is not enough council homes. And yes I am sure hackney still have waiting lists and people in B&Bs even though they have multiple times the social housing as other areas so your ideas and information and theories are just not applicable to reality

Is that what you really want, 20% ownership 60% social.

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!

People generally want to own their own homes it has many advantages. In places where there are more council homes there are obviously far fewer owner homes. I go back to hackney islington tower hamlets southwark in the 1990s all close to 60% council 20% owner. Social displaces ownership not that its ever crossed your mind

bobbymotors

Why should there be any social housing at all?

Why is it not your responsibility to house yourself?

Yes, I know it's an extreme view, and there should definitely be some social housing, but what's happened to working hard and getting your own place?

GreatApe

bobbymotors wrote: »

Why should there be any social housing at all?

Why is it not your responsibility to house yourself?

Yes, I know it's an extreme view, and there should definitely be some social housing, but what's happened to working hard and getting your own place?

If It were up to me I would seriously consider a one time transfer of all social stock to the sitting tenants for free

Ironically the left often hate this proposal even though it would at the stoke of a pen massively reduce poverty and massively help the bottom 20% and the children of the bottom 20%

It would also instantly take ownership up towards 80% one of the highest in the world and the highest in the UKs history.

ukcarper

GreatApe wrote: »

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

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

That is absolute rubbish.

GreatApe

ukcarper wrote: »

That is absolute rubbish.

what was the deal with the vastly different amounts of social housing across just London let alone the whole UK?

Why did hackney need 60% of its stock as social for instance?

Rusty_Shackleton

I honestly cant believe some of the things im reading here!

First off there absolutely should be social housing in zones 1 and 2, and everwhere else, because gentrification is social cleansing. Forcing poor people to leave the area they grew up in, where their lives are, is an absolute disgrace. Thats not to say that all social housing tenants in those areas are genuinely locals, and no doubt LA statutory responsibilities should take into account if they are genuinely local (althogh they may well do already, not sure how it works at that level of detail).

Greatape, fine you transfer all social stock to the current tenants, great for them. What happens to to future needs.. You know, people not born yet that will one day need that kind of support? Theyve not just been gifted a house, we have no social housing left... What then? Im lost for words!

Heres a nice idea: there will always be poor people in society, everyone needs a home, why don't we build and maintain a sufficient level of housing so those people have one of the absolute must haves to survive. Councils used to build housing very cheaply. Guess what, building a house isnt expensive, its the land that is (as soon as it has planning permission)...oh hang on, someone remind me who gives planning permission... Thats it, councils! In most areas if a council had flexibility and political willpower, they could buy land grant themselves permission and build on it... For peanuts compared to commercial house builders. I know, i know, this is going to offend you capitalists and free marketeers, but to hell with you. People having a home is more important than... Just about everything else actually. Unless youre about to argue providing homes deprives people of food and water?

There is absolutely zero case for saying social housing should be limited to an arbitrary number. Can anyone give me a reason why, if lots of people were willing to pay enough to cover the costs (or even more and provide a surplus of funds) for council housing, why council housing shouldnt be available to literally anyone that wants it? Or is it sinply that this would 'create too many labour voters'

... On to that little chestnut: social housing doesnt create labour voters. Social housing if by definition full of poor people, and the torys dont represent the interests of poor people. Hence traditionally, poor people wouldnt be seen dead voting tory, why the hell would they?!

ukcarper

GreatApe wrote: »

what was the deal with the vastly different amounts of social housing across just London let alone the whole UK?

Why did hackney need 60% of its stock as social for instance?

Because it was previously slums and much more was destroyed in the war.

Rusty_Shackleton

GreatApe wrote: »

what was the deal with the vastly different amounts of social housing across just London let alone the whole UK?

Why did hackney need 60% of its stock as social for instance?

Perhaps because historically thats where a lot of poor people lived? The rich probably had something to do with the concentration of poor people in specific boroughs, dont you think?

If you think social housing now is a form of jerrymandering, then build more and spread it about, problem solved no doubt tory boroughs will welcome social housing tenants with open arms!

BobQ

GreatApe wrote: »

If It were up to me I would seriously consider a one time transfer of all social stock to the sitting tenants for free

Ironically the left often hate this proposal even though it would at the stoke of a pen massively reduce poverty and massively help the bottom 20% and the children of the bottom 20%

It would also instantly take ownership up towards 80% one of the highest in the world and the highest in the UKs history.

A typical view from the extreme right.

You may believe that everyone can afford to rent or buy but that is not the case. The reason that there is so much social housing in some London boroughs is that prices are so high people cannot afford to buy or privately rent there.

The stupidity of your idea is that even if you gave a tenant in social housing the property many cannot afford to maintain the property.

I do agree that where people can afford to privately rent they should be incentivised to do so, but there will always be those who cannot afford to privately rent or buy.

Yet the sorts of people who need social housing (and who you appear to despise) are the ones who this country need to maintain the demographic balance (particularly if we want more controls on immigration). They are also the ones who do the jobs in these London boroughs that require housing to live there in the first place (like nurses and shop workers).