[crash2006]

I see that the hot topic of the week is the £75k towards buying your home, most of you disagreed with this, but a year ago you agreed about eliminating council tenancy for life. Seem like i've always suggested that 99.999% including people on this site still fall for the government propaganda, in other words "thick".

Most know the aim, others don't, in fact the majority don't, you ALL fell for the end the tenancy for life, now they are bringing out buy your home and will discount £75k i guess i have to make it clear.

The whole idea about doing away with the council home for life was to increase later on the sell off of the council housing stock ( the majority were in favor), giving the push needed to sell it all off, a threat of the possibility of you losing your council home. and like always you ALL fell for it.

I'll tell you all again IF YOU WANT CHEAP HOMES YOU NEED SOCIAL HOMES, if you don't back social homes then your wishing to pay more for your house and have a lower standard of living, or even never afford one in your life.

I think i was the only one to disagree about the ending of life time tenancies.

This post has been edited by crash2006: 03 April 2012 - 01:14 PM

[Monkey]

i've never been one for selling off the social housing, or any of thi Right to Buy schemes.

we NEED social housing. the asset should never be sold off.

[cheeznbreed]

crash2006, on 03 April 2012 - 01:12 PM, said:

I see that the hot topic of the week is the £75k towards buying your home, most of you disagreed with this, but a year ago you agreed about eliminating council tenancy for life. Seem like i've always suggested that 99.999% including people on this site still fall for the government propaganda, in other words "thick".

Most know the aim, others don't, in fact the majority don't, you ALL fell for the end the tenancy for life, now they are bringing out buy your home and will discount £75k i guess i have to make it clear.

The whole idea about doing away with the council home for life was to increase later on the sell off of the council housing stock ( the majority were in favor), giving the push needed to sell it all off, a threat of the possibility of you losing your council home. and like always you ALL fell for it.

I'll tell you all again IF YOU WANT CHEAP HOMES YOU NEED SOCIAL HOMES, if you don't back social homes then your wishing to pay more for your house and have a lower standard of living, or even never afford one in your life.

I think i was the only one to disagree about the ending of life time tenancies.

Are you drunk?

[Lepista]

Monkey, on 03 April 2012 - 01:21 PM, said:

i've never been one for selling off the social housing, or any of thi Right to Buy schemes.

we NEED social housing. the asset should never be sold off.

I'd go further and say that FRWEE housing shuld be made available to everyone who wanted it.

It wouldn't necessarily be pretty, but would be massively useful for people wanting to save up for their house purchase.

[crash2006]

cheeznbreed, on 03 April 2012 - 01:25 PM, said:

Are you drunk?

Drunk, no p155 off yes.

This post has been edited by crash2006: 03 April 2012 - 01:27 PM

[cheeznbreed]

crash2006, on 03 April 2012 - 01:27 PM, said:

Drunk, no p155 off yes.

I'll take that as a yes.

Happy Tuesday!

[tinker]

Monkey, on 03 April 2012 - 01:21 PM, said:

i've never been one for selling off the social housing, or any of thi Right to Buy schemes.

we NEED social housing. the asset should never be sold off.

Of course, social housing is needed. It needs to be cheap and affordable with a fair rent. The problem is the distortion from the credit-induced property bubbles of the last 10-20 years, coupled with a lack of supply of such property.

Selling them off - an election bribe under Thatcher - was a silly idea in the first place, and lit the fuse to future housing bubbles and consumerism. After the 90s crash when some normality returned, did Brown correct this - no. He encouraged another bubble, currently being propped up and encouraged by Cameron and co under these Elasterplast schemes.

Politicians are part of the problem. I don't feel that many on this site actually supported these sell-offs and misallocation of public money to benefit banks and developers.

[crash2006]

tinker, on 03 April 2012 - 01:30 PM, said:

Of course, social housing is needed. It needs to be cheap and affordable with a fair rent. The problem is the distortion from the credit-induced property bubbles of the last 10-20 years, coupled with a lack of supply of such property.

Selling them off - an election bribe under Thatcher - was a silly idea in the first place, and lit the fuse to future housing bubbles and consumerism. After the 90s crash when some normality returned, did Brown correct this - no. He encouraged another bubble, currently being propped up and encouraged by Cameron and co under these Elasterplast schemes.

Politicians are part of the problem. I don't feel that many on this site actually supported these sell-offs and misallocation of public money to benefit banks and developers.

No most are not in favor of the sell off of council homes but they were in favor of end life time tenancies on this site and being brainwashed. Current council tenants would see this as threat so now they would rush out to buy their homes, as they could loss it.
Just look at the order of things first end life time tenancies, then a year later bring out a nice discount to buy your social home.

This post has been edited by crash2006: 03 April 2012 - 01:36 PM

[fluffy666]

tinker, on 03 April 2012 - 01:30 PM, said:

Of course, social housing is needed. It needs to be cheap and affordable with a fair rent. The problem is the distortion from the credit-induced property bubbles of the last 10-20 years, coupled with a lack of supply of such property.

Selling them off - an election bribe under Thatcher - was a silly idea in the first place, and lit the fuse to future housing bubbles and consumerism. After the 90s crash when some normality returned, did Brown correct this - no. He encouraged another bubble, currently being propped up and encouraged by Cameron and co under these Elasterplast schemes.

Politicians are part of the problem. I don't feel that many on this site actually supported these sell-offs and misallocation of public money to benefit banks and developers.

In theory, you could use council house building and selling as a counter cyclical tool.. build most in the recessions when house prices dip and unemployment means that labour is cheaper/more available; sell some when the economy is growing. Given that the private sector has never managed to build enough houses to keep up with demand, the government has to do so; the only alternative would be to relax planning rules to the extent that you could build on half the country.. which is OK by me, but even then getting all the houses required built could be hard.

[Lepista]

Lepista, on 03 April 2012 - 01:26 PM, said:

I'd go further and say that FRWEE housing shuld be made available to everyone who wanted it.

It wouldn't necessarily be pretty, but would be massively useful for people wanting to save up for their house purchase.

http://www.housepric...howtopic=154228

[council dweller]

My current rent is 90 a week and will be 120 in around 2016, after that rents will go up by the inflation rate +1/2%. No rent means we have one less thing to worry about, that's all.

We have more than enough cash in the bank....why wouldn't we buy?

[Game_Over]

crash2006, on 03 April 2012 - 01:12 PM, said:

I see that the hot topic of the week is the £75k towards buying your home, most of you disagreed with this, but a year ago you agreed about eliminating council tenancy for life. Seem like i've always suggested that 99.999% including people on this site still fall for the government propaganda, in other words "thick".

Most know the aim, others don't, in fact the majority don't, you ALL fell for the end the tenancy for life, now they are bringing out buy your home and will discount £75k i guess i have to make it clear.

The whole idea about doing away with the council home for life was to increase later on the sell off of the council housing stock ( the majority were in favor), giving the push needed to sell it all off, a threat of the possibility of you losing your council home. and like always you ALL fell for it.

I'll tell you all again IF YOU WANT CHEAP HOMES YOU NEED SOCIAL HOMES, if you don't back social homes then your wishing to pay more for your house and have a lower standard of living, or even never afford one in your life.

I think i was the only one to disagree about the ending of life time tenancies.

And what did humans live in for the 99.99% of history before social housing was invented?

And the only reason private housing and rents are unaffordable is because of

GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES

[Game_Over]

council dweller, on 03 April 2012 - 02:45 PM, said:

My current rent is 90 a week and will be 120 in around 2016, after that rents will go up by the inflation rate +1/2%. No rent means we have one less thing to worry about, that's all.

We have more than enough cash in the bank....why wouldn't we buy?

Trouble is the Government is essentially bankrupt

so where the money is going to come from for subsidised council house rents

and 20 Billion+ in housing benefits in the future

Is anyones guess

My guess is that this model is beyond saving

Just seems that most people haven't realised this yet for some reason

[GBdamo]

Game_Over, on 03 April 2012 - 03:21 PM, said:

And what did humans live in for the 99.99% of history before social housing was invented?

And the only reason private housing and rents are unaffordable is because of

GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES

Anything they wanted and could keep.

The came government, they made the keeping easier but the getting vastly more difficult.

[crash2006]

Game_Over, on 03 April 2012 - 03:21 PM, said:

And what did humans live in for the 99.99% of history before social housing was invented?

And the only reason private housing and rents are unaffordable is because of

GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES

its government regulations, not subsidies that caused high house prices. the state was meant to help and provide the basis such as housing and health.
Housing became unaffordable because of various policies including using the money from the last sell off to fund other policies rather than re using the money to build new homes.