GBdamo

In principle you're correct but be real, go and claim you three house bricks and a roof tile if thats how you feel. The point is you are not paying any more tax for council housing than you would if there were none. In fact, in all likelihood you'd be paying more tax if there were none. I also think that my local council pool should charge the same as the health spa down the road. That should help pay for more council housing. Piss takin aside, in my opinion the only problem with council housing is there isn't enough. Rather than resenting the few that can still benefit from what used to be available to all vote for a party that will build more council housing, lobby your MP or write a strongly worded email.

But wtf has it to do with others in the area. If council housing costs are covered by rents, what concern of anyone elses is it? Why should council housing be used to subsidise (you see that would be a subsidy) better services elsewhere? I agree that council housing should be available to all that want it.

Yes The insanely inflated PRIVATE sector market rate He shouldn't, that's illegal. He should be prsecuted. People in Council housing pay rent. It costs the tax payer nothing. Forces these people to pay private sector rents and many will need HB to make up the difference, this costs the tax payer. Where do lower tax bills come from again?

I don't know, there's something about Campbell, I wouldn't say like or respect but, I get the feeling he believes in what he says.

An insanely inflated private rental sector, but I guess that's not the answer you were looking for.

Please, lets not decend to schoolgirl bitching. I see things differently to you; an opinion is what I believe they call it apparently everyone's entitled to one. What you are trying to justify is that private landlordism and all the associated costs should be seen as the bench mark, market rent or fair value. Their is nothing wrong with private landlords the problem comes when the market is distorted because there is a large proportion of private landlords that have borrowed to fund their Borrow to Let dream and expect the tenant to pick up the tab. This, coupled with the high cost of buying a house (as an alternative) has pushed up rents in the private sector. Why do you think that it is fair to penalise those members of society that have not been affected by the above? I could liken it to people that bought before the boom, should the government not force them to pay the current market price?

For the last time, I know allocation is wrong. But that does not make coucil housing wrong. Just change how it's allocated. Are you still a landlord by the way? if so that probably why you favour HB over an expansion of council housing.

Nice, use the emotive threat of comunism to counter any remotely socialist policy. I do agree that council housing is poorly allocated.

Because that penalises people for advancement. And how do you determine a fair market rent for housing that has been so massively skewed by the debt explosion of the last 13 years? I would argue that council rents are closer the correct level than your market level. What is this obsession with councils earning money? Surely this is just a tax merrygoround, is it not? For the same property, yes it does. Are they blocking a more deserving tenant or a more 'needy' one? Again the problem is one of quantity. Again effect not cause. It's really very simple: Mr A has lived in his council house for 30 years in which time he has put dow roots in the area, raised a family and has worked hard to get a good job - he has succeded in life and has had a positive effect on society. You are suggesting that as thanks for his efforts he should get kicked out of his family home. Why don't the council build another one?

I think you confusing two arguments there. How council housing stock is allocated, if you read my first post on this thread, has changed for the worst over the years. The focus has changed to individual need, in some part forced by EU HR legislation, and away from societal need. From an individual stand point there is now more benefit in making one's self 'needy' and thus taking housing that would be better allocated, for society, to the productive. It is my Ideal to reverse this and return council housing to the most deserving not the most needy. I still don't see where the subsidy is or who's doing the subsidising. If the costs to the council are covered by the rent being paid where is the subsidy. If the councils were running council housing at a net loss then I can agree there is a subsidy in play.

Is that me or him? not sure what your getting at.

As it was the taxes had already been paid, we had a good stock of council housing. It's just that someone thought it a good idea to sell them. Do you disagree that lower housing costs would make the UK more competative in a global economy? And paying a landloards premium plus the cost of borrowing makes housing more expensive.

I can only assume this to be correct. Why? how about using this tax to reduce the cost of living in this country to a point where we are globally competitive Where do you get the market value from? Is the private market rent not too high alredy? You're really suggesting that councils should price their rents at the same levels as the private market? What effect do you think this will have on private rents? What will council rents have to do next? How many closet landlords are there on here these days?

Is that not illegal? If so prosecute them with extream prejudice. (not sure that really fits, just like the sound of it. )

Because I can see the sense in a particular social policy does not mean I'm a socialist or a voter, let alone a Labour one. Or is there another reason why you think I vote/which way you think I vote?

Right, so were agreed that councils do not subsidise rents and now you want them to act like parasitic landlords. How on earth does it serve a council, who are charged with serving the best intrests of it's residents, to 'maximise it's return' with reguard to council housing? Council housing is not an investment, it is a service and one that should be offered to it's residents at as low as cost as possible. The onyl problem is is there is not enough council housing. How you treat your kids is entirely up to you.

eh..........

Got as far as 'Balls' and stopped. No greater selfserving, opportunist, sh1te spouting **** has british politics ever seen. I'd be down to blooded stumps just above the elbow before I tired of punching him in the face. :angry:

No, a subsidy is a payment made. Council rents do not lose money where the tenant pays the full council rent (N.B not housing benefit). Councils own council housing, they do not have debt to service or profits to make only the upkeep of the property therefore their costs are less than the private sector that is all, no sudsidy. It is the private rental prices that are wrong not council rents, the majority of the difference going to the banks. Council rents will always be less than private rents because of the desirability factor.

Wrong way to go, council housing is not subsidised and in fact generates an income for the council, it also provides for employment opportunities to maintain these homes. If there were to be a forced sell off of council houses some would be bought by the occupier but the majority will be bought by investors who will in most cases require funding and want a profit. All this provides is more parasites for your rent to pay for. Council rent is not that cheap but it does is highlight the effects of 13 years of easy credit on the cost of housing.

If they were next door to each other or on the same estate I'd agree, but I guess there is an element of desirability here. There is little doubt that in some areas council housing can be hugely advantageous. I guess the real point is; how on earth did we get to the point where £1200 is seen as a realistic rent for a 1 bedroom flat?

This is an unbelievably myopic policy. In the heyday of council housing getting a council house was seen as a privilege, people were proud of their council homes and, for a time, council estates were huge successes. From WIKI The rot set in when the housing criteria changed from priority given to working families and their relatives, who were vetted to ensure they would maintain the rent and uphold the rules, to housing the homeless and 'needy'. As always there is a very fine line between having a social conscience, being a safety net, and being an opt out or a queen size bed, for the feckless. When the housing policy changed the proportion of people with less social responsibility rose to the point where the good tenants started to move out, the rest is history. We have seen a similar policy enacted through the back door with the provision of low cost and social housing now a requirement for most new private estates. I don't think this is a de facto bad thing so long as the councils don't start taking the piss and housing crackheads on nice estates which would be a huge cop out on their behalf. It will be interesting to see how the modern estates fare; will they go the way of council estates? Especially as folk that have bought start to see the house not as an investment or status symbol but as an albatross about their necks. Anyway, Frank Dobson has landed on his feet in a £1M council flat and the press are seeing it as an opportunity to trumpet the flaws in the old policy and make us cry out for change. The problem is that that change will have some detail that isn’t being trumpeted and those details are rarely good. Basically council housing should provide a long term stable foundation where people can look to the future and work towards a better life for them and their family. This policy says don’t bother because as soon as you get there we’ll kick your ass out on the street. After all council housing is not free there is still a rent to pay, albeit reduced; surely the answer is that the rent should reflect your means.

As an [hangs head in shame] internal NVQ assessor I can agree with a lot of what people say. The main problem with NVQs is they are only as good as the assessor. The NVQ only test and record competance rather than teach anything. As a result it is very easy for the assessor to over assisist the candidate . Anyhow, I do mine by weight, if the files not 3.0kg plus - go back and do more. Seriously though, we back ours up with a City and Guilds course which ads the core knowledge, so used in tandem they are useful. You don't need either to clean. Mixing cleaning products is very Darwinian in its results, and so it should remain. £18-20k for what looks like a shift based job - in London - is not a lot of money.

How very, very true. Transfering the 'value' of her property onto herself. How incredibly insicure. Now it's worth sweet FA so is she.