Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
bomberbrown

Rich To Lose Their 'subsidised' Council Homes

Recommended Posts

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8555223/Rich-to-lose-their-subsidised-council-homes.html

I bet Bob Crow and a few New Labour lovies will be choking on their cornflakes this morning.

However, no matter how much I'm not keen on the likes of Bob Crow and Frank Dobson I'm not in favour of this initiative. At best it would only free up 6000 homes. Grant Shapps has seriously lost the plot with this knee jerk reaction to fix a very easy problem. Here's an idea Grant......

BUILD MORE COUNCIL HOUSES AND FLATS, BUT DON'T SELL THEM OFF THIS TIME!!!!!! (see my sig)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lesson in life that the East Asian people know well, is you do whatever it takes to get ownership of capital. And once you get it, you never let it go.. and your children never let it go when they get it.

Our government was following the plan.. building electrical infrastucture, owning millions of council houses. Then they sold it off for some quick cash, and now not surprisingly they are going broke.

Same as a rich kid who sells off the family capital like houses and businesses when he gets his inheritance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It said on sky news this morning that if you are earning above £100k you may lose their council home. WTF?? how is anyone on £100k even in a council home in the first place!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can recall saying to my local MP hopeful in London as far back as 1992 that the new Mercs and Beamers outside the council blocks were signs of abuse.

The problem is in an ideal world no one earning anything over £18 000 should be in a council property, but if they were chucked out it puts a squeeze on the private sector and pushes up rents there and encourages more people to BTL to house the newly displaced council tenants. So it's a no win situation. I guess £100K is about as "low" as they dare go for the above reason of not enough private rentals to house those who would have to leave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can recall saying to my local MP hopeful in London as far back as 1992 that the new Mercs and Beamers outside the council blocks were signs of abuse.

The problem is in an ideal world no one earning anything over £18 000 should be in a council property, but if they were chucked out it puts a squeeze on the private sector and pushes up rents there and encourages more people to BTL to house the newly displaced council tenants. So it's a no win situation. I guess £100K is about as "low" as they dare go for the above reason of not enough private rentals to house those who would have to leave

...of course when I say no win it is a win for those who'd want to make money as BTL landlords and want HPI. Probably some of the people forced to pay full rent in the private sector would swap places with those in the council properties, but the net result would be insufficient private rentals I reckon. If I've not thought this through, feel free to correct me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only plan that ever brings widespread prosperity is mass addition to the supply side. For example America's farmers are so prodigious in their production that food is cheap in America.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8555223/Rich-to-lose-their-subsidised-council-homes.html

I bet Bob Crow and a few New Labour lovies will be choking on their cornflakes this morning.

However, no matter how much I'm not keen on the likes of Bob Crow and Frank Dobson I'm not in favour of this initiative. At best it would only free up 6000 homes. Grant Shapps has seriously lost the plot with this knee jerk reaction to fix a very easy problem. Here's an idea Grant......

BUILD MORE COUNCIL HOUSES AND FLATS, BUT DON'T SELL THEM OFF THIS TIME!!!!!! (see my sig)

I think that this initiative is a step in the right direction but agree that ultimately, more rented council/housing association homes need to be built - and without the option of Right To Buy.

At least it would give low wage earners like myself a choice of:

A) To rent a home on a more secure tenancy, decorate/modify it to my tastes and not pay through the nose for it ( in theory anyway - Council_Dweller has previously informed me that Housing Associations are increasing their rents up to private rent levels).

B ) With a greater supply of affordable rented homes, greater choice of where to live means house prices will be cheaper. I would be able to buy a modest 2 bedroomed freehold house.

I never knew Frank Dobson still lived in a council house - he's certainly a true Labour man then!

Edited by MattW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8555223/Rich-to-lose-their-subsidised-council-homes.html

I bet Bob Crow and a few New Labour lovies will be choking on their cornflakes this morning.

However, no matter how much I'm not keen on the likes of Bob Crow and Frank Dobson I'm not in favour of this initiative. At best it would only free up 6000 homes.

It is a start. Here in the south we have a very serious housing shortage. I am in favour of it.

Perhaps it will allow further future rationalisation of social housing, like when children grow up, and leave, their parents no longer need a 3 or 4 bedrooms house. It should be given to a young couple with a young family instead. Why elderly empty-nesters can stay in a large house, whilst a young couple with children are sent to a flat?

Yes, of course we should be able to house everybody in large houses, but alas we can't. And until we can, we have to allocate this scarce resource more rationally and fairly.

Grant Shapps has seriously lost the plot with this knee jerk reaction to fix a very easy problem. Here's an idea Grant......

BUILD MORE COUNCIL HOUSES AND FLATS, BUT DON'T SELL THEM OFF THIS TIME!!!!!! (see my sig)

That would help too. And the freeing-up of much more land for private developers and self-builders (I would love to do it, with my own money).

Demand has already been curbed by mortgages restrictions. Now we should increase supply. We need more, better and bigger houses in Britain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our government was following the plan.. building electrical infrastucture, owning millions of council houses. Then they sold it off for some quick cash, and now not surprisingly they are going broke.

Problem was they really wanted to compulsorily acquire everything as part of their ideology that the state knows best.

Economics isn't politically correct and communism is always doomed to fail because it can't cope with the fundamentals of human nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It won't work. One word: "Assured Tenancy".

It's for that reason that they're talking about changing the law. Says so in the article.

And before building more council housing, they could do with rehousing all migrants, asylum seekers and long term unemployed people currently occupying council homes in London into the swathes of empty council and social housing around other parts of the UK. There was an article in the Standard this week about a primary school in Westminster where HALF of the pupils were of refugee status!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WTF?? how is anyone on £100k even in a council home in the first place!?

Promotion at work or maybe the person has set up a business in the midst of a tenancy. I would imagine that it would be very difficult to turf people like this out of a council home.

I recall about 4 years ago on Jeremy Vine's Radio 2 show the same idea of turfing out high wage earners out of council homes was discussed but the threshold was at a lower income of £30k or £35k a year. So it seems like it was a Labour idea originally.

Here's a thought: As people are very reluctant to buy new build homes at the moment, wouldn't it be a better use of the building and construction human resources to create new affordable rented homes? :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps it will allow further future rationalisation of social housing, like when children grow up, and leave, their parents no longer need a 3 or 4 bedrooms house. It should be given to a young couple with a young family instead. Why elderly empty-nesters can stay in a large house, whilst a young couple with children are sent to a flat?

I agree. A widow in the same row of houses that my parents live in is still occupying a decent sized 3 bedroomed council house. I think she has lived there since the estate was built (later 1950s) but I guess that she doesn't want the hassle of moving - even with the option of moving a cheaper, more manageable bungalow or flat and an extra relocation incentive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<br />I agree. A widow in the same row of houses that my parents live in is still occupying a decent sized 3 bedroomed council house. I think she has lived there since the estate was built (later 1950s) but I guess that she doesn't want the hassle of moving - even with the option of moving a cheaper, more manageable bungalow or flat and an extra relocation incentive.<br />
<br /><br /><br />

I'm completely with you on this one. I do agree with tenancies being reassessed every, say, 10 years for cases where tenants are over housed and then given the choice of alternative appropriate housing or to leave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm completely with you on this one. I do agree with tenancies being reassessed every, say, 10 years for cases where tenants are over housed and then given the choice of alternative appropriate housing or to leave.

Doesn't that turn them into second class citizens with no right to live where they have settled. Extend the policy and move them where an elected council officer decides. People all over the world fight to the death for the right to live where they choose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do HPC folks want to see more council housing built? :unsure::unsure:

You know that putting some bureaucrats in charge of allocation inevitably leads to massive-scale corruption: a gravy-train for some new in-crowd and (further) marginalisation for those excluded. :angry:

Let's start with the low-hanging fruit. Make it a lot more expensive to keep property long-term empty, for instance ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<br />Doesn't that turn them into second class citizens with no right to live where they have settled. Extend the policy and move them where an elected council officer decides. People all over the world fight to the death for the right to live where they choose.<br />
<br /><br /><br />

I'm not talking opposite ends of the country, I mean in the same London borough for example. My HA did this recently for the single lady (kid grown up left home) living above me in a 3 bedroomed flat. This is now occupied by a couple with 2 kids and the single lady lives a few streets away now. It just makes common sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't that turn them into second class citizens with no right to live where they have settled. Extend the policy and move them where an elected council officer decides. People all over the world fight to the death for the right to live where they choose.

Young couples also have this same right? To live where they choose?

When people are receiving scarce public subsidy (£), to help them afford a scarce resource (housing), they have to accept that ethical / social / public considerations would play a role here. No?

You have to balance conflicting rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do HPC folks want to see more council housing built? :unsure::unsure:

You know that putting some bureaucrats in charge of allocation inevitably leads to massive-scale corruption: a gravy-train for some new in-crowd and (further) marginalisation for those excluded. :angry:

Let's start with the low-hanging fruit. Make it a lot more expensive to keep property long-term empty, for instance ...

Your right of course.

The only solution that makes sense is to sell all council houses off to the highest bidder, with a tenancy agreement of no more than one year. Then leave it to the market.

It doesn't solve the problem of too few homes for the people, we need immigration controls to do that. But it does end the abuses of this benefit by so many people at the expense of honest hard working people.

Edited by leicestersq

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<br />Your right of course.<br /><br />The only solution that makes sense is to sell all council houses off to the highest bidder, with a tenancy agreement of no more than one year. Then leave it to the market.<br /><br />It doesn't solve the problem of too few homes for the people, we need immigration controls to do that. But it does end the abuses of this benefit by so many people at the expense of honest hard working people.<br />
<br /><br /><br />

I disagree, on account that your views imply that council housing is somewhat subsidised (which it isn't and has been proved so and debated to death here on HPC) by tax payers and that your solution would just drag everyone else down to the ridiculous caveats and uncertainties of the AST.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a start. Here in the south we have a very serious housing shortage. I am in favour of it.

Perhaps it will allow further future rationalisation of social housing, like when children grow up, and leave, their parents no longer need a 3 or 4 bedrooms house. It should be given to a young couple with a young family instead. Why elderly empty-nesters can stay in a large house, whilst a young couple with children are sent to a flat?

I see what you mean, but why should renters be second class citizen's and be ousted and moved around like cattle at the drop of a hat?

I'd like to see more rights for renters, not less.

The "rich" or well off should not be getting access to social housing however.

Edited by Sir John Steed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your right of course.

The only solution that makes sense is to sell all council houses off to the highest bidder, with a tenancy agreement of no more than one year. Then leave it to the market.

It doesn't solve the problem of too few homes for the people, we need immigration controls to do that. But it does end the abuses of this benefit by so many people at the expense of honest hard working people.

Why not just let anuyone build whatver they want wherever they like and stop all taxes entirely?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 312 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.