Social housing - how would you do it?

[Captain Kirk]

52 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

I just don't think any politician would be able to take such a step - even if they want houses to become a lot cheaper.

What they should have done is insisted that during low rates zombie companies and people pay off their debt, not easy for them to do, but they did not try.

Given that the goal of governments and central banks is to cause inflation, housing bubbles, over-indebted consumers, zombies companies, etc., no, there is not a cat in hell's chance of them taking such a step.

[PeanutButter]

8 minutes ago, Captain Kirk said:

Given that the goal of governments and central banks is to cause inflation, housing bubbles, over-indebted consumers, zombies companies, etc., no, there is not a cat in hell's chance of them taking such a step.

and to increase the population endlessly - remember, the doctrine of unlimited growth requires unlimited humans at the bottom of the pyramid. 

 

[Locke]

On 07/11/2018 at 16:23, markyh said:

sacked the last one in Feb when she said her prices where going up 20% as she was forced to register for VAT? WTF!! that's £80k+ p/a for a cleaner!

She's laundering. Report her.

[Locke]

On 07/11/2018 at 15:36, macca13 said:

We have killed 60% of animals on this planet! 

Eh. So what?

On 07/11/2018 at 15:36, macca13 said:

• close boarders

• stop child benefits 

• make it possible for councils to buy houses off buy to let scum 

• ban buy to leech mortgages 

With benefits abolished, you won't need to close the borders. 

If interest rates naturalise, BTL will die.

[macca13]

5 hours ago, Locke said:

Eh. So what?.

So what.. WOW really 

We are killing the planet and you don’t care..

Cancer rates have gone from 1 in 4 to 1 in 2

we have poisoned everything, soil, water, air.. What kills the 60% of the planets animals is killing us.. 

Money is not real, it made up.. 

we must reduce our population to sustainable levels.. 

[MattW]

Difficult question. How was the post war mass housing boom financed? My local authority are building new council homes, including one of the largest 'passivhaus' developments in the country. 

I presently live in an older council flat and I'm enjoying the cheaper rent. If not some noisy neighbours. 

[MattW]

Impossible to do in London but try and avoid building flats. Is it still the law to have a ground floor loo in a two storey house? It might make it hard to justify building 1 br houses. 

[Locke]

23 minutes ago, macca13 said:

We are killing the planet and you don’t care..

The planet will survive just fine. Short of nuclear war or nuclear accidents on an unbelievable scale, there won't be any evidence of our existence within 10,000 years- a blink of an eye in ecological, let alone astronomical scale.

Out of curiosity, how would you go about killing Venus?

23 minutes ago, macca13 said:

Cancer rates have gone from 1 in 4 to 1 in 2

And the average Victorian consumed 1 teaspoon of sugar per year.

70% of healthcare costs are down to lifestyle choices. Just stop being fat, smoking and drinking and you don't have to worry about it.

23 minutes ago, macca13 said:

Money is not real, it made up.

True, but so is a lot of things, mathematics, or the value people place on gold for example. Again, what is your point? 

23 minutes ago, macca13 said:

we must I want to reduce our population to sustainable levels.. 

Why don't you start with yourself?

Edited November 9, 2018 by Locke

[MARTINX9]

Its never going to happen - councils can't afford it and the powerful parasitic control of housing associations and major developers won't let it.

Too much money being made out of the system by vested interests

 

[opt_out]

On 06/11/2018 at 11:00, disenfranchised said:

I'm one of the people on here who believes the only way to deliver decent housing for low income people is to bring back a degree of state planned and delivered social housing. 

I don't see any particular need for govt owned and allocated housing as I believe the market would work OK if there wasn't a restriction on the supply of building plots.

I'd be happy with state involvement at the top level planning, eg decide where to build a new town, compulsory purchase the land, put in the major roads, designate the commercial areas, sell building lots ranging from single house plots to larger areas for eg 100 houses, sell Shopping Mall plots of various sizes.  This should be a big earner for the state at least until building plot prices return to a sensible level, which they will do as long as they continue to be made available.  

[happyguy]

On 06/11/2018 at 11:28, winkie said:

.built for local working people and families to rent, a rent that can allow them to also save.....not to be sold but rented out for fixed five year periods to be reviewd and extended if appropriate..

Agree with the comment on WORKING FAMILIES - not for those who cannot be bothered or who have no chance of a job because they are unable to speak English

Also of course homes should be allocated to those who are GENUINELY unable to work

On 06/11/2018 at 11:51, No One said:

What evidence do you have that the old order had a filter for social mobility based on housing, and how does commie housing blocks remove class divide?

None 

On 07/11/2018 at 06:38, localhero1983 said:

The one massive problem I have with social housing along with Corbyns ambitious house building plans is the fact that currency for these types of properties is usually a fatherless child with a non working mother. Just try and get social housing as a working taxpayer with no kids to emotionally blackmail with, zero chance.

Agree 100% there is no point having a load of housebuilding to supply free homes to people who move to the uk and do not have enough skills to obtain a job to support themselves

On 07/11/2018 at 09:25, Social Justice League said:

Build enough council houses to meet the demand.

Every single citizen should be guaranteed a council house for rent only, if they require one.

Those who want to buy a bigger, better built house in a nicer area can do so.

The current system of restricting a basic human right.....Shelter.........is an absolute disgrace for a so called civilised country.

No way.

Why would I work to pay tax to provide a home for an immigrant who has moved here with nothing other than a load of kids or some lazy chav who cannot be bothered to work and look after themselves or some 16 year old chav who gets pissed and banged up. 

I do not want all the green areas of this wonderful country turned over to social housing which would create slums and ghettos.  The wildlife of this country is wonderful and should be protected hedgehogs, birds, bees, butterflies etc are far more important to me than some immigrant who has decided to come the the uk without the means to support themselves.

What is a disgrace to this country is the number of people who thinks the state owes them everything, who contribute nothing but expect to be looked after in every aspect of their lives.  

When I was a kid my family impressed upon me that if I wanted something I had to get off my a==e, look after myself and be responsible for myself.  I was not brought up with an expectation that the govt would provide me with cheap or free accommodation paid for by taxpayers who get off their a++e and work.

 

I am all for providing social homes for people who work and have paid tax into the system should they now be unemployed or unable to work through illness.  I am not interested in paying for a home for people who choose not to work or come the uk with out the skills to find a job to look after themselves.  Not that I am anti migration at all I think doctors, dentists etc should be encouraged but not people who have a load of kids, cannot speak English or have no skills so they have no value ion the job market.  Sorry of that sounds harsh but in the world of work we are all commodities with a value in the job market based on skills, experience and knowledge in a given area. 

On 07/11/2018 at 15:36, macca13 said:

make it possible for councils to buy houses off buy to let scum 

The landlords would be chuffed even  more money for them 

[localhero1983]

3 hours ago, happyguy said:

Agree 100% there is no point having a load of housebuilding to supply free homes to people who move to the uk and do not have enough skills to obtain a job to support themselves

I just wish there was a UK data base that we all had access to which showed just how much welfare people were taking in their lifetime, £100,000's even £Millions  I bet some are taking as many of us work out b****x off to pay for it.

[Social Justice League]

Let's forget about giving houses to imigrants and just build enough council houses for our current citizens.

Keeping current citizens homeless costs councils (and taxpayers) more f4cking cash than just buliding them cheap shelter, ffs.

Too many retards in the UK these days who have no clue.

[happyguy]

20 hours ago, localhero1983 said:

I just wish there was a UK data base that we all had access to which showed just how much welfare people were taking in their lifetime, £100,000's even £Millions  I bet some are taking as many of us work out b****x off to pay for it.

Agree

14 hours ago, Social Justice League said:

Let's forget about giving houses to imigrants and just build enough council houses for our current citizens.

Agree just give homes to people who have worked there is no such thing a a free lunch 

why does anyone who comes to this country with no skills to earn a good living and or unable to speak good English think they should get a house paid for by the taxpayers 

As it happen my wife is German - she is a surgeon and speaks perfect English so she has no problem getting a job and being able to pay for her own needs

If someone said to me that I should move to Spain for instance or Poland the very first think that would occur to me is that I cannot speak Spanish or Polish.  It would then appear to me that I have no value in the job market there and am of no use to that country.  What I would not do is go there and expect to be given a free house piad fpr by taxpayers in those nations.

I was brought up to understand that if I want something In my life I get off my backside and work for it and not be a parasite on society. 

14 hours ago, Social Justice League said:

Keeping current citizens homeless costs councils (and taxpayers) more f4cking cash than just buliding them cheap shelter, ffs.

Too many retards in the UK these days who have no clue.

Ah yes - typical of the so called left wing which is in fact fascist and cannot accept that others are entitled to a different opinion - when faced with that opinion they have nothing to say other than infantile swearing as if that promotes their idea!
I assume that you are a student or do not work.
As for retard I suggest you look in the mirror little boy. 

[iamnumerate]

27 minutes ago, happyguy said:

If someone said to me that I should move to Spain for instance or Poland the very first think that would occur to me is that I cannot speak Spanish or Polish.  It would then appear to me that I have no value in the job market there and am of no use to that country.  What I would not do is go there and expect to be given a free house piad fpr by taxpayers in those nations.

 

Fair point, I know someone who recently moved here from Spain, he didn't expect his rent here to be paid for him.  However he didn't say no, when it was offered to him, nor for his son to have a translator at school!

[Big Orange]

On 09/11/2018 at 15:13, Locke said:

 

70% of healthcare costs are down to lifestyle choices. Just stop being fat, smoking and drinking and you don't have to worry about it.

Excercise and clean living can only do so much in staving off cancer (IMO an inbuilt biological failure process that we can't do much about preventing), when millions of people, who ate the right things, didn't smoke, and rail thin, still got their final diagnosis before 80.

Edited November 18, 2018 by Big Orange

[Flopsy]

1 hour ago, Big Orange said:

Excercise and clean living can only do so much in staving off cancer (IMO an inbuilt biological failure process that we can't do much about preventing), when millions of people, who ate the right things, didn't smoke, and rail thin, still got their final diagnosis before 80.

The first vegan I ever met was my cousin. She had a great lifestyle and was a slim beautiful woman. She died of cancer just before I was diagnosed. My mother had cancer, almost all of her siblings died of cancer as did my grandmother and Gt-Grandmother. The family tree is riddled with it. Lost of young deaths. 

Some of us just got crap genetics or there is something else we are reacting to in the environment that isn't clear.

Edited November 18, 2018 by Flopsy

[simon49]

Instead of building more houses, there is an easier, quicker and cheaper way. Why not offer  immigrants a fixed cash sum for vacating their house and returning, permanently to their home country.  If you paid say £5000, that would be enough for them to buy a house in a lot of poorer countries. You cant build a house here for that ammount so it would be win win. 

   There would have to be an end to freedom of movement first as the vacated house would just be let to other immigrants. 

 

 

[chronyx]

15 minutes ago, simon49 said:

Instead of building more houses, there is an easier, quicker and cheaper way. Why not offer  immigrants a fixed cash sum for vacating their house and returning, permanently to their home country.  If you paid say £5000, that would be enough for them to buy a house in a lot of poorer countries. You cant build a house here for that ammount so it would be win win. 

   There would have to be an end to freedom of movement first as the vacated house would just be let to other immigrants. 

 

 

Would require DNA samples I think, to prevent another go on the free shit carousel.  But other than that, that could be one of the only cases I can think of where the cure to benefits is more benefit (singular) and everyone wins

[Big Orange]

36 minutes ago, chronyx said:

Would require DNA samples I think, to prevent another go on the free shit carousel.  But other than that, that could be one of the only cases I can think of where the cure to benefits is more benefit (singular) and everyone wins

Nobody has actually pinpointed or observed the actual outbreak of cancer cells - and there's a growing theory that cancer boils mainly down to being a mixture of random and inherited bad genetic mutations, with bad lifestyle and toxic environment mainly just exacerbating the inbuilt biological failure process that's almost as inevitable as (but more sporadic than) ageing.

Clean living and active lifestyle still pays, but it's not foolproof and in some case just slows down the inevitable (with some vegan athletes who drink just water still arbitrarily hit with the Cancer hammer).

The real answer to cancer is vastly improving the diagnosis and treatment (now partially successful with more common breast and testicular cancers, still functionally useless with nastier strains of brain and digestive system cancers).

 

Edited November 18, 2018 by Big Orange

[chronyx]

@Big Orange have we been drinking Sir?   I think you meant to reply to someone else?

(FWIW I don't see the vegan diet as being remotely cancer protective.  Processed grain junk loaded with seed oils is vegan, after all.)

[iamnumerate]

11 hours ago, simon49 said:

Instead of building more houses, there is an easier, quicker and cheaper way. Why not offer  immigrants a fixed cash sum for vacating their house and returning, permanently to their home country.  If you paid say £5000, that would be enough for them to buy a house in a lot of poorer countries. You cant build a house here for that ammount so it would be win win. 

   There would have to be an end to freedom of movement first as the vacated house would just be let to other immigrants. 

 

 

The problem with that idea is that no immigrant on benefits would take, those who are working might.  Ideally we want the reverse.

I would use Brexit to say no benefits for non citizens and only let people who support themselves become citizens.

[cashinmattress]

12 hours ago, simon49 said:

Instead of building more houses, there is an easier, quicker and cheaper way. Why not offer  immigrants a fixed cash sum for vacating their house and returning, permanently to their home country.  If you paid say £5000, that would be enough for them to buy a house in a lot of poorer countries. You cant build a house here for that ammount so it would be win win. 

   There would have to be an end to freedom of movement first as the vacated house would just be let to other immigrants. 

 

 

Hmm.

I've worked with a fair few 3rd tier shippers in the Med running between Africa and Europe.

They've got a constant outflow of cash to pay off career stowaways which usually ends up around a few hundred to a few thousand USD per head.

A pay-off will will actually attract more 'immigrants' and become huge PR disaster for the UK politico... so no... that's not a good idea simon49. Not at all.

We're not shengen and everybody is checked in... we don't have the cash or political capital to enforce our immigration policy now, then, or in the future. Brexit won't do jack squat for immigration. In fact, it may just accelerate it.

[jetcat]

To give it a bit of a twist, let's test the idea of a two-tier social housing.

One tier is owned and operated by local councils, with close to market rates for the area, but some built-in incentives on which further, longer contracts, greater security and a mechanism for the tenants to coupe with temporary unemployment, say, up to 6 months. Also, annually compounding discount for maintaining the area around their house and communal areas and absence of any trouble and noise, say, up to 50% of rent paid. Persistent anti-social behavior and complaints from neighbors will mean first increase in rent and then either open market tenancy or tier 2.

Tenants lose certain degree of freedom in exchange for lower rents in a nice neighborhood. Also, parents will have to discipline their children in order to avoid losing money and tenancy.

Tier 2 is paid for entirely by the taxpayer, jointly operated by councils and state; ultra high density dormitory-type temporary housing built on cheap agricultural land outside towns or on converted industrial estates, few stories high, with free bus service to the nearest town centre  each morning and evening. Every floor would be a corridor with rooms (effectively very small studio flats), each with a toilet and some rudimentary cooking facilities, shower and some communal areas for cooking and socializing. This is to keep the roof over people's heads while they sort themselves out.

Now, every 6 months (or sooner if the neighbors complain) the tenant is moved out of their room to the other block on a different estate and the room is completely cleaned and maintained, with choice to move back only if neighbors agree to have them back. If a tenant keep their studio in a perfect nick, they get to stay for another 6 months.This way only beneficial social connections persist and constant maintenance keeps the block from turning into truly terrible experience for everyone involved even when an anti-social person lives nearby for some limited time. Said person will thus be transitioned from block to block every once in a while while those who has to live next to them know that the problems will end in a few weeks. Drug users will lose contact with their dealers, those who lack discipline to maintain their living environment get to go to a clean room every few months and maybe decide to change their attitude; people forming friendships and connections will improve behavior to stay in the same block. 

Tenants there lose a good deal of freedom of choice but get to live relatively rent- and trouble-free and sort out something better for themselves. Much as I dislike limits on freedom and enforced social engineering, there seems to be some amount needed to incentivize people to stop hurting themselves and others...

Of course, there are multiple problems with this arrangement, so consider this a conversation-starter.

[Locke]

On 18/11/2018 at 16:24, Big Orange said:

Excercise and clean living can only do so much in staving off cancer (IMO an inbuilt biological failure process that we can't do much about preventing), when millions of people, who ate the right things, didn't smoke, and rail thin, still got their final diagnosis before 80.

Do you believe that that is a rebuttal to what I said?

70% of healthcare can be completely cut if people make healthier lifestyle choices.