How cool is [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19311364 ]THIS?![/url]
A totally brilliant idea! Clearly the common sense represented by Dame Shirley Porter still lives on in the Tory Party. Thank God! She was a much maligned but frankly misunderstood woman.
All she was trying to do was to create areas where those who have made something of their lives don't have their hard-won property prices dragged down by living in close proximity to the [s]peasants[/s] lower paid.
And the [s]scum[/s] more modest earners will be much happier if they [s]are rounded up into ghettos[/s] can all happily live together in happy, if slightly less well-appointed areas
Who's looking forward to getting rid of some of their less desirable locals then? And what will you be spending your increased equity on?
I am my areas less desirable local.. 🙂
or the non red flag waving version
So the value of the house rises and economically you can sell it and house 2 or 3 families with the proceeds is that a bad thing?
Not exactly ethnic clensing
You're only bitter 'cos they threw you out of Chorlton for making the place look scruffy.
What a testament of despair that report is! Obviously the Policy Exchange have no faith in the economic recovery that is ongoing. Instead the poor must scrap with the destitute for whatever scraps the rich deign to throw them...
Policy Exchange... reminds me of a Needle Exchange... and like the sort of people who use needle exchanges they and their dirty products should be treated as hazardous and kept securely quarrentined.
IHN I was actually thrown out for being too right wing 😉
So, you are part of a council housed area; you and the rest of your street take a bit of pride in where you live,making the area nicer,then they council sells your house from under your feet and evicts you? Why would they even think about this,perhaps it is the usual worst case scenario/feel a sense of relief when they only screw you a little bit that the current Government uses to mask it's policies.
It's a brilliant idea.
Binners, sorry, when have the allocation of social housing places had anything to do with pay or wealth?
Social housing is allocated on a basis of need, for example on a points based system, with points awarded for ties with the local area, health issues, dependent children etc - nothing to do with income or wealth.
In fact I know of a few well paid people who have council houses...
It does sound like a tamed down version of the Final Solution, turn the north of the country into a ghetto and move all the unemployed, ill and disabled away from the affluent South and leave them to rot in the North.
Of course in the real world there are very few 'council houses' left. But let us turn our spotlight on the Policy Exchange: Who are they? Who funds them? And why do they get off on proposing to make the lives of others such a misery?
I'm leaving this country so I can afford enough land, fence and weaponry to ensure the proles are kept at a sufficient distance.
Goodbye, good riddance.
About 3.5% of the total stock becomes vacant every year owing to people moving out or dying, the think tank said. But we're working hard on both issues to improve this figure.
If only the common peasantry would die off a bit quicker, eh?
Eat the rich!
[i]So, you are part of a council housed area; you and the rest of your street take a bit of pride in where you live,making the area nicer,then they council sells your house from under your feet and evicts you?[/i]
<policy understanding fail>
I drop the average guns-per-household figures for Streford by me living there 🙂
No fail. That's exactly how they see everyone who isn't one of them or seen to be living as they perscribe. There seems to be a growing, almost neo-Maoist tendency, among all three parties, to see people as objects to be moved around, taxed, controlled, surveilled, and coererced at the whim of the ruling corporate classes. This is a forwarning of what we will see if we allow them to continue as they are.
Also, Cameron is supposed to be 'close' to these loonies. You can tell a man by the company he keeps...
mikewsmith - Member
or the non red flag waving version
So the value of the house rises and economically you can sell it and house 2 or 3 families with the proceeds is that a bad thing?
Not exactly ethnic clensing
So the value of inner London social housing has risen, therefore "we" can sell them all off to property investors who can then rent them to young upwardly acceptable professionals who work in "the city".
Meanwhile, the lower paid fringes of society, whom social housing was originally designed, are shipped out to the new "better" homes, being built on the brown field sites (wastelands) of the Thames estuary, away from their places of work, thus creating a populance dependant on Housing Benefit.
But it's ok as long as there are new houses to buy and property developers to make profit.
FWIW, I've seen "low cost social housing" projects first hand, and it's a green light for property developers to build cheap nasty houses not suitable for the intended occupants, whilst being able to build cheap nasty larger houses to sell at a huge profit to the guilable.
Sorry /RANT.
If only the common peasantry would die off a bit quicker, eh?
I'm doing my best.
[img] 
[/img]
Oh, sorry. I see what you mean now.
😉
I wonder if the members of Policy Exchange were abused when they went to public school? And did they use to pull the legs off spiders and the wings off flies when they were children?
Social housing is allocated on a basis of need, for example on a points based system, with points awarded for ties with the local area, health issues, dependent children etc - nothing to do with income or wealth.
that sounds very much to me like you are half correct, and half completely talking bollocks mate
How about just shipping them out to the 'burbs?
Oh hang on....
So, you are part of a council housed area; you and the rest of your street take a bit of pride in where you live,making the area nicer,then they council sells your house from under your feet and evicts you?
From the article:
"Selling top homes [u][b]when they become vacant[/b][/u] would raise £4.5bn a year, enough to build 80,000 to 170,000 new social homes, providing building jobs... About 3.5% of the total stock becomes vacant every year owing to people moving out or dying"
No mention of the Council Stasi evicting you at gunpoint 🙄
Policy Exchange = Bullingdon Club = Ruling Class = .001 % of population
Not yet... But of course if you can't afford to pay your rent due to cuts in housing benefit you'll soon get evicted...
Big fail. Did you read the detail or just the alarmist scare mongering? How about the bit where they said that nobody would be evicted and houses would only been sold when the we empty due to people leaving etc.No fail. That's exactly how they see everyone who isn't one of them or seen to be living as they perscribe. There seems to be a growing, almost neo-Maoist tendency, among all three parties, to see people as objects to be moved around, taxed, controlled, surveilled, and coererced at the whim of the ruling corporate classes. This is a forwarning of what we will see if we allow them to continue as they are.
Not saying its a particularly good policy but on the face of it it appears to be well intentioned, just needs some sensible interpretation based on local issues rather than a blanket sell off of expensive council house.
For example how you difine "above average for the area" is particilalry sensitive.
But of course if you can't afford to pay your rent due to cuts in housing benefit you'll soon get evicted...
are we in line for another round of the wholesale homelessness which gave rise to the new age traveller movement, as caused by the last tory government..?
I think what we will see is an awful lot more of this type of [url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/apr/24/london-exporting-council-tenants ]class cleansing[/url]
So... not quite ethnic cleansing, no, but the principle is the same
not quite ethnic cleansing, no, but the principle is the same
aaaaaaah.. that'll be what the massive new towns that are springing up on Greenbelt land are for then..
Ideally, all except the very rich in society will move to the North of England to work long hours in factories with few employment rights, poor education and no health service.
Big fail. Did you read the detail or just the alarmist scare mongering?
Hmmm, tricky one...
It does sound like a tamed down version of the Final Solution,
Sorry but that comment and others along the 'ethnic cleansing' line are among the most offensive things I've read on STW.
To even begin to compare a housing policy, however it may offend your political sensibilities, with the extermination of whole groups of people in the Holocaust, shows a level of insensitivity that is frankly beyond the pale.
This is ideology taken to extreme, there is a hatred of 'social' housing and its opposition to privatisation among Tory supporters, this is just a continuation of the thatcher programme of destroying communities, especially ones where there are alternatives to the 'market'-- the ruling class are just acting in their interests, its the so called labour Party that has gone along with all this that gets my goat-- wolf in sheep's clothing......
I don't think anyone's actually seriously comparing the actions of Tory Thinktanks to that of the Third Reich
By my reckoning they'd need at least another.... erm... well realistically.... at least another 18 months in power until they're proposals become that drastic 😉
I don't think anyone's actually seriously comparing the actions of Tory Thinktanks to that of the Third Reich
Well, yes they were, they specifically compared the policy to a 'watered down version of the Final Solution'.
I don't know any other historical moments that are also referred to as 'The Final Solution' other than the Holocaust.
Do you?
So I guess we should just give up on that one and think of another way of funding building new council houses.
whilst the intentions sound plausible, I can't help but think that it's sugar-coating for another simplistic money-rules-all Tory ideal.
what I like about London (especially North and Central London) is that there is a broad and diverse mix of people. what I don't like is that the councils don't maintain their social housing to a good enough standard, which can be upsetting for occupiers of privately owned homes in close proximity.
So I guess we should just give up on that one and think of another way of funding building new council houses.
Like maybe take advantage of the lowest borrowing costs in history to fund capital projects?
I think you'll find, according to this lot, that's tantamount to Communism. There is no Plan B remember, as Gideon never tires of reminding us. Though I've not heard him utter the phrase 'we're all in this together' recently, which was another popular mantra of his and Dave's a couple of years back
Like maybe take advantage of the lowest borrowing costs in history to borrow even more billions than we already owe and can't pay back to fund capital [s]projects[/s] white elephants that will never make a profit let alone break even?
Sorry but that comment and others along the 'ethnic cleansing' line are among the most offensive things I've read on STW.
You've obviously led a very sheltered life, I suggest you avoid the internet, you will find all sorts of things on it you might not agree with.....
Same tory ideology that shattered communities in the 1980s. Some things never change and putting profit first whatever the cost to 'little' people is a cornerstone of all conservatives.
Same tory ideology that shattered communities in the 1980s. Some things never change and putting profit first whatever the cost to 'little' people is a cornerstone of all conservatives.
"Selling top homes when they become vacant would raise £4.5bn a year, enough to build 80,000 to 170,000 new social homes, providing building jobs... About 3.5% of the total stock becomes vacant every year owing to people moving out or dying"
So were looking at selling 3.5% of council houses per year and building more with the profits. How many per area is that? 2/3 houses per estate?
Is it wrong if the same number of tenants buy their houses?
Knowing what the Tories are like, and bearing in mind that this:
[i]selling 3.5% of council houses per year and building more with the profits[/i]
is only a proposal at this point, who's putting money on, [i]when[/i] it becomes a policy, them doing the first bit, but then conveniently forgetting the second part?
putting profit first whatever the cost to 'little' people is a cornerstone of all conservatives
Unless I missed something, the whole point of the proposal is that the profit would be used to build more social housing, to the [u]benefit[/u] the "little people". Particularly the 1.8 million currently on the waiting list for social housing.
tinsy - Member
I am my areas less desirable local..
+1 😀
I agree with the plan though! I've got mates who grew up in the same town as me, they've worked hard for years and still can't afford to buy their own houses here. They should be the ones who have the chance of a council house, instead they are given to single mothers, the long-term unemployed and substance abusers or criminals!
I suggest you avoid the internet, you will find all sorts of things on it you might not agree with.....
I don't care what I find elsewhere, I care what I find here because this is the site I use and value. Besides, haven't we all been reminded here of the etiquette we should be displaying? Is it so wrong to ask for a sense of decency?
How do you think someone who'd lost family in the camps might feel about that comment?
Feel free to reduce your self to the position of ignorance but I won't thank you and I'll feel very free to comment on it.
nobody should be able to buy a social house---
This was a criminal policy, oh and the councils were NOT allowed to use the money from sales to build new--- a policy of destroying councilhousing--
The quote on the BBC news report, from a spokesperson for the Federation of Master Builders (who could Possibly benefit from this) described it as
A rather Stalinist approach.
Lots of lefty alarmist guff going on here. Sure there needs to be clear rules and exceptions around implementing these proposals (e.g. low cost/social housing does need to exist in urban areas for low paid workers so commuting is practical/affordable and that no one should be relocated under the policy) but I can't see how someone can support moving new tenants into very expensive housing that could be sold and several cheaper houses bought. Whilst I believe everyone has a right to a roof over their heads and happy enough for some of my taxes to go to funding social care there's no justifiable reason for no/low income people to be in housing worth several hundred grand.
For the people that can't seem to read - this isn't proposing a Warsaw ghetto clearance to line the pockets of politicians, it's about selling off valuable houses when they become vacant and using the revenue to build more social housing. Ofc you can extrapolate any resultant policy could be changed and as such open to abuse but the report proposals themselves are sound.
Lots of lefty alarmist guff going on here.
Surely not.
[i]Alex Morton, Policy Exchange: "One in five social houses is worth more than the regional average"[/i]
Don't doubt it at all, simple understanding of maths would probably give you that statement...
I'd also imagine that selling a council house in London may create £500k, but by the time its appeared elsewhere in the country they'll probably only be £200k left.
I've had a quick look at the report and the geography is interesting, and provides an insight into the potential consequences of this policy proposal.
In the introduction they set out how they define 'expensive social housing' (a lesson is false labelling for your own benefit). They use the median house price of all properties and the benchmark. In terms of the geographical scale they focus on, the report says that the national scale is too because because:
A national median (£177,000) keeps expensive housing for the North East (median £119,000), but sells almost all of London’s stock (median £290,000).
And a median based on local authority scale
...keep[s] too much expensive stock (Kensington and Chelsea, median £791,000).
They suggest, therefore, that the region is the best scale to work out these figures. This doesn't make sense though, as people who live in social housing - like most people - are likely to work near where they live. So are Policy Exchange suggesting moving people from one part of a region to another up to 30 miles away but that is ok because you'll still be near your friends and family... well, not near, 30 miles away.
And what does this mean for local authorities? Will Winchester City Council be moving their tenants to Portsmouth? And thus adding extra burden to the latter's budgets?
rudebwoy - Member
nobody should be able to buy a social house---
True, that's what has caused a lot of the problems. It's this that has created a shortage of these types of homes in certain areas, which is why the ones still owned by the housing authorities are given to the needy and vulnerable when they become available.
There are plenty of other properties available in less desirable towns and villages close-by. The choosy %$£"%^% won't live there though!
I've seen plenty of cases where someone who has lived in their house for more than 50 years has been given the chance to buy for 5-6k. They can't afford it so there son or daughter gives them the money instead. When the old dear dies, the son/daughter rents it out or sells it...not a bad investment on 5k!
It could be a good thing as long as they actually build the houses. For further houses to be made available to sell or rent, those that earn more than say £70k a year should give up there social housing.
edit, missed a word
CaptJon - That [url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/apr/24/tory-westminster-council-tenants-derby ]link[/url] I posted before is whats already happening.
3 London Councils are already moving housing benefit claimants to Stoke. Nice and handy for friends, family, schools etc.
For further houses to be made available to sell or rent, those that earn more than say £70k a year should give up there social housing.
that's a direct attack on the union leadership of the country who should be allowed to continue to live in the working communites they represent
You mean to tell me that tell me that the representives of the workers get subsidised housing. Surely to show solidarity with their fellow workers they would be prepared to pay the market rental, thus helping the local authority and giving themselves the sort of standing in the community they expect.
[b]YOU WHAT?!!![/b]
[img] 
[/img]
Always good to see a passionate political debate on here at lunchtime!
As is often the case with 'think tank' proposals, they've neglected all sorts of issues which make this a very bad and short-sighted idea. Mainly because it appears to focus purely on economics, and fails to consider the social aspects at all. I bases it's arguments on 'studies' and 'reports' and statistics, which as we all know are easily manipulated to present a version of the truth convenient to the advantage of who is presenting them. Seems to be a lot of 'what ifs and maybes' rather than any real evidence or proof that such an idea could actually be workable in the real world.
What it does fail to address, is why we have such a disproportionate property prices in certain areas, which in turn place local authorities under so much strain regarding housing. The reason why social housing need is increasing, is because of the grossly overinflated housing market, a legacy of cheap and easy credit. Plus, too many developers have been able to snap up real estate too cheaply, planning permission given too easily, too many backhanders and brown envelopes slipped into politicians' briefcases, maybe.
London's docklands is a prime example; a run-down, delapidated area with massive unemployment and huge social problems. Land sold off for pennies to greedy developers, but where was the benefit to the existing population? Shoved aside so that the wealthy can have homes conveniently close to work. Until restrictions are imposed on such land-grabbing greed, this situation will continue.
The sell-off of council housing from the 80s has not delivered renewed social housing, which begs the question, where did all the money raised go? This proposal just seems like another get rich quick sheme designed to pull the wool over the eyes of the public, yet will probably just mean the government can then 'justify' another cut in top-rate tax for thier chums. Why anyone would trust this governemnt to do any different is beyond me.
The knee jerk lefty responses on here make me want to baton down the hatches even more. We have a lack of money (for many reasons, a lot to do with politicians playing poltics rather than managing the country for the benefit of the electorate), but everytime someone suggests anything practical there's a massive idealogically inspired out cry.
Bit like means testing benefits really, it's actually very logical and fair, make sure the money goes to the people who need it most, what's not to like? Ok means testing like previous council house sells offs have been handled very badly but that doesn't mean that the underlying concept is bad. If it's the way it's done that's bad and unfair lets attack that rather than the actual policy.
In principle Thatcher's sell off of council houses was a brilliant idea and could have significantly benefited society, people became owner occupiers and off benefits, easy renewal of the social housing stock with more modern homes, more social housing could've been built where it was most needed big council estates could have become more diverse so rather than ghettoising the poorer people as the initial big builds in the 50s had done communties could've become more mixed.
Unfortuantely Thatcher implemented the policy for the wrong reasons, i.e. more home owners, more Tory voters allegedly, the money should have all been funnelled back into new housing (criminal it wasn't) and the rates people were asked to pay should've been nearer to market value. Criminal implementation doesn't mean the original idea was bad.
At the end of the day we live in a capitalist society, being able to live in a nicer area, have a better standard of living is linked to income. It's what drives most people, it's the way our society is structured. Other approaches have been tried and we know how well many of those ended (although not wanting to shoot my own arguments above maybe that's the way communism was implemented rather than the underlying idea 😉
The knee jerk lefty responses on here make me want to baton down the hatches even more. We have a lack of money (for many reasons, a lot to do with politicians playing poltics rather than managing the country for the benefit of the electorate), but everytime someone suggests anything practical there's a massive idealogically inspired out cry.
I don't see many 'knee jerk lefty responses', i just see reasonable criticism and opposition to a proposal which is is highly flawed. Essentially, it's a proposal designed to create further social division, masquerading as a revenue generating scheme. a sop to the rich, with no consideration of the poor.
it's a proposal designed to create further social division, masquerading as a revenue generating scheme. a sop to the rich, with no consideration of the poor.
Whereas leaving 1.8 million people on the social housing waiting list is preventing social division and [i]is[/i] considerate of the poor??
Seems to me that plenty of people invest in property and benefit from property prices rising. Seems a bit odd to prevent our social housing budget from benefiting in the same way.
Of course I wouldn't trust a Tory as far as I could kick them, but I've nothing against the principal, provided suitable legal safeguards were put in place to stop them fing up the implementation.
Where will they build these new cheaper houses?
anywhere in Devon with room to swing a cat would seem to be the answer to that question from where I'm standing..
I don't see many 'knee jerk lefty responses'
here's one for you:
Essentially, it's a proposal designed to create further social division, masquerading as a revenue generating scheme. a sop to the rich, with no consideration of the poor.
That isn't really a knee-jerk lefty response though, is it? It's a statement of fact!
Are you somehow unfamiliar with the Tory Party's raison d'etre?
Seems some very mixed up people on here, torys' act in their interests, they do not act in the interests of the working class, why any body should think they have altruistic ideas about helping 'those less fortunate' -- live in a different world.
The money from previous sell-offs was ring fenced and not allowed to be used for building new houses--- the policy was and is one of destruction of 'alternatives' to the 'market'-- ideology drives these creatures, sure they are just kite flying at the moment, but thats how the unthinkable starts to become the do able-- personally don't think they going to last much longer-- forces out side of their control will see to that--(economics) allez
Whereas leaving 1.8 million people on the social housing waiting list is preventing social division and is considerate of the poor??
If all the money raiesed were indeed to be reinvested in social housing, I'd agree that it's a great idea. But sadly only a fool would beleive that would actually happen.
The figures quoted are based on guesses about the amount in revenue raised, wereall the properties to be vacant. What if the tenants don't want to move, or are there for the next 10, 20 years or more? What would be the actual annual figures for revenue raised? i doubt they'd be in any way sufficient to build the amount of new social housing as the report suggests. The governemnt isn't suddenly going to have all that money at it's disposal to build new social housing with.
And to echo a previous comment; where will they build these new social housing developments?
And to echo a previous comment; where will they build these new social housing developments?
again.. in future, I think we can all expect a lot more of [url= http://www.exeterandeastdevon.gov.uk/Cranbrook/ ]this[/url] and [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-16072741 ]this[/url]
If all the money raiesed were indeed to be reinvested in social housing, I'd agree that it's a great idea. But sadly only a fool would beleive that would actually happen.
So, like me you agree in principal, but don't trust the Tories/Guvmnt so would want to see legal safeguards in the implementation?
The figures quoted are based on guesses about the amount in revenue raised, were all the properties to be vacant. What if the tenants don't want to move, or are there for the next 10, 20 years or more?
I thought the figures were based on the [i]"3.5% of the total stock becomes vacant every year owing to people moving out or dying"[/i], as mentioned in the article?
Essentially, it's a proposal designed to create further social division, masquerading as a revenue generating scheme
it's shocking that a proposal to ruin communities by having people buying council houses gets any air time. They clearly have no respect for the values of such communities and want to destroy their identity by moving people from outside social housing in to these area's.
where are the community leaders? they need to be organising response to ensure that this gets no further
And to echo a previous comment; where will they build these new social housing developments?
exactly how can you sentence future inner city communities to dispersal onto former brownfield sites or even worse the suburbs. How can future social cohesion be achieved in the aftermath of such a policy? Where are the large social housing projects of the future going to be?
Why should someone have the right to live somewhere they can't afford?
That isn't really a knee-jerk lefty response though, is it? It's a statement of fact!Are you somehow unfamiliar with the Tory Party's raison d'etre?
So basing your response on what you consider to be the "Tory Party's raison d'etre" isn't a knee-jerk lefty response? 🙄
Not really. I based my answer not on assumptions, but on an analysis of this proposed policy. Amazingly, and completely unexpectedly, it would appear to be as self-serving and divisive as the huge majority of other Tory Policies
Who'd have thunk it eh? 🙄
"given to the needy and vulnerable" - if only it were so!
xiphon - Member
Why should someone have the right to live somewhere they can't afford?
exactly, we should build more social housing in expensive areas in order to reduce house prices in those area's, that way vibrant communities can exist without being excluded due to their personal economic situation
But surely you must look back years ago when people in social housing could stay in the same property for life regardless of how many were in the family?
I thought the figures were based on the "3.5% of the total stock becomes vacant every year owing to people moving out or dying", as mentioned in the article?
But if there is such a high demand for social housing, then surely as soon as a property becomes vacant, then people needing housing will be housed there, meaning it will therefore no longer be vacant and not available to sell?
If an immediate replacemnt was available, then fair enough. But it's not. There is a massive shortfall, hence the enormous social housing bill of which a large chunk is to pay private landlords 9often for exactly the same properties which were once council owned, but now at a grossly inflated rate). S, has rthe think tank come up with an idea to ensure alternative, equivalent and suitable housing is already in existence before the 'valuable' properties are sold off? Or is it yet more 'we'll sell it off then we'll think about the next satge' type policy our governemnts seem so keen on?