[Closed] Getting rid of the frightful lower orders from nice areas...

Or is it yet more 'we'll sell it off then we'll think about the next stage' type policy our governments seem so keen on?

Put your house on it! 😉

Can't tell if big_n_daft is trolling or not... 😕

big_n_daft> exactly, we should build more social housing in expensive areas in order to reduce house prices in those area's

Yeah... why build 20 social houses in an affordable area when you can use the same budget to build 4 houses in an expensive area...?

mikeconnor> 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?

Selling that house and using the money to build two or three more seems like a better long term strategy, both for dealing with the demand and for providing jobs.

Why should someone have the right to live somewhere they can't afford?

"You" need these people to work in your shops, clean your streets, look after you in your hospitals, look after your children etc.

If there are no locals to do this your quality of life will drop as you will either have to pay more for services so people can earn a living wage or pay to import labour at a higher price.

A fair point. A similar thing happened in LA a few years back. The bus drivers threatened to go on strike. The rich population collectively shrugged and said "so ****ing what! Who uses public transport anyway?"

They quickly discovered exactly who! Their cleaners, childcare staff, gardeners etc. The whole thing was resolved very quickly, when they went a few days without their pools being cleaned

I assume the same thing would happen here. The Tory posh boys wouldn't think for a minute about where their serfs actually come from!

The Tory posh boys wouldn't think for a minute about where their serfs actually come from!

The scullery and stables?

This is just like the 70's.

If there are no locals to do this your quality of life will drop as you will either have to pay more for services so people can earn a living wage or pay to import labour at a higher price.

Either way it serves to reduce inequality, so, this a good thing, then, yes?

Oh Dear God! Is this the fabled trickle down economics

[img] [/img]

[i]In principle Thatcher's sell off of council houses was a brilliant idea and could have significantly benefited society[/i]

It wasn't Thatchers idea, the ability to buy your council house has always existed - just at the market rate... What she did was (almost) gerry-mandering.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Buy

I based my answer not on assumptions, but on an analysis of this proposed policy.

Your analysis? So based on your assumptions then...

Is all analysis just assumptions then? Or just left wing analysis? Or all analysis you don't agree with? Or just mine?

Is all analysis just assumptions then?

Generally yes - it's just that some assumptions have a better basis than others. I just thought it a rather funny way to defend yourself from accusations of knee-jerk leftyism. Particularly when you come out with gems like "as self-serving and divisive as the huge majority of other Tory Policies".

So [i]if[/i] the think tank's proposals were to become policy to the letter, (long shot), who would be charged with building these new social housing projects? Private companies?

If there was somewhere to build them, would there be a building program based on the amount of sold off properties? Would a local authority build say 10 new social houses on a plot of land? Or would they green light the building of large new estates on greenfield sites where only 10 of the houses were social houses?

I've seen the latter happen first hand. And it doesn't work.

So your assumption is that Tory policies aren't in fact self-serving and divisive at all?

I think even the most cursory appraisal of their record would prove, pretty conclusively, that they are!

So your assumption is that Tory policies aren't in fact self-serving and divisive at all?

You mean like:
"We will make Network Rail more accountable to its customers."
"We will continue to be an active and activist participant in the European Union, with the goal of ensuring that Europe is equipped to face the challenges of the 21st century: global competitiveness, global warming and global poverty."
"We will maintain Britain's nuclear deterrent, and have agreed that the renewal of Trident should be scrutinised to ensure value for money."
"We will work with the Mayor of London to ensure a safe and successful Olympic and Paralympic Games in London in 2012, and deliver a genuine and lasting legacy."
"We will use our relationships with other countries to push for unequivocal support for gay rights and for UK civil partnerships to be recognised internationally."

?

i live in social housing, luckily i am in wales, where we have an assembly that has stopped the right to buy, the biggest house building that ever happened where i live occured in 1935-- over 1000 homes were built by the local authority, in a time of recession, money was borrowed over a long period, it is still considered one of the most progressive things they have ever done, where there's a will there is a way.

This is a small place, population 15,000-- so that was a monumental undertaking -- those houses are still in great nick, and much sought after

Up here the Council has sold whole estates to Housing trusts(which are NOT tenant owned.)They then went as far as evict tenants where they wanted to clear old stock and start again. Hence my post about how the council can sell your house from under you. It already happens,The plastering firm I worked for had the maintenance contract before and after.Guess when people's homes were better maintained?

The big con -- housing associations, trusts, they are all unaccountable, as you say duckman, the service will be worse, the rights go for a burton and a general malaise sets in.......

I used to work for a local council in building maintenance, we were 'turned' into a new housing association-- guess what all the execs had 60% salary increases, us on the sharp end had sweet fa, the service has since gone west......... i am out of there, is was getting very depressing.....

You're proclaiming the shambles of our privatised rail system as some grand philanthropic gesture?

Sweet baby Jesus and the orphans! That really doesn't even warrant a reply

But as you're on a right-wing roll, do feel free to add how handing over the NHS to rabidly money-grubbing American Corporations will be a huge benefit to everyone in society, in particular the most needy......

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]
🙂

aracer- are you a WUM- do not believe you can put that tripe on here and expect a serious response

You mean like:
"We will make Network Rail more accountable to its customers."
"We will continue to be an active and activist participant in the European Union, with the goal of ensuring that Europe is equipped to face the challenges of the 21st century: global competitiveness, global warming and global poverty."
"We will maintain Britain's nuclear deterrent, and have agreed that the renewal of Trident should be scrutinised to ensure value for money."
"We will work with the Mayor of London to ensure a safe and successful Olympic and Paralympic Games in London in 2012, and deliver a genuine and lasting legacy."
"We will use our relationships with other countries to push for unequivocal support for gay rights and for UK civil partnerships to be recognised internationally."

Just words. Any Government can say this, but in reality a little harder to quantify what the outcomes will be as no targets have been set. Also a distraction from the main topic here, which I would expect nothing less from a current Government supporter.

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?

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.

The Government has produced many ridiculous policies over the past ten years, from tax credits to the Millennium Dome, but none are as bafflingly pointless as John Prescott’s Pathfinder scheme.

In 2003, the then-Deputy Prime Minister’s plan to rejuvenate collapsing property markets in many northern cities – including Liverpool, Manchester and Hull – and build sustainable communities was announced to much fanfare.

The plan was to “bring back to life those areas where there is low demand for housing and where, in the worst cases, homes have been abandoned”, said Prescott. And the way to create this nirvana? Bulldoze 90,000 ‘slum’ houses.

The idea of knocking down houses to compensate for a lack of demand at a time when the rest of the UK was undergoing a property boom (which all the pundits liked to put down to a shortage of affordable properties) didn’t make much sense, even at the time. And now, four years later, it’s been revealed as the most ill-thought-out policy the Labour government has ever introduced.

Many people have been evicted from their homes with no thought of where they should go, thousands of structurally sound buildings have been demolished and many more derelict estates created as a result of demolitions and renovations being held up in the planning stages. “Given its performance to date, it is hard to think of another programme that was trumpeted with as much fanfare, but which has hit so many wrong notes,” says Edward Leigh, chairman of the Public Accounts Committee.

The first problem with the plan rapidly became apparent. Why spend hundreds of thousands of pounds and many years demolishing rows of terraced houses that could be renovated for half the cost and in a fraction of the time?

In 2005, the Tonight With Trevor McDonald show highlighted this flaw by sending two experts to renovate a terraced house in Toxteth, Liverpool. In two weeks the pair spent £24,000 on turning the house into a desirable two-bedroom home valued at £65,000. That’s only £6,000 more than the £18,000 cost of demolishing the building and considerably less than the cost of building a new one on the site. Best of all, the house was affordable – the homes that were planned to replace that terrace were expected to sell for around £140,000. With so many first-time buyers being priced out of the market and the Government pushing various shared-ownership schemes to help, where was the sense in a plan purposely to inflate property prices?

The second signs of trouble appeared when the Government began trying to issue compulsory purchase orders. What John Prescott and his team may have regarded as slums, many people called home; they didn’t want to leave. Especially as there was a sizeable gap – around £35,000 – between the £28,000 they were to be given for their home and the price of a typical new house in the area. On top of this, property investors swooped in and bought streets of abandoned houses in order to make a profit from the compulsory purchase orders. These factors ended up “putting the overall bill up by £50m over five years”, reports the National Audit Office. 

The final evidence of the stupidity of the scheme was released last week when the National Audit Office published a report saying that it was “not possible to identify a causal link” between the Pathfinder programme and changes in the local property markets. Prices have gone up, but that’s been the case across the entire country. So the £2.2bn project has achieved no visible results. And yet the Government has just assigned a further £1bn to the Pathfinder scheme.

In any case, it’s almost impossible to work out exactly what the Government was hoping to achieve anyway. The idea that improving houses in isolation and driving up the prices can somehow regenerate areas bereft of jobs and decent infrastructure is hopelessly naive. Even estate agents know that the key to finding a decent home is ‘location, location, location’.

So we are left with a baffling policy that has led to 10,200 houses being demolished, 1,000 built and 37,000 fell derelict awaiting the bulldozer. And for what? Because the Government was horrified that houses were selling for “as little as £5,000”.

You're proclaiming the shambles of our privatised rail system as some grand philanthropic gesture?

I don't think I said that - I'll just check back...

...nope - I seem to have suggested that making Network Rail accountable to its customers isn't a bad thing. That isn't quite the same is it?

But as you're on a right-wing roll

Am I? Well I suppose if pointing out how your rabid hatred for anything the Tories do (even if they happen to accidentally do something good) makes you a knee-jerk lefty is something only somebody to the right of Genghis Khan would do, then guilty as charged.

rudebwoy - well clearly I was right not to expect an intelligent response from you.

Just words.

They appear to be policies. In the same way all policies are "just words". I presume they must all be part of binners' "huge majority", as it's hard to understand how I'd have found them if they were part of the other tiny minority.

PSA discussed on Newsnight BBC2 now

They appear to be policies.

They appear to be pretty woolly "policies" at the best; and all pretty difficult to measure. I can't think of any centre left or centre right government that [i]wouldnt[/i] have those policies at present. So they're not setting themselves apart as a force for change for the better with those ones.

Newsnight.

So policy exchange made the statement:

"people should not be offered council houses that are worth more than the average house in their local authority".

73% agreed.
86% Tory voters agreed. So the Tories run with it because it "polled" well.

Well, yeah, when you put it like that... Jesus wept.

Newsnight - Tory caricature - hard to tell if it was Harry Enfield or not.

They picked him well. I bet he wears red trousers at the weekend. 🙂

We will continue to be an active and activist participant in the European Union, with the goal of ensuring that Europe is equipped to face the challenges of the 21st century: global competitiveness, global warming and global poverty."

Would love to see the reaction in here if Tories declared that the Pope was Catholic and Bears Crap in the woods.

Even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day.

It is not a great leap to assume that a reasonable % of tories and their MP's are somewhat Eurosceptic.

There is a reason I picked that one from the "Europe" list 😉 There are some others in that section which are rather more what you'd expect (though still hardly self-serving and divisive).

Where as you can believe the Labour Party

Right wingers. They just don't like it up 'em.

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.

We're you just hoping to shock with this unbelievably dumb & immature statement or is ths really what you believe?!

There are 2.2 million empty properties in the uk, most are second homes,speculative investments, or derelicts,is it right to allow them to remain empty when people are desperate for places to live, preferably near where they are from / work-- no doubt the right wingers will say tuff titty-- how people have worked 'hard' blah blah blah---- personally can't understand the obsession of 'owning' a place to live-- its a human right -- food clothes and shelter--

personally can't understand the obsession of 'owning' a place to live-- its a human right -- food clothes and shelter--

Nice idea, how are they to be provided and funded? Are you advocating the government acquiring second homes/houses?

And is it a right to be housed, no matter what, surely if the state is providing it is appropriate to apply some condition to the provision - location etc?

Not saying you are wrong, just that you invite some interesting questions.

yes it is a job for the state, for economic reasons alone homes are needed where employment exists-- the great housing initiative after the war was an example--- homes fit for heroes etc-- ironically they are still fit, but mostly 'sold' off in attempts to destroy social housing.

Now we have the destroyers attempting to gerrymander what is left of 'desirable' stock for their own ends

The provision and conditions would be the idea that abuse of the housing system would be a crime against the community-- everyone would get a chance, but if you wreck your house thats it-- you don't get another, use the national insurance system as a check--

Creating responsibility won't happen overnight, but if people beleive they have 'collective ownership' then things change very quickly-- accountability is key to make this succeed-- none of this is rocket science-- its ideological yes-- for the good of all-- not the profit of a few !

its ideological yes-- for the good of all-- not the profit of a few !

And therefore goes absolutely against every single principle* of everything the Tory's represent

*such as they are

There are 2.2 million empty properties in the uk, most are second homes,speculative investments, or derelicts,is it right to allow them to remain empty when people are desperate for places to live, preferably near where they are from / work

Hmm - the question is how many of those 2.2m are near where the homeless live/work, and how many in areas with no work, or for example in holiday areas which are nice to visit in the summer - and might do seasonal work - but not so handy for relocating the homeless to out of season?

Don't sit on the fence, binners.

Binners do you not like tories?

Good effort Binners, there was almost a rational discourse beginning - good to get than stamped out before it flourished into something interesting! 😉

I think Binners underestimates the evil, yes evil, of both the tories and Policy Exchange.

Their report, and the comments on the news yesterday "we think there should be social housing" (How genorously magnanimous of them!) but that social housing shouldn't be 'better' then that that would be available to 'workers' living there (as if all social housing tennants are unemployed) showed up their underlying prejudice, and how they seek to foster snide envy and division. There is more I could say about Policy Exchange and their ilk but the STW swear fliter would go into meltdown.

Debate? STW? Are you mad. Much better to have a bigoted rant than discuss and develop an argument. Shame really.

@rudebwoy - in principle it sounds reasonable. However, a lot of the property and holiday homes etc are the result of people's endeavours based upon the economic conditions prevailing at the time.

It would be punitive in the extreme to simply sequester the assets of people who have sought to better themselves and acquire these assets.

They have not all been acquired by wealthy landlords seeking to deprive a segment of society of their housing. Many have been acquired as holiday homes for themselves or as a business, buy to let, or as investments for their children. So defining an empty house would be an interesting exercise.

Proximity to employment is a challenge - I worked in Cornwall for a few years and there would be a lot of empty houses (at the time the MOD owned a lot of ex navy houses, all of which were boarded up) but they were not close to places of employment.

It would be interesting to know what proportion of the 2.2 million were in locations that would afford access to work, transport links to work or areas where employment may be generated by sustainable enterprise (not by skewing the economy with subsidies/grants/incentives which cause the employers to relocate to chase the funding).

rudebwoy, I'd vote for you - you talk much sense.

The problem is not so much Tories (who will always do what Tories do) but ideologies which reduce every social relation to market relations - and hasn't the dear old Labour Party been guilty of that?

Another aspect of this 'marketised cleansing' is that one of the groups it is likely to particularly effect are people with complex disabilities, who will need more space for access reasons, equipment, live-in carers, etc.

And taking the North Westminster/ North Kensington examples, not to mention many parts of Camden, Islington but not sadly Wandsworth any more, one of the real joys of living in London has been the mixed and diverse communities, often cheek-by-jowl with each other, with huge cultural ranges of expression - food, music, streetlife. Do we really want inner-city wealthy suburbs and condo-ghettos with armed guards - do we want episodes like the poor black kid who got popped by some vigilante nutter in the wealthy bit of a Southern US city recently?

its this chant 'there is no alternative' - that is echoed by the 'dear' old labour party , that is ball ocks, there are alternatives-- but they do not like them - --- yes i know its not in their (selfish) interest, but for the vast majority of humanity it is, the waste of peoples talent and resources under capitalism is a crime.

You should always judge a society by how it treats the sick,the vulnerable and the elderly,not by GDP, house prices etc

You should always judge a society by how it treats the sick,the vulnerable and the elderly,not by GDP, house prices etc

Couldn't agree more. All any politicians understand is the bottom line. Particularly the venomously nasty Tory Party under Cameron. They know the price of everything, and the value of nothing!

The better half works in the Charity/third sector and what is happening to the disabled and most disadvantaged in our society under the guise of this farcical 'Big Society' initiative is an absolute scandal! The most vulnerable in our society are having the rug pulled from under them. Services they depend on for a half-way reasonable quality of life are completely withdrawn, the only alternative being well-meaning but powerless and unfunded 'volounteers'

And this from a party that then prioritises tax breaks for the very wealthiest

So... no... I don't like the Tories much. Because I see the results of their utterly cynical self interest, and limitless greed every day. And at the sharp end, its completely inhumane

This suggested policy, and the fundamental motivation behind it, is no different

And if any of you Tory apologists want to try and justify that.... you know.... the important stuff.... instead of waffling on about meaningless drivel like restoring accountability to Network Rail... do feel free.....

rudebwoy - Member
There are 2.2 million empty properties in the uk, most are second homes,speculative investments, or derelicts,is it right to allow them to remain empty when people are desperate for places to live, preferably near where they are from / work-- no doubt the right wingers will say tuff titty-- how people have worked 'hard' blah blah blah---- personally can't understand the obsession of 'owning' a place to live-- its a human right -- food clothes and shelter--

FYI there are 250,000 second homes in England according to the data i have in front of me, about 1%.

rogerthecat - Member
@rudebwoy - in principle it sounds reasonable. However, a lot of the property and holiday homes etc are the result of people's endeavours based upon the economic conditions prevailing at the time.

...

It would be interesting to know what proportion of the 2.2 million were in locations that would afford access to work, transport links to work or areas where employment may be generated by sustainable enterprise (not by skewing the economy with subsidies/grants/incentives which cause the employers to relocate to chase the funding).

There are 7500 second homes in Westminster and 7000 in Kensington and Chelsea.

Since the very wealthy make up a very small proportion of any society, they rely on others to do their dirty work for them, they are rewarded with salaries, nice homes and maybe even a gong for services rendered, ceelebs are great at this, rewarded for providing meaningless entertainment, the barking dogs in the work place to keep you in line, the snitches who think that brownosing is job security, all these apologists just go with the flow.......

I like the tories, they made it possible for my Gran to buy the house she had lived in for years.

Capt Jon, according to your sources-- how many Empty properties ?

It is never an exact science but looking at poll tax exemptions gives a clue,

rudebwoy - Member
Capt Jon, according to your sources-- how many Empty properties ?

It is never an exact science but looking at poll tax exemptions gives a clue

It only has data for second homes. But you're right about it not being an exact science. Some colleagues and i are about to start a research project examining the quality of this type of data. There are some anomalies in it which are quite interesting to explore

Edit - according to this [url= http://www.emptyhomes.com/statistics-2/ ]site[/url] there are 720,000 empty properties in England.

mt-- does it ever occur that after your gran, nobody elses gran gets a look in unless they have wealth ?

Capt j-- that sounds like good work, getting down to 'facts' is always interesting, but as you know some are buried deep to avoid detection....

You should always judge a society by how it treats the sick,the vulnerable and the elderly,not by GDP, house prices etc

I agree in part, but you seem to want to judge the government of the day by "society", unless you want a massive state infrastructure weaving it's way in to all aspects of life that's not a reasonable representation of the reality of "society". You disregard that "society" as a complex network of family, friends, businesses, charities and associations as well as local and national government as well as lot's of other stakeholders.

society is people, people care about family, friends, strangers, they volunteer time, they work for an income, people create things, people vote for the government of the day

not happy with the current situation? change it by being active not moaning on a t'interweb forum

mt - Member
I like the tories, they made it possible for my Gran to buy the house she had lived in for years

you and your Gran have been "gerrymandered" 😉

did it hurt?

It made her and a rather large number of people happy to purchase her council(former)house, it would seem that this has been possible under both major parties. Given that it's possible to buy a house in this area for less than a 100k I suspect that your personal wealth can be reasonable to become a property owner. What do you mean by wealth, is that money or personal happiness. What I mean is being content and enjoying what you have. If by chance, hardwork or good fortune more wealth, goods or property come your way, does this make you happier.

CaptJ -- i was extrapolating from the emptys, the second homes, the derelicts-- which are huge in some areas, and empty flats above/next to businesses, whichever way you dress it up there is a lot of unused property already out there, 1.8 million on the waiting lists , a lot could be done with the right policies, goes against tory ideology, so not holding my breath, but the wherewithall is there....

[img] [/img]

big n daft-- i am active, have been and always will be until my dying day, t'is in the blood ......

@CaptJon - of the two figs you quote for London Boroughs, does the data show the nature of these second homes - privately held not for rent, rental etc?

This smacks of perfect dissertation material for a Human Geog undergrad. Wonder if there's anything published.

rogerthecat - Member
@CaptJon - of the two figs you quote for London Boroughs, does the data show the nature of these second homes - privately held not for rent, rental etc?

No, just total numbers. The stats from the empty homes site does though.

This smacks of perfect dissertation material for a Human Geog undergrad. Wonder if there's anything published.

Yep - there will hopefully be one of our undergrads covering this very topic next year. There are a few things published, but the emphasis is on holiday homes. The data we have shows that the picture is much more complex - e.g. London boroughs have high numbers (including Tower Hamlets, btw), the usual suspects, but also other random places one wouldn't first think of.

Anyone who wants to understand the impact of social housing cleansing just needs to read about the impacts of splitting up communities when huge numbers of people were moved into tower blocks in the 1960s and 70s.

There appears to be a view that people in social housing live outwith home owners in a particular area. But this is just wrong. Just imagine being told you had to move 30 miles away - what would the consequences of that be for getting to work? see your friends? childcare? kids and school?

Some have argued nobody will be forced out of their homes. That is naive. Councils will just not renew tenancies for social houses in higher priced areas, effectively forcing people out so they can sell a home. It isn't a reason for not doing it, but this policy is ripe for abuse and corruption - if it is implemented, as well as a sufficient safety net for people at risk of homelessness, there needs to be tight examination of what is being sold and to whom.

I love the irony of some of the posts on this thread, it's criminal to stop people from living in areas they otherwise couldn't afford to live in but absolute fine to take away others properties that they've worked for. Not every person with a second home is a wealthy fat cat, many earn more than the average but do a job that justifies the salary.

The trouble with the more idealogical approaches (again ironic that the Tory polices are branded idealogical as an insult when much of the left wing claptrap being spouted on here is idealogical in the extreme) is that it requires fundamental flawed people to make sure they work properly. What capitalism does is provide a framework outside of society which is in most case self regulating and not directly influenced by the pettiness of the politcal whims.

We don't live in utopia, society is not ready for utopia, we've got to make the best of the resources we have got and attempt to steer the markets in direction that is generally percieved as beneficial for society. Even if we could live in utopia not everybodies idea of utopia is the same.

We don't live in utopia, society is not ready for utopia

Have you been to Leeds?

What capitalism does is provide a framework outside of society which is in most case self regulating

You mean like Barclays?

What capitalism does is provide a framework outside of society which is in most case self regulating

...yes, of course, just like kids in sweet shops. You know you've had enough when you spew all over your sailor suit.

is that it requires fundamental flawed people to make sure they work properly. What capitalism does is provide a framework outside of society which is in most case self regulating and not directly influenced by the pettiness of the politcal whims

Not only have you not thought that through you have defeated your own point.

You do realise that everything was self regulating until we had to regulate it because it remained fundamentally flawed.
oh yes of course you do

we've got to make the best of the resources we have got and attempt to steer the markets in direction that is generally percieved as beneficial for society

Ps making the best use of resources would probably involve folk not starving to death because they dont have any.

You do realise that everything was self regulating until we had to regulate it because it remained fundamentally flawed.
oh yes of course you do

when was this wonderul self-regulating period?

the bit before the regulation and if it was wonderful then there would have been no need to regulate 🙄

Some sharp tools coming out of the box on this thread, stumpyion you get the next policy initiative, with your grasp of knowledge, the jigsaw will remain unsolved, an OBE will be on its way.....

stumpyjon - Member
I love the irony of some of the posts on this thread, it's criminal to stop people from living in areas they otherwise couldn't afford to live in but absolute fine to take away others properties that they've worked for. Not every person with a second home is a wealthy fat cat, many earn more than the average but do a job that justifies the salary.

The trouble with the more idealogical approaches (again ironic that the Tory polices are branded idealogical as an insult when much of the left wing claptrap being spouted on here is idealogical in the extreme) is that it requires fundamental flawed people to make sure they work properly. What capitalism does is provide a framework outside of society which is in most case self regulating and not directly influenced by the pettiness of the politcal whims.

We don't live in utopia, society is not ready for utopia, we've got to make the best of the resources we have got and attempt to steer the markets in direction that is generally percieved as beneficial for society. Even if we could live in utopia not everybodies idea of utopia is the same.

Post of the day. So much wrong on so many levels. Must be a troll.

That's the sad part, he thinks he is having a dialogue, reckon he swallowed one of those marketing books

If these new house,s are built in areas where there are no jobs for the people that are forced to move there what is the point , or are we as a nation happy to have areas where no one works and live on benefits ?
Or will the government chose the areas to build has plenty of jobs going so people you are moved there have some future hopes to better themselves .

The flaw in this 'proposal' is the ignorance of the fact that many council homes in certain areas have had their values grossly inflated by the housing market. Some areas of London especially have seen some previously 'undesirable' properties reach ridiculous levels of 'value'; 1/2-bedroom flats selling for £400,000 and more. The properties mentioned in the report are extreme examples, and are unrepresentative of the vast majority of social housing. This proposal seems more about bolstering the stagnant property market (thus generating income for those fortunate enough to be able to afford to buy and sell property) than any genuine attempt to address the housing crisis.

At the end of the day is it not madness for a council to own say 10 high value homes that they could sell and build 20 homes of the same size in a less affluent part of the city. London is the most extreme where probably 95% of the population could not afford to live in Westminster, Richmond or Chelsea so why should there be council houses there. They are always going that there is not enough social housing so is it not best to utilise the value of the properties a council has to provide the most homes.

I agree that people should not be shipped out to areas where there are no jobs r the other end of the country but if I lost my job, fell on hard times and was given a council house would it be that bad to have to move across the city? It is a cheap house after all.

At the end of the day is it not madness for a council to own say 10 high value homes that they could sell and build 20 homes of the same size in a less affluent part of the city.

Why can't the 20 homes be built in the same affluent areas though?

Why do those who have to rely on social housing have to live in the 'less desirable' areas?' Is that not social segregation?

London is the most extreme where probably 95% of the population could not afford to live in Westminster, Richmond or Chelsea so why should there be council houses there

Why should there not be? Is it not a good idea for people of all walks of life to share where they live with others, regardless of wealth, background or culture?

I agree that people should not be shipped out to areas where there are no jobs r the other end of the country but if I lost my job, fell on hard times and was given a council house would it be that bad to have to move across the city? It is a cheap house after all.

Posted 9 seconds ago # Report-Post

But then again are their enough council owned houses or ones owned by social housiong landlords, you may well have to live in a really grotty bedsit, as thats all the la will pay for on HB, some are really terrible.

It may well be a cheap house compared to a mortgage, but will probably be grottier and in a worse area.