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?
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.
Being teribly right wing about it, becuase...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...
