inky pete Posted November 26, 2010 Report Share Posted November 26, 2010 But Ink, what do the evicted Council tenents do, whilst waiting for the private sector rents to come down? The proposal is for fixed term tenancies only to apply to new tennants. So, as you well know, it would be a gradual process and there's no question of a flood of - or even any - "evictions". We're paying to subsidise the "private" railways, bailing out the banks etc etc. Both of which situations you've criticised on here in the past, are you now saying that they're justified because it suits your current argument to do so? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted November 26, 2010 Author Report Share Posted November 26, 2010 Nope, just stating it as a fact of life; so, given the the tax-payer tends to always pick up the tab; in this instance, it could be seen as an investment. Provide more Council Homes = reduced housing demand = cheaper housing overall = reduced mortgage levels. Or is that too far outside the box for you?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted November 27, 2010 Report Share Posted November 27, 2010 The same impact on house prices would apply with ANY major house building programme, whether state financed or private. The difference is that under current law, all of the tennants of these brand new council homes you advocate would after a few years gain the right to buy at a massive discount. So the taxpayer would then be subsidising home ownership on a massive scale, and pretty soon we'd have no more council houses available than we do now. Fixed term tennancies could avoid the right to buy issue. The powers that be already have direct control of the housing supply through planning law - without throwing billions of pounds of public money down the drain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted November 27, 2010 Author Report Share Posted November 27, 2010 "Right to buy" was a Tory invention, whereby, tax-payer's assets were sold off at knock down prices (is it ever the case); a policy retained by Tory Bliar & Co. IMO their should be no "right to buy". Think you need to scroll through a few examples of "the planning system" controlling or providing social housing - it hasn't worked; seems developers think, that a few ?200k houses on a ?500k estate, constitutes "social" housing! As with most things, the private sector is genetically and culturally incapable of altruistic intent, it's called the profit motive - it can have it's place in a controlled enviroment - but homelessness isn't one of them. Thus, the idea of a major "building prog" by the private sector is imo an oxymoron, simply because most folk can't afford to buy - take a look at Ireland's brand new ghost estates Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted November 27, 2010 Report Share Posted November 27, 2010 "Right to buy" was a Tory invention, whereby, tax-payer's assets were sold off at knock down prices (is it ever the case); a policy retained by Tory Bliar & Co. It's the law, and since it appears to be the policy of BOTH major parties there's no prospect of it changing any time soon. IMO their should be no "right to buy". Me too. But there is, so other measures need to take account of that fact. "Think you need to scroll through a few examples of "the planning system" controlling or providing social housing - it hasn't worked; seems developers think, that a few ?200k houses on a ?500k estate, constitutes "social" housing! I agree, but that just illustrates the ineptitude of the average local government organisation - particularly the planning and housing departments - that they allow developers to get planning permission on this basis. And you want to give these same departments billions and billions of pounds more to waste???? Developers will build what they think they're going to be able to sell - THAT'S the profit motive. They don't always get it right, but in the UK they've done pretty well out of it. They do build a mix of property types - how many 1 and 2 bed apartments have been built in Warrington over the past 5 years or so?? Hundreds and hundreds - many of them on part ownership schemes. Also every family which buys one of the ?500K houses you seem to dislike so much is one more family moving out of somewhere cheaper, which in turn free's up more houses further down the property scale. If you only build homes at the cheap end of the scale then there will be a shortage of bigger properties for people to move on to, which in turn will inflate the prices of the bigger houses which are available and result in families stuck in their starter homes and flats well beyond the point when they've outgrown them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted November 27, 2010 Author Report Share Posted November 27, 2010 We're back to the affordability issue; the majority of folk simply can't afford to buy, what's more, with the disappearance of "the job for life", repaying a mortgage has become an even more hazardous adventure. Building public sector housing for rent at the bottom end of the market, doesn't reduce demand at the top end at all; especially in a society with the widest wealth gap in recent history. The fact that "right to buy" is current legislation, doesn't mean it's fixed in stone forever, that's why we elect Governments - to change policies, not adhere to existing ones. The problem is, there is so little fundemental differences between the three main parties, that we might as well have a coalition of all three and make a one party State official! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted November 27, 2010 Report Share Posted November 27, 2010 I think you're right about a coalition of the 3 main parties Obs. That would create a space for an alternative party with policies that people may actualy want to vote for Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted February 5, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 Interesting that we are now being told that over a million private lettings are so badly maintained, they actually represent a danger to their tenants. Now, whilst this suddenly hasn't occured since the May Election, the policies of the Coalition appear garanteed to make things worse - scrapping Housing Benefits, Regulation and Legal Aid. So we're well on track backwards into a Dickensian past! One good thing, if the electrical wiring in some of these properties is so dangerous, the good news is that the occupants won't be able to afford electricity anyway, so back to candles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 What a strange post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 What a strange post Nothing new there! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoffrey Settle Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 There was a report and/or TV feature yesterday that looked at the lot of private tennants. The programme featured a young lady and the conditions that she lived in they were auwful but I think that she had nowhere else to go and perhaps had no idea of her rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 No idea of her rights is probably the point. Tenants have loads and loads of legal rights and protections - but many can't even be bothered to read their own tennancy agreements, never mind find out what their rights are and how to enforce them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 What a strange post You should be able to read between the lines by now Asperity. I'm getting worried as I understood what he was saying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoffrey Settle Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 Are you in the minority of one Pete? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 Are you in the minority of one Pete? Possibly, but I do speak from a position of knowledge through personal experience - as a tenant at various times in the past, a former landlord of a couple of rental properties, and as someone who's wife currently works in the residential property rental business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoffrey Settle Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 Are you in the minority of one Pete? Possibly, but I do speak from a position of knowledge through personal experience - as a tenant at various times in the past, a former landlord of a couple of rental properties, and as someone who's wife currently works in the residential property rental business. Sorry Inky Pete I meant Pete T Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 I appear to be in something of a minority too. That'll be down to my expectations of people taking responsibility for themselves, living within their own means rather than expecting life long hand-outs and subsidies, and having taxpayer funded support withdrawn when circumstances change and people no longer need it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 I appear to be in something of a minority too. That'll be down to my expectations of people taking responsibility for themselves, living within their own means rather than expecting life long hand-outs and subsidies, and having taxpayer funded support withdrawn when circumstances change and people no longer need it! Sadly it is a culture that successive governments have encouraged. There are generations who choose that life as the easy option, and it will never change until someone breaks the chain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted February 5, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 So Ink, you'd prefer to trip over these folk, begging in the street, assuming the most feckless scenario? The facts however, are slightly different, we're talking about a million desperate folk seeking ever cheaper rents (that they can afford), falling into the clutches of slum landlords, who have no interest in maintaining their properties. This according to the Chartered Institute of Enviromental Health. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.