Manc in London
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 6 Aug 2008
- Messages
- 8,502
Limiting RTB is a good thing. Temporary accommodation is a major contributing factor to some councils being on the brink of financial disaster
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Labour Government
- Thread starter SkyBlueFlux
- Start date
Limiting RTB is a good thing. Temporary accommodation is a major contributing factor to some councils being on the brink of financial disaster
Johnny Mars Bar
Well-Known Member
You're love of starmer is wierd where no criticism can be made in your eyes.
he was negative about trump, he should at least have the balls to leep to his conviction when it comes to the orange ****
insinuating my opinion is student politics pretty sad really, show a clear lack of debating skills.
I can say why I think starmer and lammy are what I said, their responses could have been diplomatic while also criticising the man and a sending a strong message we will not be party to amy of his bollocks, instead they backtracked and gave a weak response.
But carry on all who think polittics is about blindly followingno matrer what and not challenging when necessary.
Raynor is also a disapointment with her bollocks about tge vice president too.
Whatever the perceived shortcomings of the government, we can be thankful you’re not in charge of foreign relations at least.
another that is missing the point, funny that the ones who also missed it are still liking posts that mtp.Limiting RTB is a good thing. Temporary accommodation is a major contributing factor to some councils being on the brink of financial disaster
tommybooth
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2008
- Messages
- 5,294
Right to buy a ship hole. Lovely.
Brewster's millions
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 9 Apr 2012
- Messages
- 3,784
And not paying the correct tax on it when they sell it as well.People who bought their own homes via the right to buy scheme stopping the right to buy scheme for a lot of people.
The people's party.
Colin Bells Boots
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 17,561
- Team supported
- Manchester City
And not paying the correct tax on it when they sell it as well.
Lectures on corruption from a Tory supporter is so hypocritical.
I wouldn't know about that tbh but I'd imagine all MP's do these things, similar with the second home con they had been getting away with for years.And not paying the correct tax on it when they sell it as well.
The perfect fumble
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 24,463
This is a bizarre conversation, if you believe the housing crisis must be solved, just holding that belief means you're recognising a social need that as a society we have an obligation to solve, you've moved beyond "the market will solve all" to recognising it won't, because the market is not driven by social need, it's driven by profit. You've moved beyond "who gives a fuck?, I'm all alright" or even Scrooge's position of "Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses" to recognising that this is an issue for us as a society, in a way the Victorians, for the most part, did not.
So if the market will not solve this problem, and you believe that it is a social need that must be solved, then the state must try to solve it and they must build social housing (the clue is in the name) to solve this social problem, and they must retain that social housing to continue to address this problem into the future, so right to buy can fuck off.
So if the market will not solve this problem, and you believe that it is a social need that must be solved, then the state must try to solve it and they must build social housing (the clue is in the name) to solve this social problem, and they must retain that social housing to continue to address this problem into the future, so right to buy can fuck off.
The problem is who is going to pay for that social housing?This is a bizarre conversation, if you believe the housing crisis must be solved, just holding that belief means you're recognising a social need that as a society we have an obligation to solve, you've moved beyond "the market will solve all" to recognising it won't, because the market is not driven by social need, it's driven by profit. You've moved beyond "who gives a fuck?, I'm all alright" or even Scrooge's position of "Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses" to recognising that this is an issue for us as a society, in a way the Victorians, for the most part, did not.
So if the market will not solve this problem, and you believe that it is a social need that must be solved, then the state must try to solve it and they must build social housing (the clue is in the name) to solve this social problem, and they must retain that social housing to continue to address this problem into the future, so right to buy can fuck off.
If we need say 100,000 social houses then land values and the cost of building will see each house cost at least £100-200k so that's £10-20bn. If Labour could fill it then that's the Tory budget black hole gone already and not a penny has been spent on anything else.
It's also arguable that the main demand pressure on housing is immigration. The foreign born population is the only part of the UK population that is growing given birth rates are otherwise falling. I know immigrants are last in line for social housing but they still represent a huge part of total housing demand.
I'm in favour of immigration but there's a conversation needed as to whether we can truly cope with the current amounts.
Churchlawtonblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Dec 2013
- Messages
- 14,823
As usual, people are getting confused on here between a lack of housing, people having right you buy and landlords renting properties.
Rightly or wrongly you may fundamentally dissagree with landlords buying houses and renting them to earn a living, or governments of whichever persuasion giving people the right to buy social housing. However, as long as those houses are occupied this does not lead to a lack of affordable housing.
Landlords will rent out properties at the market rate and this is determined by supply.
The thing that leads to a lack of housing is simply demand outstripping supply. As a country we were building about 300 to 350 thousand housing units a year in the seventies, this dropped to about to about 200 thousand units in 80s and then dropped further in the 90s and the 2000s, where arround the global financial crisis we were building a low of about 120 thousand units a year. This has risen since then to 170 to 200 thousand units.
Compare this with our population, which was pretty steady with little or no growth during the 70s and 80s, since the mid nineties our population has been going up by 1 to 2 percent on average a year and in some years significantly more.
The simple fact is as a country we havent been building enough houses to accomodate everyone living here. This is the main reason for the ridiculous house and rental costs.
The reasons for us not building enough houses is complicated, but essentially the issues revolve arround an increasingly complicated and longwinded planning process combined with a lack of affordable money in the system, with the latter primarilly driven by interest rates.
Rightly or wrongly you may fundamentally dissagree with landlords buying houses and renting them to earn a living, or governments of whichever persuasion giving people the right to buy social housing. However, as long as those houses are occupied this does not lead to a lack of affordable housing.
Landlords will rent out properties at the market rate and this is determined by supply.
The thing that leads to a lack of housing is simply demand outstripping supply. As a country we were building about 300 to 350 thousand housing units a year in the seventies, this dropped to about to about 200 thousand units in 80s and then dropped further in the 90s and the 2000s, where arround the global financial crisis we were building a low of about 120 thousand units a year. This has risen since then to 170 to 200 thousand units.
Compare this with our population, which was pretty steady with little or no growth during the 70s and 80s, since the mid nineties our population has been going up by 1 to 2 percent on average a year and in some years significantly more.
The simple fact is as a country we havent been building enough houses to accomodate everyone living here. This is the main reason for the ridiculous house and rental costs.
The reasons for us not building enough houses is complicated, but essentially the issues revolve arround an increasingly complicated and longwinded planning process combined with a lack of affordable money in the system, with the latter primarilly driven by interest rates.