Current Affairs The General Election

[roydo]

Right to Buy is a fantastic policy.

Not replenishing the housing stock with the money generated isn't a fantastic policy.

They go hand in hand.

There will be thousands of affordable apartments available once the boomers pop off, and the plethora of retirement complexes lie empty. Trouble is, thats a few decades off still.

 

[roydo]

It helps if you include all of both posts

Was a bit selective, granted. But you did accuse the Tories of selling off the houses, but then said it was a good policy.

 

[tsubaki]

Was a bit selective, granted. But you did accuse the Tories of selling off the houses, but then said it was a good policy.

Sorry if that wasn't clear, but the point was actually that the Tories sold them all off so Pete shouldn't try to claim credit for giving people council houses.

 

[roydo]

Sorry if that wasn't clear, but the point was actually that the Tories sold them all off so Pete shouldn't try to claim credit for giving people council houses.

Gotcha.

 

[peteblue]

Right to Buy is a fantastic policy.

Not replenishing the housing stock with the money generated isn't a fantastic policy.

They go hand in hand.

This really, People should be given a leg up and having shown commitment to an area should be allowed to benefit, because they will look after their investment. But, as you say, all the money, including previous rent paid minus costs etc, should be reinvested in doing similar. Personally I would like to see every private development mixed with social housing, without any barriers or obvious lack of style or facilities. Let people mix.....

 

[peteblue]

Sorry if that wasn't clear, but the point was actually that the Tories sold them all off so Pete shouldn't try to claim credit for giving people council houses.

They didn’t sell them all off, not that I would complain if they did. I am a great believer in allowing people to own their own homes.....

 

[Tubey]

This really, People should be given a leg up and having shown commitment to an area should be allowed to benefit, because they will look after their investment. But, as you say, all the money, including previous rent paid minus costs etc, should be reinvested in doing similar. Personally I would like to see every private development mixed with social housing, without any barriers or obvious lack of style or facilities. Let people mix.....

Doesn't work in affluent areas. Even where it's been attempted we've seen "poor doors" installed in apartments for the cheaper flats etc.

I think there has to be an element of reality when trying to deal with this though. Money will inevitably give you access to better things. I personally have no idea how to solve a problem like social segregation; it is pretty ingrained to how our culture works. To be honest, every country on earth has the same problem - so unless pure communism existed then there will be haves and have nots.

 

[peteblue]

Doesn't work in affluent areas. Even where it's been attempted we've seen "poor doors" installed in apartments for the cheaper flats etc.

I think there has to be an element of reality when trying to deal with this though. Money will inevitably give you access to better things. I personally have no idea how to solve a problem like social segregation; it is pretty ingrained to how our culture works. To be honest, every country on earth has the same problem - so unless pure communism existed then there will be haves and have nots.

Outside of cities, rich and poor rub along with each other quite well tbh....

 

[Tubey]

Outside of cities, rich and poor rub along with each other quite well tbh....

Pipe dream to have it universal.

I've got no problem with some places being better than others - it's a fact of life. The important thing though is social mobility - creating equal opportunities to better yourself. There's no reason why state facilities should differ from area to area. A school in Kirkby should be just as good as one anywhere else, as should health care provision, care homes etc.

 

[summerisle]

A new day, another report 'delayed' ; one repressive government this.

Fury as decision on police watchdog inquiry into PM shelved until after election

Labour ‘shocked’ as police watchdog freezes investigation into Jennifer Arcuri scandal

www.theguardian.com

 

[tsubaki]

Doesn't work in affluent areas. Even where it's been attempted we've seen "poor doors" installed in apartments for the cheaper flats etc.

I think there has to be an element of reality when trying to deal with this though. Money will inevitably give you access to better things. I personally have no idea how to solve a problem like social segregation; it is pretty ingrained to how our culture works. To be honest, every country on earth has the same problem - so unless pure communism existed then there will be haves and have nots.

It does work if the government actively wants to do it. I live in a mixed development (built under Livingstone's old policy of only allowing developments if there was a decent % of social and affordable housing on site) and it works really well - everyone gets on, almost all the businesses on the development are thriving (the one exception to the rule was a restaurant that was way overpriced), and there is none of the sort of antisocial behaviour that comes from flats being unoccupied. Although the developers did put in a few annoying little reminders of how much they didn't want to build the cheap flats, they did it and I have a home as a result.

 

[The binman chronicles]

So selling them wasn't a problem really, it was not building more homes?

It is sensible to sell them off at a certain point, eventually they will need refurbishment and maintenance work which will cost the council money. Once the houses have been paid off and the reduced value that you sell them to the current tenant is enough to build a new house then why not?

It will also help the people who never thought they would own their own home to do so and hopefully they'll see the benefits of equity and be able to spend a bit more than they might of, this will put money back into businesses and with luck grow the economy. Even without that they would still ease the burden of accommodation costs into retirement. Win-win.

The trick is to continue building more and keep the cycle turning every 30 or so years.

 

[NilSatisOptimum]

I don't think it was a bad thing to allow council house tenants to buy their homes. The bad thing was not investing that money in building more of them, because of all the problems it has led to.

Right to buy is good in principle, however, successive governments since 1979 have purposely created a set of circumstances that make it economically infeasible for local authorities to build social housing stock... MPs who have a sideline in being the private landlord I believe round 1 in 5, have no real desire to change what local authorities can and can't do to replnish housing stock, why would they, and why would any private landlord want increased competition!?

 

[Kurt.]

“ Lord Blunkett has described his ”despair” at the ”anti-Semitism and thuggery“ in the Labour Party and suggested Jeremy Corbyn is on course for a 1983-style drubbing at the polls.
The former Labour home secretary said the party is “plagued by intolerance and division” which made the chances of a Corbyn majority “extraordinarily slim”.
He suggested the best Labour could hope for was another hung parliament, and urged moderates within the party to “stay and fight” to make sure “the voice of reason” prevailed.....

Not looking too good for Corbyn now is it.....these voices will only be amplified in the coming weeks....So to all you Labour supporters, who is right Corbyn or Blunkett ?.......

Ken Clarke

 

[summerisle]

The stench is palpable