CB Fry Posted 14 April, 2015 Posted 14 April, 2015 Fair's fair, the Conservative plan to flog housing association housing is beyond horrific. Cynical and completely counter-productive with regard to the housing challenge. Can imagine it receiving a rapturous response from some on here though, so mission accomplished.
aintforever Posted 14 April, 2015 Posted 14 April, 2015 Surely selling them off will just make a lack of social housing going forward? Seems daft to me.
whelk Posted 14 April, 2015 Posted 14 April, 2015 Fair's fair, the Conservative plan to flog housing association housing is beyond horrific. Cynical and completely counter-productive with regard to the housing challenge. Can imagine it receiving a rapturous response from some on here though, so mission accomplished. Yeah back to the good old days when Maggie gave the proles aspirations. all parties just seem to be full of idiots trying to think stuff up for fun. Ianucci's Management Consultant sketch springs to mind.
Torres Posted 14 April, 2015 Posted 14 April, 2015 Nothing wrong with giving people in council houses that chance to buy their own homes, assuming you believe that homeownership is a good thing. It only falls down if you don't build new social housing to replace that sold off.
Batman Posted 14 April, 2015 Posted 14 April, 2015 (edited) Fair's fair, the Conservative plan to flog housing association housing is beyond horrific. Cynical and completely counter-productive with regard to the housing challenge. Can imagine it receiving a rapturous response from some on here though, so mission accomplished. do not agree at all. Grew up in 'poverty' so to speak and when my mum/dad bought our council flat in 1993, it changed everything. moved us out of poverty and on the property ladder and none of us since have lived off the local government Edited 14 April, 2015 by Batman
pap Posted 14 April, 2015 Posted 14 April, 2015 Nothing wrong with giving people in council houses that chance to buy their own homes, assuming you believe that homeownership is a good thing. It only falls down if you don't build new social housing to replace that sold off. Nothing wrong as long as the stock is replaced. However, if we get a repeat of the last house sell-off, it won't be, and we'll more pressure to add onto our housing crisis. Don't think this will be as much of a winner last time around, though. Just doesn't affect as many people.
Batman Posted 14 April, 2015 Posted 14 April, 2015 Nothing wrong as long as the stock is replaced. However, if we get a repeat of the last house sell-off, they won't, and we'll more pressure to add onto our housing crisis. Don't think this will me as much of a winner last time around, though. Just doesn't affect as many people. agree about the stock being replaced. if...if that happened, this is a great proposal
pap Posted 14 April, 2015 Posted 14 April, 2015 do not agree at all. Grew up in 'poverty' so to speak and when my mum/dad bought our council flat in 1993, it changed everything. moved us out of poverty and on the property ladder and none of us since have lived off the local government Jamie loves the Tories because they gave his mum free money. True story. They were living in rags beforehand.
pap Posted 14 April, 2015 Posted 14 April, 2015 agree about the stock being replaced. if...if that happened, this is a great proposal Yeah, but if your choices were:- 1) Your mum can have free money and we won't replace the stock 2) Your mum doesn't get free money at all .... you'd pick option 1), wouldn't ya?
Torres Posted 14 April, 2015 Posted 14 April, 2015 Nothing wrong as long as the stock is replaced. However, if we get a repeat of the last house sell-off, it won't be, and we'll more pressure to add onto our housing crisis. Maybe this will help you sleep at night then. From today's Guardian: Councils will also be required to sell about 5% of their remaining council stock. These most-valuable properties will only be sold once they became vacant, and once sold, councils will be required to build a more affordable, cheaper property on a one-for-one basis. The government expects around 15,000 of these high value council properties will become vacant annually, and proceeds from these sales will release £4.5bn a year – cash that will not only build new affordable property, but also fund the proposed discounts to tenants, creating a £1bn brownfield regeneration fund that will produce 400,000 new houses over five years.
Torres Posted 14 April, 2015 Posted 14 April, 2015 Fair's fair, the Conservative plan to flog housing association housing is beyond horrific. I hadn't seen this plan before you raised it but I've had a quick read through the reports of it and I'm yet to see anything this is approaching horrific, let alone going beyond it. What is it that I've missed that's so dreadful?
Batman Posted 14 April, 2015 Posted 14 April, 2015 Jamie loves the Tories because they gave his mum free money. True story. They were living in rags beforehand. indeed and it took a whole family off the state so to speak.
pap Posted 14 April, 2015 Posted 14 April, 2015 indeed and it took a whole family off the state so to speak. How's that then? Did your parents use their benefit money to buy the house?
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 14 April, 2015 Posted 14 April, 2015 Yeah, but if your choices were:- 1) Your mum can have free money and we won't replace the stock 2) Your mum doesn't get free money at all .... you'd pick option 1), wouldn't ya? Of course you would, I don't think anyone wouldn't...
Torres Posted 14 April, 2015 Posted 14 April, 2015 Yeah, but if your choices were:- 1) Your mum can have free money and we won't replace the stock 2) Your mum doesn't get free money at all .... you'd pick option 1), wouldn't ya? Of course you would, I don't think anyone wouldn't... pap?
pap Posted 14 April, 2015 Posted 14 April, 2015 pap? Torres, Batman and Unbelievable Jeff. The Third Truimvirate. Glad you found your peeps, Torres. Rest of the forum; quake at your new political masters.
saintbletch Posted 14 April, 2015 Posted 14 April, 2015 Nothing wrong as long as the stock is replaced. However, if we get a repeat of the last house sell-off, it won't be, and we'll more pressure to add onto our housing crisis. Don't think this will be as much of a winner last time around, though . Just doesn't affect as many people. Not so sure papster. It's a smart move, and it might move enough voters in marginals to make a difference. Especially if Tory high command is currently identifying the HA-housed voters in those marginals, and is planning to bombard them with personalised letters and prospective MP visits. Those conversations will be alluring I'm sure. "Vote for us and this house is yours at a 25% discount, oh and we'll help you with the mortgage too". *(figures and policies plucked from thin air) It might make deeper thinkers uneasy, but where it matters it might have the desired effect.
pap Posted 14 April, 2015 Posted 14 April, 2015 Depends on where those people are and if they have the money. I wonder if the deal will be as good as it was the last time around, where Jamie's parents ostensibly managed to buy their council house on their benefit payments.
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 14 April, 2015 Posted 14 April, 2015 Torres, Batman and Unbelievable Jeff. The Third Truimvirate. Glad you found your peeps, Torres. Rest of the forum; quake at your new political masters. Usual deflection as usual I see.
pap Posted 14 April, 2015 Posted 14 April, 2015 Usual deflection as usual I see. Fark orf. That would imply there is something to deflect. I simply set out the "I'm alright Jack" trap. You walked right into it.
Torres Posted 14 April, 2015 Posted 14 April, 2015 Torres, Batman and Unbelievable Jeff. The Third Truimvirate. Glad you found your peeps, Torres. Rest of the forum; quake at your new political masters. Fark orf. That would imply there is something to deflect. I simply set out the "I'm alright Jack" trap. You walked right into it. You could always answer your own question pap.
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 14 April, 2015 Posted 14 April, 2015 Fark orf. That would imply there is something to deflect. I simply set out the "I'm alright Jack" trap. You walked right into it. Wow, that was a trap? Must have taken you all morning to come up with something of that complexity. Let me put this to you, if you were very poor, what would YOU do in that situation? We've already determined that you think public spending is too high, and that those with a greater disposable income shouldn't have to pay more to take the strain off the NHS, so I wonder what you'd do if you were on the poverty line, and was given the above choice.
pap Posted 14 April, 2015 Posted 14 April, 2015 Wow, that was a trap? Must have taken you all morning to come up with something of that complexity. Two seconds. A bit longer to type it all down. Not a bad return for the investment. Let me put this to you, if you were very poor, what would YOU do in that situation? We've already determined that you think public spending is too high, and that those with a greater disposable income shouldn't have to pay more to take the strain off the NHS, so I wonder what you'd do if you were on the poverty line, and was given the above choice. Let's work your hypothetical through, shall we? Let's say your very poor person gets the chance to buy his or her own property at a discounted rate. Where is the rest of the money coming from? I'd guess it'd be the same place it usually does, the banks. In order to get the loan, the bank would need to have some level of comfort that the money can be repaid. Do you reckon they'll hand it out to your very poor example? What sort of credit rating would this person have?
badgerx16 Posted 14 April, 2015 Posted 14 April, 2015 Genuine questions - how many former social / council houses have subsequently been sold on by the orginal buyer and are now in the private rented sector ? Also, what is the average length of 'ownership' before former social houses are sold on by the original purchaser ?
Nolan Posted 14 April, 2015 Posted 14 April, 2015 http://order-order.com/2015/04/14/labour-manifesto-author-backs-tory-right-to-buy-policy/#_@/k-SLCc9zI5JKFw Worth a read.
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 14 April, 2015 Posted 14 April, 2015 Two seconds. A bit longer to type it all down. Not a bad return for the investment. Let's work your hypothetical through, shall we? Let's say your very poor person gets the chance to buy his or her own property at a discounted rate. Where is the rest of the money coming from? I'd guess it'd be the same place it usually does, the banks. In order to get the loan, the bank would need to have some level of comfort that the money can be repaid. Do you reckon they'll hand it out to your very poor example? What sort of credit rating would this person have? Pap, just answer the question, would you take the government up on the offer if you were very poor and it would likely improve your families life? Just because someone is poor it doesn't mean they'd necessarily have a bad credit rating. You can be poor but still be fiscally prudent.
badgerx16 Posted 14 April, 2015 Posted 14 April, 2015 Please note, not every 'right to buy' purchase has the happy ending that Jamie's family experienced.
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 14 April, 2015 Posted 14 April, 2015 Please note, not every 'right to buy' purchase has the happy ending that Jamie's family experienced. I can imagine many go wrong and into the hands of the banks.
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 14 April, 2015 Posted 14 April, 2015 Genuine questions - how many former social / council houses have subsequently been sold on by the orginal buyer and are now in the private rented sector ? Also, what is the average length of 'ownership' before former social houses are sold on by the original purchaser ? I seem to remember one of my friends was looking at buying their council house last year (they are actually quite high income - the guy was chucked out at 16 and got the house by himself and has never left) and i think they said they had to stay in it for 4 or 5 years or they had to pay the discount back.
pap Posted 14 April, 2015 Posted 14 April, 2015 Pap, just answer the question, would you take the government up on the offer if you were very poor and it would likely improve your families life? Just because someone is poor it doesn't mean they'd necessarily have a bad credit rating. You can be poor but still be fiscally prudent. I say again, fark orf. And perhaps ask better questions. If I was very poor I wouldn't have the cash to make the deposit, wouldn't be able to get a mortgage for the balance of payments, and probably wouldn't be considering home ownership. I still know people on the Flower Estates that are in council-owned property, precisely because of the above two facts. This is not for the very poor. Jamie's parents were not lifted out of state-sponsored poverty by this move. It's designed to appeal to the sort of moron that believes that house ownership is the be all and end all. In 30 years, it'll all be in the hands of slum landlords, who'll be charging the equivalent of a grand a month (adjusted for real terms) to housing benefit tenants after convincing the original buyer to sell up. Unlike yourself, I really have thought about this issue. http://frigsociety.com/2012/05/24/the-long-term-effects-of-right-to-buy/ Why don't you come back when you have?
Torres Posted 14 April, 2015 Posted 14 April, 2015 Unlike yourself, I really have thought about this issue. It should be an easy question to answer then.
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 14 April, 2015 Posted 14 April, 2015 I say again, fark orf. And perhaps ask better questions. If I was very poor I wouldn't have the cash to make the deposit, wouldn't be able to get a mortgage for the balance of payments, and probably wouldn't be considering home ownership. I still know people on the Flower Estates that are in council-owned property, precisely because of the above two facts. This is not for the very poor. Jamie's parents were not lifted out of state-sponsored poverty by this move. It's designed to appeal to the sort of moron that believes that house ownership is the be all and end all. In 30 years, it'll all be in the hands of slum landlords, who'll be charging the equivalent of a grand a month (adjusted for real terms) to housing benefit tenants after convincing the original buyer to sell up. Unlike yourself, I really have thought about this issue. http://frigsociety.com/2012/05/24/the-long-term-effects-of-right-to-buy/ Why don't you come back when you have? Hahaha, it was all based on your question!! All I want you to do is answer the question you posed to Batman.
pap Posted 14 April, 2015 Posted 14 April, 2015 Hahaha, it was all based on your question!! All I want you to do is answer the question you posed to Batman. Would I buy a council house? Well, I haven't yet, despite being able to for past 20 years. I think we can call that a "no".
Batman Posted 14 April, 2015 Posted 14 April, 2015 I say again, fark orf. And perhaps ask better questions. If I was very poor I wouldn't have the cash to make the deposit, wouldn't be able to get a mortgage for the balance of payments, and probably wouldn't be considering home ownership. I still know people on the Flower Estates that are in council-owned property, precisely because of the above two facts. This is not for the very poor. Jamie's parents were not lifted out of state-sponsored poverty by this move. It's designed to appeal to the sort of moron that believes that house ownership is the be all and end all. In 30 years, it'll all be in the hands of slum landlords, who'll be charging the equivalent of a grand a month (adjusted for real terms) to housing benefit tenants after convincing the original buyer to sell up. Unlike yourself, I really have thought about this issue. http://frigsociety.com/2012/05/24/the-long-term-effects-of-right-to-buy/ Why don't you come back when you have? bit like mystic meg
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 14 April, 2015 Posted 14 April, 2015 Would I buy a council house? Well, I haven't yet, despite being able to for past 20 years. I think we can call that a "no". So you currently live in a council house?
pap Posted 14 April, 2015 Posted 14 April, 2015 So you currently live in a council house? Nope, but the old dear does. She still has the right to buy. I can give her the money.
Batman Posted 14 April, 2015 Posted 14 April, 2015 Nope, but the old dear does. She still has the right to buy. I can give her the money. you rent, fair enough. lining the pocket of another landlord then.
pap Posted 14 April, 2015 Posted 14 April, 2015 Oh look, we have our very own Bob Crow. I know my limits. When I post on the main board, I normally qualify whatever amateur opinion I'm about to unleash with "I know fúck all about football...." Might want to try that with your Lounge posts.
pap Posted 14 April, 2015 Posted 14 April, 2015 you rent, fair enough. lining the pocket of another landlord then. Yeah, given that the options are:- a) Buy. Not happening until girls have gone to Uni. b) Live under a motorway bridge I'm happy enough with my decision.
Torres Posted 14 April, 2015 Posted 14 April, 2015 OK, so you don't have the right to buy a council house after all. Interesting lie.
Torres Posted 14 April, 2015 Posted 14 April, 2015 I know my limits. When I post on the main board, I normally qualify whatever amateur opinion I'm about to unleash with "I know fúck all about football...." Might want to try that with your Lounge posts. Settle, petal.
pap Posted 14 April, 2015 Posted 14 April, 2015 Settle, petal. [emoji38] Better (shorter), but that's not quite right. Persevere. You'll get it.
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 14 April, 2015 Posted 14 April, 2015 Nope, but the old dear does. She still has the right to buy. I can give her the money. So you don't have the right to buy then?
Ex Lion Tamer Posted 14 April, 2015 Posted 14 April, 2015 They have a very strange definition of reducing the deficit as well . Mind you so do the other two establishment parties as well. They all " reduce" it as a % of GDP rather than as a cash amount . In effect they are relying on growth to " shrink" the deficit, but won't admit it. I'm thinking of trying it with Mrs Duck to stop her moaning about the amount I spend down the pub. 5 years ago I spent about £200 quid a month on ale, now I spend about £220. However I've had a few pay rises since, so I'm actually spending a smaller % of our household income on drink. Now anybody can see that my drinks bill has gone up £20 and if I tried to claim that I was spending less, everybody would call me a liar. Yet politicians keep telling this lie and everybody seems to just accept it. Frasier Nelson pointed out in the Spectator that had a company advertised its goods is such a misleading way they'd be prosecuted . A national economy doesn't work in the same way as a household budget, so your comparison is nonsense
pap Posted 14 April, 2015 Posted 14 April, 2015 So you don't have the right to buy then? Of course I do. Indirectly. Not hard, although I can see why you're having trouble making the leaps. It's ok, I have plenty of experience in explaining things to the less able. 1) I give the old dear money to buy house 2) She buys house 3) Wait three years 4) Deeds transferred to me. Funnily enough, that was the exact same strategy the slum landlords used when hoovering up the homes of the working class so they could rent them back out at three times the cost, funded for by the taxpayer.
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 14 April, 2015 Posted 14 April, 2015 Nope, but the old dear does. She still has the right to buy. I can give her the money. So you have the money to buy your old dear her council house, but not to put down a deposit on a house of your own? How much would you give her to buy her council home - I presume it would have to be pure cash as she is possibly too old to get a mortgage.
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 14 April, 2015 Posted 14 April, 2015 Of course I do. Indirectly. Not hard, although I can see why you're having trouble making the leaps. It's ok, I have plenty of experience in explaining things to the less able. 1) I give the old dear money to buy house 2) She buys house 3) Wait three years 4) Deeds transferred to me. Funnily enough, that was the exact same strategy the slum landlords used when hoovering up the homes of the working class so they could rent them back out at three times the cost, funded for by the taxpayer. You do not, legally, have the right to buy a council house. And that's it. What your saying is that if you know someone with a council house, you have the right to buy it, so i think we all qualify for the right to buy scheme!
pap Posted 14 April, 2015 Posted 14 April, 2015 You do not, legally, have the right to buy a council house. And that's it. Slum landlords didn't have the right to buy. They still own the stock. One level of indirection is irrelevant if all parties are in agreement.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now