The 2015 Popularity Contest (aka UK General Election )

[Pienaar's gloves]

May 8th is going to be very interesting.

Don't forget, regardless as to whether Labour do manage to gain more seats, the Tories as incumbents have the first opportunity to try and form a government.

They will probably speak to UKIP and the Liberals and I suspect the UUP and DUP.

Then everyone will talk to Labour, Plaid, SNP, Liberals, Green (I hope Caroline Lucas is still about).

It's still entirely possible that the Tories will try to go alone or on a vote-by-vote and they have every right to do that. It doesn't feel much like democracy!

 

[Woolly Blue]

That's down to each council/housing association though I'd have thought? I'd imagine it's hard for Westminster to mandate where money from this program has to be spent.

I'd say you're partly wrong

m.insidehousing.co.uk/7007621.article?mobilesite=enabled

Treasury grabs £358m of Right to Buy receipts

09/01/2015 | By Pete Apps

The Treasury has hived off £358.1m from the sale of council houses, making it ‘almost impossible’ to fund replacements and sparking cross-sector calls for a review of the policy.



Responding to a Freedom of Information act request, the government confirmed almost a quarter of the £1.54bn raised through 22,900 right to buy sales since 2012 has gone straight into Treasury coffers.

Only £588.3m was left for councils to build replacement homes, with a total of £929.4m used for other purposes.

When the government increased discounts to £75,000 per home in 2012, it promised any additional homes sold would be replaced on a one-for-one basis.

But so far only 4,800 replacement homes have been started, with many councils claiming they have insufficient funds to build.

Peter Box, housing spokesman for the Local Government Association, said: ‘The current right to buy arrangements… do not allow councils to replace homes sold on a like-for-like basis.

‘Councils should be able to retain 100 per cent of receipts to support new housing.’

Responding to the figures, the Chartered Institute of Housing (CIH) and the National Housing Federation (NHF) both called for a review of the way Right to Buy proceeds are used.

Catherine Ryder, head of Policy at the NHF, said: ‘The huge discounts on offer and the way the receipts are distributed, as illustrated by these findings, mean it is almost impossible to replace homes sold through Right to Buy.

‘If the Government is serious about meeting its commitment to replace homes sold, it must review the way total receipts from sales are used.’

Councils used £368.3m of the receipts to pay historic housing debt and £151.5m went into general funds. A further £12.7m was used to repurchase council homes previously sold under the policy, while £38.8m went on the administration of the scheme.

Gavin Smart, CIH deputy chief executive, called for the government to review the way receipts were distributed.

‘We’re concerned that in reality, one-for-one replacement of homes sold through Right to Buy is not happening,’ he said.

The figures also sparked divisions within the coalition, with Tim Farron, former party president of the Liberal Democrats, claiming the Conservatives were ‘blocking’ his party’s bid to allow councils to keep 100% of the receipts.

The government uses a formula to project how much would have been raised had discounts not increased. Only the additional cash is used to fund replacement homes.

Housing Minister Brandon Lewis said there were plans for a further 10,000 replacement homes funded through receipts.

‘This is in stark contrast to the years when right to buy was allowed to wither on the vine… while affordable house building plummeted,’ he

said.

 

[Mrk]

May 8th is going to be very interesting.

Don't forget, regardless as to whether Labour do manage to gain more seats, the Tories as incumbents have the first opportunity to try and form a government.

They will probably speak to UKIP and the Liberals and I suspect the UUP and DUP.

Then everyone will talk to Labour, Plaid, SNP, Liberals, Green (I hope Caroline Lucas is still about).

It's still entirely possible that the Tories will try to go alone or on a vote-by-vote and they have every right to do that. It doesn't feel much like democracy!

Perversely, the party that doesn't end up forming the government may end up with a majority within a year.

If we do have a hung parliament, the next government will be on the brink of collapse every night (like the Labour government in '79) - so the largest opposition party will be able to wear down the government very quickly and eventually defeat it.

 

[davek]

Latest forecast suggests the Tories will be the largest party but EdM will end up PM:

The Tories are going to have to bring something major to the table soon if they're even to be largest party.

Latest poll this morning (Populus) has Labour on 34%, CP on 33%.

The problem for the Tories is that the UKIP vote is stubbornly refusing to diminish further than it has. In the north it has, but that's to the advantage of Labour. If the UKIP vote holds up at around 14% then the Tories are in very choppy water. The thing to note about the UKIP vote in many of these polls is that, out of all parties contesting this election, their vote is the 'hardest' (ie, when people say they favour UKIP they stress that this wont be changing at any time - 82% of those in the Populus poll fell into this bracket).

If Labour hadn't stabbed a progressive social movement in the back last year in Scotland Miliband would be home and hosed by now. As it is, he stands to be a PM of this country reliant on parties to his left to elevate him to that post. Now that is what I call just deserts.

 

[SpurtingLesbian]

It doesn't feel much like democracy!

does it ever?

Perversely, the party that doesn't end up forming the government may end up with a majority within a year.

If we do have a hung parliament, the next government will be on the brink of collapse every night (like the Labour government in '79) - so the largest opposition party will be able to wear down the government very quickly and eventually defeat it.

The ConDem coalition was only given weeks when it formed. unfortunately the Libdems couldn't break it or else they'd be out of jobs and the Tories knew it.

 

[Mrk]

The Tories are going to have to bring something major to the table soon if they're even to be largest party.

Latest poll this morning (Populus) has Labour on 34%, CP on 33%.

The problem for the Tories is that the UKIP vote is stubbornly refusing to diminish further than it has. In the north it has, but that's to the advantage of Labour. If the UKIP vote holds up at around 14% then the Tories are in very choppy water. The thing to note about the UKIP vote in many of these polls is that, out of all parties contesting this election, their vote is the 'hardest' (ie, when people say they favour UKIP they stress that this wont be changing at any time - 82% of those in the Populus poll fell into this bracket).

If Labour hadn't have stabbed a progressive social movement in the back last year in Scotland Miliband would be home and hosed by now. As it is, he stands to be a PM of this country reliant on parties to his left to elevate him to that post. Now that is what I call just deserts.

Broadly agree - I have no idea what way it is going to go. The Tories will see some kind of bounce closer to election day - sitting governments always do - but whether that will be enough remains to be seen.

 

[Mrk]

The ConDem coalition was only given weeks when it formed. unfortunately the Libdems couldn't break it or else they'd be out of jobs and the Tories knew it.

That was a coalition - Labour/SNP will never enter into a coalition deal, so they will survive on a vote-by-vote basis.

 

[Dithering Dougie]

This, you mean?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/grant-shapps-leaves-candidate-deal-5530364

Awful man and a coward but he's got history of of walking away...

http://www.channel4.com/news/grant-shapps-second-job-michael-green-michael-crick-doorstep

 

[davek]

Broadly agree - I have no idea what way it is going to go. The Tories will see some kind of bounce closer to election day - sitting governments always do - but whether that will be enough remains to be seen.

I agree in one way: people will drift to familiarity ordinarily (and the economic 'stability'...or the spun line of it) has to have some pay off. However, this is uncharted territory - this has been a coalition and therefore what are people drifting back to familiarity-wise? Another mix'n'match of political coalition or the Tories? It's not clear. The issue is not straightforward this time around. Personally I think the Tories can get to no more than, say, 36% maximum in this election. UKIP are a nut they wont crack in convincing numbers. I think that'd get the CP about 285-290 seats and then they're in the business of doing deals with the LDs plus the crazies at the far right of the political spectrum.

 

[Mrk]

I agree in one way: people will drift to familiarity ordinarily (and the economic 'stability'...or the spun line of it) has to have some pay off. However, this is uncharted territory - this has been a coalition and therefore what are people drifting back to familiarity-wise? Another mix'n'match of political coalition or the Tories? It's not clear. The issue is not straightforward this time around. Personally I think the Tories can get to no more than, say, 36% maximum in this election. UKIP are a nut they wont crack in convincing numbers. I think that'd get the CP about 285-290 seats and then they're in the business of doing deals with the LDs plus the crazies at the far right of the political spectrum.

Definitely agree with that.

I think the Tories will need at least 300 seats to form the next government, as there's no way the LD's will form a coalition that includes UKIP and I really can't see the DUP agreeing to be part of a coalition.

 

[daylightrobber]

Housing associations say they'll sue if the Tories force them to sell off homes under right-to-buy

Housing associations set to be crippled by Conservative plans to extend the right-to-buy policy will launch a legal challenge against the move, they have said.

The Tories have announced that they will force housing associations to sell off homes at a fraction of their value despite warnings that the policy could cause the not-for-profits to go bankrupt.

Tony Stacey, chair of a group of 100 housing associations and chief executive of South Yorkshire Housing Association, told trade publication Inside Housing when the policy was first mooted in March that he would “definitely” launch a challenge.

“I would definitely challenge it legally. This is so fundamentally critical to us. It would shoot up to the top of our risk map if it was confirmed. We are duty bound morally to fight it in any way we possibly can,” the Placeshapers chair told the publication.

Other housing association chief executives are quoted as saying they “would be surprised” if a legal challenge did not happen because the policy would risk the viability of the entire social housing sector.

Because housing associations are private not-for-profit businesses, forcing the sale of homes at below market value could potentially breach Article 1, Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which gives everyone the “right to the peaceful enjoyment of one’s possessions”.

Industry sources also say charity law would have to be changed to accommodate the move because charities, including many housing associations, are generally prohibited from selling off their assets at below market value.

Today’s move by the Conservatives was criticised by both the Chartered Institute of Housing and the National Housing Federation, which represent housing associations and the industry at large.

Ruth Davison, the Federation’s policy director, said: “We fully support the aspiration of homeownership but extending right-to-buy to housing associations is the wrong solution to our housing crisis.

“Following 40 years of successive governments’ failure to build the homes the country needs, soaring rents and house prices and the biggest baby boom since the 1950s, ensuring that there enough homes today and tomorrow must be our nation’s top priority.”

A spokesperson for the Federation said they would need to see the detail of the policy before they could say whether they would support a legal challenge.

CIH deputy chief executive Gavin Smart said he feared “the figures simply won’t stack up” for the extension.

“Right-to-buy has already had a huge impact on the supply of genuinely affordable homes, which is being cut at a time when more and more people are in need. The next government should be reviewing the way the policy currently works, not extending it,” he argued.

David Cameron officially announced the policy in a speech on Tuesday, arguing that it could benefit 1.3 million families and turn Britain into a “property-owning democracy”.

“We are the party of working people, offering you security at every stage of your life,” he said.

John Healey, a former Labour housing minister, described the policy as a “cheap Thatcher tribute act” and said it would worsen Britain’s housing shortage.

 

[Clint Planet]

There already is a shortage of social housing, look at the waiting lists.

This means 20 less houses available to those on the waiting list.

The two things can't be separated. I don't really understand how you can say it's a completely different issue when one clearly has such an effect on the other.

If the social housing stock was replaced it wouldn't be so much of a problem, but it won't be.

Quite. Is it that hard to understand?

 

[Clint Planet]

You're missing his point.

If tenants are able to buy the social housing then there's 20 less houses available, but there's also 20 less social tenants. If those social tenants can't buy the house then they will remain in the social housing system, so the result is the same.

If the issue is that there aren't enough houses, more need to be built regardless of Right to Buy.

No, you're missing the point. If those people want to get on the housing ladder then they should do it the "conventional" way since there will always be more people along who will need the social housing at a later date. Your theory presupposes that social housing needs will be nil several years or a generation later which is clearly not going to be the case.

 

[davek]

Housing associations say they'll sue if the Tories force them to sell off homes under right-to-buy

Housing associations set to be crippled by Conservative plans to extend the right-to-buy policy will launch a legal challenge against the move, they have said.

The Tories have announced that they will force housing associations to sell off homes at a fraction of their value despite warnings that the policy could cause the not-for-profits to go bankrupt.

Tony Stacey, chair of a group of 100 housing associations and chief executive of South Yorkshire Housing Association, told trade publication Inside Housing when the policy was first mooted in March that he would “definitely” launch a challenge.

“I would definitely challenge it legally. This is so fundamentally critical to us. It would shoot up to the top of our risk map if it was confirmed. We are duty bound morally to fight it in any way we possibly can,” the Placeshapers chair told the publication.

Other housing association chief executives are quoted as saying they “would be surprised” if a legal challenge did not happen because the policy would risk the viability of the entire social housing sector.

Because housing associations are private not-for-profit businesses, forcing the sale of homes at below market value could potentially breach Article 1, Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which gives everyone the “right to the peaceful enjoyment of one’s possessions”.

Industry sources also say charity law would have to be changed to accommodate the move because charities, including many housing associations, are generally prohibited from selling off their assets at below market value.

Today’s move by the Conservatives was criticised by both the Chartered Institute of Housing and the National Housing Federation, which represent housing associations and the industry at large.

Ruth Davison, the Federation’s policy director, said: “We fully support the aspiration of homeownership but extending right-to-buy to housing associations is the wrong solution to our housing crisis.

“Following 40 years of successive governments’ failure to build the homes the country needs, soaring rents and house prices and the biggest baby boom since the 1950s, ensuring that there enough homes today and tomorrow must be our nation’s top priority.”

A spokesperson for the Federation said they would need to see the detail of the policy before they could say whether they would support a legal challenge.

CIH deputy chief executive Gavin Smart said he feared “the figures simply won’t stack up” for the extension.

“Right-to-buy has already had a huge impact on the supply of genuinely affordable homes, which is being cut at a time when more and more people are in need. The next government should be reviewing the way the policy currently works, not extending it,” he argued.

David Cameron officially announced the policy in a speech on Tuesday, arguing that it could benefit 1.3 million families and turn Britain into a “property-owning democracy”.

“We are the party of working people, offering you security at every stage of your life,” he said.

John Healey, a former Labour housing minister, described the policy as a “cheap Thatcher tribute act” and said it would worsen Britain’s housing shortage.

They wont have to sue, because it's a load of electioneering sound-bite nonsense.

It'd be a massive giveaway that benefits barely 30,000 people, and the parties in coalition with any Tory-led government would put a block on it in any case.

 

[Brennan]

No, you're missing the point. If those people want to get on the housing ladder then they should do it the "conventional" way since there will always be more people along who will need the social housing at a later date. Your theory presupposes that social housing needs will be nil several years or a generation later which is clearly not going to be the case.

What are you talking about...

Bruce was saying that the real issue is that far more houses need to be built, and that will be the case whether Right to Buy exists or not. I don't have a 'theory', but if i did i wouldn't believe social housing needs will be zero a generation from now, as that's patently absurd.