The 2015 Popularity Contest (aka UK General Election )

[beautifulthing]

I'm going to refer you to the scheme I'm involved in. Designed to stop the lifeblood of our community being sucked away. The inability of younger generations to be able to afford houses because older generations have had time to accumulate wealth and reinvest it in housing is a serious issue.

It is a sad reflection on society that there are people who work for a reasonable wage who cannot afford to live in the communities they were born and bred in, whilst houses stand empty as 2nd homes/holiday accommodation.

If you see the social housing option as being welfare for these people then that's your perogative. I see it as being a tool to conserve the local community.

I know it's not the stereotypical HA scheme, but it's not as uncommon as you might think.

Read about it here

Excellent stuff. Best of luck to you & your colleagues.

 

[bring the ghost on]

Instead of headline grabbing divisive taxes such as 'mansion tax', I would love to see a government be radical and truly change the picture by bringing out a law that says no person can own more than one home, even current landlords of multiple properties........

Pete, surely depriving people of their legally owned assets should be a last resort to solve the problem?

I think what you are proposing looks attractive but if you dig a bit deeper, it will cause more problems than it will solve. It will have a huge impact on the rental market for a start. I'm no fan of landlords, but they often buy big plots and subdivide into affordable flats rather than buying the houses which average house buyers would go for.

I think the mansion tax, second home tax, etc, would be more effective than banning landlords from owning properties.

 

[daylightrobber]

I see that Cameron is going to sell Lloyds bank to private investors at a cut price. Short changing the tax payer for the benefit of a wealthy few again.

 

[Seanjd]

Pete, surely depriving people of their legally owned assets should be a last resort to solve the problem?

I think what you are proposing looks attractive but if you dig a bit deeper, it will cause more problems than it will solve. It will have a huge impact on the rental market for a start. I'm no fan of landlords, but they often buy big plots and subdivide into affordable flats rather than buying the houses which average house buyers would go for.

I think the mansion tax, second home tax, etc, would be more effective than banning landlords from owning properties.

I was sceptical at first, but after reading into it more because of this forum, I generally agree with mansion tax.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Occasionally you say truly daft things like this which makes me feel you really don't understand the things you have a problem with.

Social housing isn't welfare. People can use housing benefit to pay for social or private housing; the only distinction is that social housing is owned by local authorities, and that it is allocated according to need.

If someone wants to stay in social housing for life and is employed, they pay rent to the landlord like anyone else. They are on their "own two feet".

You seem to think anything that is organised by the state is welfare, which is bizarre.

As I mentioned to Clint earlier, I took my understanding directly from the Shelter website, where they describe social housing as:

"Social housing is let at low rents on a secure basis to those who are most in need or struggling with their housing costs."

So the rents are much lower than the market value, and they're offered to the most vulnerable members of society.

For the record though, I've never said I had a problem with social housing, merely trying to understand what is so wrong with helping those same vulnerable people buy their current home.

 

[Seanjd]

This from the Guardian;

"Anti-immigrant rhetoric from politicians across Europe, including Britain, is blocking attempts to introduce large search-and-rescue operations in the Mediterranean that would save large numbers of migrant lives, a senior UN official has warned."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/18/mediterranean-migrant-rescue-operation-rhetoric-blamed

It's so true. Anti-immigration rhetoric is just incredibly selfish. 700 people feared dead after trying to escape a war torn country to get to Europe and the best we can do is talk about "shutting the gates". It makes me sick to my core.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I'm going to refer you to the scheme I'm involved in. Designed to stop the lifeblood of our community being sucked away. The inability of younger generations to be able to afford houses because older generations have had time to accumulate wealth and reinvest it in housing is a serious issue.

It is a sad reflection on society that there are people who work for a reasonable wage who cannot afford to live in the communities they were born and bred in, whilst houses stand empty as 2nd homes/holiday accommodation.

If you see the social housing option as being welfare for these people then that's your perogative. I see it as being a tool to conserve the local community.

I know it's not the stereotypical HA scheme, but it's not as uncommon as you might think.

Read about it here

I get all that. Whether it's 'welfare' or not is kind of irrelevent and a largely semantic issue. I just find it strange that on the one hand you seem to be fully in favour of people living in their communities, yet on the other stridently oppose giving those people help to buy the homes they're currently in. As I've written about at length previously, I just don't understand the logic, after all, you said in a previous post that by selling one of your properties, you gained the finance to build the rest. Isn't that kind of the same thing here?

 

[Clint Planet]

For the record though, I've never said I had a problem with social housing, merely trying to understand what is so wrong with helping those same vulnerable people buy their current home.

Have you ever considered helping them by arguing for a fairer society with more even wealth distribution?

 

[daylightrobber]

I get all that. Whether it's 'welfare' or not is kind of irrelevent and a largely semantic issue. I just find it strange that on the one hand you seem to be fully in favour of people living in their communities, yet on the other stridently oppose giving those people help to buy the homes they're currently in. As I've written about at length previously, I just don't understand the logic, after all, you said in a previous post that by selling one of your properties, you gained the finance to build the rest. Isn't that kind of the same thing here?

Yep. We sold one, with a Local Occupancy clause on it. We sold it at 80% of market value with a caveat that if it were to be sold for profit the remaining balance be paid. It resulted from years of strategic planning, not an off the hoof decision.

Our scheme provides affordable housing and I actually think very few of the current tenants would want to own the properties they are in outright. They are fully subscribed to what we are trying to achieve.

We are obviously going to have to agree to disagree on this one. As someone who has seen plenty of feasibility studies and reports on the benefits of social housing, with input from professionals in health, policing & education (to name a few) I am happy that your opinion is one I will never ever subscribe to.

 

[DanEFC92]

 

[daylightrobber]

Have you ever considered helping them by arguing for a fairer society with more even wealth distribution?

At the end of the day this is what it all boils down to. When we have the levels of poverty we do in this country, side by side with the levels of wealth it is absolutely the case that our society is not even being close to fair. Shame on us.

 

[Joey66]

Yes they want to resource British Coal again as we have millions of tons of it - better than a windmill imo , and cheap rubbish coal imported from abroad, by our government!

 

[Clint Planet]

I get all that. Whether it's 'welfare' or not is kind of irrelevent and a largely semantic issue.

Well, that's not true, is it? I think it's massively important how it's viewed, especially given that "welfare" can be such a loaded term.

I just find it strange that on the one hand you seem to be fully in favour of people living in their communities, yet on the other stridently oppose giving those people help to buy the homes they're currently in. As I've written about at length previously, I just don't understand the logic, after all, you said in a previous post that by selling one of your properties, you gained the finance to build the rest. Isn't that kind of the same thing here?

Bruce, you need to listen to yourself. The guy's involved in a great thing and you're questioning his actions just because your mind is clouded by your own ideology. He is helping people. It's cringe-worthy.

 

[summerisle]

English teacher's grammatical corrections to a UKIP flyer :

 

[Clint Planet]

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...own-firemen-and-zebra-crossings-10182810.html

At last the Conservatives have an answer to the chaos caused by a lack of social housing. The solution is obvious, to sell most of it off so there’s even less.

This is the way all shortages should be dealt with. When the Red Cross take parcels of food to famine areas, instead of sharing it out equally like idiots, they should sell it off to the handful who can afford it, so they can get on to the rice ladder.

Even those who can’t afford it won’t go empty-handed, because they’ll get a lovely cherubic smile and an announcement that the good life is returning, which ought to cheer them up all day and make them forget about being hungry.