The only way Labour can promise a massive house building programme is to sweep away local planning laws and that would cause riots (or at least a lot of angry letters) in the Shires.
The areas with the highest rents and the biggest housing shortages don't have the land. In suburban and rural area how many people are going to want a big council house estate built near them?
The only way Labour can promise a massive house building programme is to sweep away local planning laws and that would cause riots (or at least a lot of angry letters) in the Shires.
Build the estate near to the people that left us in the situation we are in now.;-)
The people writing the angry letters needed housing once,as might their children.
What a good idea for gerrymandering the election results. Build massive council estates in the Shires and move all of the Labour supporting social housing tenants into them.
The areas with the highest rents and the biggest housing shortages don't have the land. In suburban and rural area how many people are going to want a big council house estate built near them? Build a 200,000 new town in Kent and it won't do anything to affect rental prices in London.
The only way Labour can promise a massive house building programme is to sweep away local planning laws and that would cause riots (or at least a lot of angry letters) in the Shires.
Plenty of brown-field sites in urban areas. And we could also remove the idea that council housing is for problem families. It used to be seen as housing for the hard-working, honest, blue-collar workers and it still is in some areas. But for some reasons the people living in council houses have stigmatised by certain areas of media.
The two things are not the same, anyway benefit claimants are not by definition scroungers, parasites or spongers.
Really? Then I would suggest you read a few of the many and regular 'benefit claimant bashing' threads that crop up here,
This is a proposal to intervene in a market - and this always ends in tears, not least because any intervention ends up being reactive to changes and therefore be slow. This is why rent controls end up with poor quality housing, with the supply being low, or you end up setting the limit too high and still have the problem you introduced rent controls to solve.
When rent control is done in isolation perhaps, but as part of a raft of measures, including the building of more social housing and cheap to buy housing, it would certainly have more impact on the current housing crisis than punishing poor people for having a room that a politician has decided you don't need,
As well as bringing the not insignificant number of private landlords who exploit the benefits system by charging a high rent (knowing that the tax payers will foot the bill) under some control,
The only solution is to increase the supply of housing and that means building - in this way the price goes down.
I agree, it would certainly be the number one factor in helping to resolve not only the housing crisis, but the shortage of jobs too.
Not only that but you can alter the balance of single occupancy or low occupancy homes and deal with one of the primary issues with the Extra Room Supplement
Sorry? "the extra room supplement"? Never heard of it, in the several times that I have needed to claim housing benefit over the past 40 years or so, I don't recall EVER having my housing benefit paid 'by the room',
for example if I was renting a one bedroomed council flat in central London the housing benefit would be far higher than for a three bedroomed house in the north east of the UK,
likewise the housing benefit payable for a one bedroomed private flat in the north east of the UK would still be much higher than the housing benefit payable for a three bedroomed house in the same region,
and yet the Tories would punish me for claiming a lower amount of benefit, while claiming they are saving the tax payers money!!!
The spare room fine has failed to save any money for the tax payers, in fact quite the reverse, it has failed to have any significant impact on the housing crisis,
It's quite evident that it was only ever about spiteful hatred towards the poorest in society.
that there are insufficient low occupancy homes so those with an extra room can move into and have a home more suited to their needs.
But the Tories were made fully aware of that fact by numerous housing associations and councils long before it became punishable by the imposition of a financial penalty for being 'guilty of spare room crime',
They KNEW that the majority of these people wouldn't be able to move, fact is, they didn't want them to move, they wanted to punish them for being poor and claiming housing benefit,
When these facts are known and understood, what other conclusion can there be?
Really? Then I would suggest you read a few of the many and regular 'benefit claimant bashing' threads that crop up here,
When rent control is done in isolation perhaps, but as part of a raft of measures, including the building of more social housing and cheap to buy housing, it would certainly have more impact on the current housing crisis than punishing poor people for having a room that a politician has decided you don't need,
As well as bringing the not insignificant number of private landlords who exploit the benefits system by charging a high rent (knowing that the tax payers will foot the bill) under some control,
I agree, it would certainly be the number one factor in helping to resolve not only the housing crisis, but the shortage of jobs too.
Sorry? "the extra room supplement"? Never heard of it, in the several times that I have needed to claim housing benefit over the past 40 years or so, I don't recall EVER having my housing benefit paid 'by the room',
for example if I was renting a one bedroomed council flat in central London the housing benefit would be far higher than for a three bedroomed house in the north east of the UK,
likewise the housing benefit payable for a one bedroomed private flat in the north east of the UK would still be much higher than the housing benefit payable for a three bedroomed house in the same region,
and yet the Tories would punish me for claiming a lower amount of benefit, while claiming they are saving the tax payers money!!!
The spare room fine has failed to save any money for the tax payers, in fact quite the reverse, it has failed to have any significant impact on the housing crisis,
It's quite evident that it was only ever about spiteful hatred towards the poorest in society.
But the Tories were made fully aware of that fact by numerous housing associations and councils long before it became punishable by the imposition of a financial penalty for being 'guilty of spare room crime',
They KNEW that the majority of these people wouldn't be able to move, fact is, they didn't want them to move, they wanted to punish them for being poor and claiming housing benefit,
When these facts are known and understood, what other conclusion can there be?
Usual textbook posting straight from the Labour policy boilerhouse, I suspect even you know this is more populist unworkable nonsense. State control of a 100% private market a non starter and would make the current housing difficulties worse, especially the majority who used Blair's open door policy in 2001 who reside in this type of accomodation. Why would you invest in putting rental accomodation on if you were put under such restrictions, idiocy.
Plenty of brown-field sites in urban areas. And we could also remove the idea that council housing is for problem families. It used to be seen as housing for the hard-working, honest, blue-collar workers and it still is in some areas. But for some reasons the people living in council houses have stigmatised by certain areas of media.
Really? Then I would suggest you read a few of the many and regular 'benefit claimant bashing' threads that crop up here,
Well speaking as one of those Conservatives that you seem to detest so much I don't think that claiming benefits makes you a scrounger - and most of those 'benefit claiming bashing' - usually refer to extremes and frankly they are scroungers - but not because they are on benefits and they would in all probability still be scroungers if they were not on benefits.
When rent control is done in isolation perhaps, but as part of a raft of measures, including the building of more social housing
Build more houses and the rents will go down as a natural result of supply and demand, making rent control largely irrelevant.
Build the estate near to the people that left us in the situation we are in now.;-)
The people writing the angry letters needed housing once,as might their children.
Which people left others in the situation we are in now?
Why do you propose environmental destruction? Is it simply spite?
More than 60 million people have a right to feel aggrieved that national policy - Labour's - is once again being based on a percentage of 2-3 million in Central London. Central London needs to sort itself out. It has a Mayor.
I live just inside the Greater London boundary. There is a closer correlation here between local property prices and those in York than between here and inner London where the price of housing is distorted by overseas investment. Even then it is sporadic. When it comes to rents, they have been falling in places like Peckham for well over a year.
The selling of council houses which reduced social housing stock was first proposed by Labour in 1959. People elected a Conservative Government in that year. It was then introduced by the Greater London Council in 1977. The Tory Government was not elected in 1979 because of the policy to extend sales nationally but because of Labour's economic mismanagement. Principally it benefited non London areas as it hadn't been available there. Any link to London's property market now is extremely tenuous. Opposition to national council house sales from Labour lasted no more than five years and was dropped in 1985 as it was most popular with Labour voters.
So no one voted for it specifically. Other than in 1983, no one offered an alternative except perhaps the National Front and that was an election when Labour would have left the UK without defences. Half the Labour Party found it impossible to endorse its own manifesto. Should we in your view have voted for the National Front instead? It is worth pointing out that as one of the third who voted neither Conservative or Labour in the 1980s that I had no support for the policy in any case.
Those who benefited most financially from council house sales were poor council house tenants rather than the wealthy or the poor in private housing in the suburbs. In fact, we subsidised it and the less wealthy we were the more we felt the impacts of paying for it. In status terms, it reduced us. And any advantages are now enjoyed by their offspring who otherwise would have less. So on what grounds can you justify what you are suggesting?
Well at least they're promising 200,000 new a homes a year. That's only 100,000 a year short of what the country actually needs, and 600,000 of what London alone needs immediately due to the lack of house building caused by intentional policy during Labour's last stint in government.
Well at least they're promising 200,000 new a homes a year. That's only 100,000 a year short of what the country actually needs, and 600,000 of what London alone needs immediately due to the lack of house building caused by intentional policy during Labour's last stint in government.
But still, from small acorns ;-)
And they're proposing it, not building them. They might as well propose free cake for all.
Well at least they're promising 200,000 new a homes a year. That's only 100,000 a year short of what the country actually needs, and 600,000 of what London alone needs immediately. But still, from small acorns ;-)
Where are these 600,000 homes in London going to go? Concrete over Hyde Park?
It's the easiest thing in the world to "promise" 200,000 a year but it's a lot harder, as previous governments have found, to deliver them. If the government were to fund them then we are talking about a minimum of £20bn a year. If they want the market to provide them then how can that be enforced?
How can you cap private rents? Does this mean landlords mortgage payments can be capped. Think especially of the recent bank of Ireland and west bromwich increase scandals.
How can you cap private rents? Does this mean landlords mortgage payments can be capped. Think especially of the recent bank of Ireland and west bromwich increase scandals.
Actually, if you look at the actual policy, it is only to cap the rent *rises*. However, Labour will be hoping that voters just hear the words "rent cap". Clearly, capping the actual rents would be a much more bureaucratic, difficult and controversial thing to do
Well speaking as one of those Conservatives that you seem to detest so much I don't think that claiming benefits makes you a scrounger - and most of those 'benefit claiming bashing' - usually refer to extremes and frankly they are scroungers - but not because they are on benefits and they would in all probability still be scroungers if they were not on benefits.
Nope, never said I detest "conservatives" why would I when I have much loved family members who vote conservative?
I detest the conservative party, both now and historically, I very much agree with the famous Nye Bevan quote, and he was talking about the party, not those who vote for it,
Which people left others in the situation we are in now?
Why do you propose environmental destruction? Is it simply spite?
More than 60 million people have a right to feel aggrieved that national policy - Labour's - is once again being based on a percentage of 2-3 million in Central London. Central London needs to sort itself out. It has a Mayor.
I live just inside the Greater London boundary. There is a closer correlation here between local property prices and those in York than between here and inner London where the price of housing is distorted by overseas investment. Even then it is sporadic. When it comes to rents, they have been falling in places like Peckham for well over a year.
The selling of council houses which reduced social housing stock was first proposed by Labour in 1959. People elected a Conservative Government in that year. It was then introduced by the Greater London Council in 1977. The Tory Government was not elected in 1979 because of the policy to extend sales nationally but because of Labour's economic mismanagement. Principally it benefited non London areas as it hadn't been available there. Any link to London's property market now is extremely tenuous. Opposition to national council house sales from Labour lasted no more than five years and was dropped in 1985 as it was most popular with Labour voters.
So no one voted for it specifically. Other than in 1983, no one offered an alternative except perhaps the National Front and that was an election when Labour would have left the UK without defences. Half the Labour Party found it impossible to endorse its own manifesto. Should we in your view have voted for the National Front instead? It is worth pointing out that as one of the third who voted neither Conservative or Labour in the 1980s that I had no support for the policy in any case.
Those who benefited most financially from council house sales were poor council house tenants rather than the wealthy or the poor in private housing in the suburbs. In fact, we subsidised it and the less wealthy we were the more we felt the impacts of paying for it. In status terms, it reduced us. And any advantages are now enjoyed by their offspring who otherwise would have less. So on what grounds can you justify what you are suggesting?
The Liberal elite who left the mass immigration door open whilst themselves living in leafy suburbs like er surrey or chiswick for example.
London does need to sort itself out thats for sure but it does not seem capable does it with chinese and russian buiniess people buying off plan before locals have a chance.
Its the mass immigration ploicy of NU Labour and the "right on types" that have left the UK overpopulated whislt those already here suffer.
Including the NIMBYS who want housing for their children but not built near them.
No spite in me wanting decent housing for all i think with respect.:)
I have always believed council housing is there for those that need it not to give the poor a nest egg,in fact one of my dads ex workmates bemoaned the fact his sons could not get social housing,my dad said you know why that is don't you people have bought them,just like my dads ex workmate who had bought his.!
Yes their children have the advantage of no social housing left for them a nest egg is a very poor substitute.As a sidenote scores of ex council properties in my town are now turning up in some cases at treble the rent,with no security of tenure and sometimes p--s poor landlords.>:(
Richest MP in Britain slams welfare state but makes £625k a year in housing benefits
A Tory MP worth £110million is raking in £120,000 a year from his hard-up tenants’ housing benefit – despite blasting the “something for nothing” welfare state.
Mr Benyon has also attacked the Labour Party over payments and said: “Labour want benefits to go up more than the earnings of people in work. It isn’t fair and we will not let them bring back their something for nothing culture.” He is a director of the Englefield Estate Trust Corporation Limited, which owns most of the land and property linked to his family.
It got £119,237 in housing benefit from West Berkshire council last year, more than any other private landlord in the area.
of course this has NOTHING AT ALL to do with the Tory opposition to the Labour proposals, nothing at all, and some of their supporters side with him and his government, while blaming the tenants for the amount of rent the landlords charge, Orwell would be laughing his backside off,
Eileen Short, of Defend Council Housing, fumed: “How dare Richard Benyon lecture us about ‘something for nothing’ when he is living off the poorest and milking taxpayers all the way to the bank?
“It’s not tenants who gain from housing benefit, but some of the richest people in Britain. They get richer at our expense – and blame us while they’re at it.”
I DO have words to describe exactly what I think of this....... creature, but I can't use them here unfortunately,
Stopping lettings agencies charging exorbitant fees is a good idea though £100-£200 for admin fees when all they do is print off a tenancy agreement, biggest rip-off since PPI IMO.
So you disagree with the idea that benefits shouldnt rise faster than wages?
Brilliant, you 'cherry pick' that one point out of the entire thing, while ignoring everything else, like his "scrounging" from the tax payers, then going on to blame the very people he uses to increase his personal wealth,..... for claiming the benefits that enable them to afford the rent he charges them,
Brilliant, you 'cherry pick' that one point out of the entire thing, while ignoring everything else, like his "scrounging" from the tax payers, then going on to blame the very people he uses to increase his personal wealth,..... for claiming the benefits that enable them to afford the rent he charges them,
Well it appears that you are the one cherry picking - the story was quite plain, he objected to Welfare benefits rising faster than wages, what his investments are is irrelevant. In fact if he were as corrupt as you claim he would be supporting the Labour Party view that benefits should rise faster so that he gets more money in. By voting to cap welfare he actually hurts his own investment strategy.
of course this has NOTHING AT ALL to do with the Tory opposition to the Labour proposals, nothing at all, and some of their supporters side with him and his government, while blaming the tenants for the amount of rent the landlords charge, Orwell would be laughing his backside off,
I DO have words to describe exactly what I think of this....... creature, but I can't use them here unfortunately,
the same party (and many of it's supporters) that brands millions of people who depend on one benefit or other, even those who WORK in low paid jobs, as, "parasites, scroungers, spongers, work-shy,shirkers, part of the benefits or something-for-nothing culture" etc, feel free to include any I've missed,
People who claim to be self-employed in order to claim certain benefits but never actually seem to be doing any work.:)
People who claim to be self-employed in order to claim certain benefits but never actually seem to be doing any work.:)
You mean the ones JOB CENTRES set up like, Catalogue distributors for kleeneaze, and avon, and telling people they are now self-employed and no longer unemployed, thousands of these jobs on the DWP job site, IDS job market what a laugh
Comments
Build the estate near to the people that left us in the situation we are in now.;-)
The people writing the angry letters needed housing once,as might their children.
What a good idea for gerrymandering the election results. Build massive council estates in the Shires and move all of the Labour supporting social housing tenants into them.
Plenty of brown-field sites in urban areas. And we could also remove the idea that council housing is for problem families. It used to be seen as housing for the hard-working, honest, blue-collar workers and it still is in some areas. But for some reasons the people living in council houses have stigmatised by certain areas of media.
When rent control is done in isolation perhaps, but as part of a raft of measures, including the building of more social housing and cheap to buy housing, it would certainly have more impact on the current housing crisis than punishing poor people for having a room that a politician has decided you don't need,
As well as bringing the not insignificant number of private landlords who exploit the benefits system by charging a high rent (knowing that the tax payers will foot the bill) under some control,
I agree, it would certainly be the number one factor in helping to resolve not only the housing crisis, but the shortage of jobs too.
Sorry? "the extra room supplement"? Never heard of it, in the several times that I have needed to claim housing benefit over the past 40 years or so, I don't recall EVER having my housing benefit paid 'by the room',
for example if I was renting a one bedroomed council flat in central London the housing benefit would be far higher than for a three bedroomed house in the north east of the UK,
likewise the housing benefit payable for a one bedroomed private flat in the north east of the UK would still be much higher than the housing benefit payable for a three bedroomed house in the same region,
and yet the Tories would punish me for claiming a lower amount of benefit, while claiming they are saving the tax payers money!!!
The spare room fine has failed to save any money for the tax payers, in fact quite the reverse, it has failed to have any significant impact on the housing crisis,
It's quite evident that it was only ever about spiteful hatred towards the poorest in society.
But the Tories were made fully aware of that fact by numerous housing associations and councils long before it became punishable by the imposition of a financial penalty for being 'guilty of spare room crime',
They KNEW that the majority of these people wouldn't be able to move, fact is, they didn't want them to move, they wanted to punish them for being poor and claiming housing benefit,
When these facts are known and understood, what other conclusion can there be?
Usual textbook posting straight from the Labour policy boilerhouse, I suspect even you know this is more populist unworkable nonsense. State control of a 100% private market a non starter and would make the current housing difficulties worse, especially the majority who used Blair's open door policy in 2001 who reside in this type of accomodation. Why would you invest in putting rental accomodation on if you were put under such restrictions, idiocy.
That ended in 1977
Well speaking as one of those Conservatives that you seem to detest so much I don't think that claiming benefits makes you a scrounger - and most of those 'benefit claiming bashing' - usually refer to extremes and frankly they are scroungers - but not because they are on benefits and they would in all probability still be scroungers if they were not on benefits.
Build more houses and the rents will go down as a natural result of supply and demand, making rent control largely irrelevant.
Which people left others in the situation we are in now?
Why do you propose environmental destruction? Is it simply spite?
More than 60 million people have a right to feel aggrieved that national policy - Labour's - is once again being based on a percentage of 2-3 million in Central London. Central London needs to sort itself out. It has a Mayor.
I live just inside the Greater London boundary. There is a closer correlation here between local property prices and those in York than between here and inner London where the price of housing is distorted by overseas investment. Even then it is sporadic. When it comes to rents, they have been falling in places like Peckham for well over a year.
The selling of council houses which reduced social housing stock was first proposed by Labour in 1959. People elected a Conservative Government in that year. It was then introduced by the Greater London Council in 1977. The Tory Government was not elected in 1979 because of the policy to extend sales nationally but because of Labour's economic mismanagement. Principally it benefited non London areas as it hadn't been available there. Any link to London's property market now is extremely tenuous. Opposition to national council house sales from Labour lasted no more than five years and was dropped in 1985 as it was most popular with Labour voters.
So no one voted for it specifically. Other than in 1983, no one offered an alternative except perhaps the National Front and that was an election when Labour would have left the UK without defences. Half the Labour Party found it impossible to endorse its own manifesto. Should we in your view have voted for the National Front instead? It is worth pointing out that as one of the third who voted neither Conservative or Labour in the 1980s that I had no support for the policy in any case.
Those who benefited most financially from council house sales were poor council house tenants rather than the wealthy or the poor in private housing in the suburbs. In fact, we subsidised it and the less wealthy we were the more we felt the impacts of paying for it. In status terms, it reduced us. And any advantages are now enjoyed by their offspring who otherwise would have less. So on what grounds can you justify what you are suggesting?
But still, from small acorns ;-)
And they're proposing it, not building them. They might as well propose free cake for all.
Where are these 600,000 homes in London going to go? Concrete over Hyde Park?
It's the easiest thing in the world to "promise" 200,000 a year but it's a lot harder, as previous governments have found, to deliver them. If the government were to fund them then we are talking about a minimum of £20bn a year. If they want the market to provide them then how can that be enforced?
Actually, if you look at the actual policy, it is only to cap the rent *rises*. However, Labour will be hoping that voters just hear the words "rent cap". Clearly, capping the actual rents would be a much more bureaucratic, difficult and controversial thing to do
Nope, never said I detest "conservatives" why would I when I have much loved family members who vote conservative?
I detest the conservative party, both now and historically, I very much agree with the famous Nye Bevan quote, and he was talking about the party, not those who vote for it,
The Liberal elite who left the mass immigration door open whilst themselves living in leafy suburbs like er surrey or chiswick for example.
London does need to sort itself out thats for sure but it does not seem capable does it with chinese and russian buiniess people buying off plan before locals have a chance.
Its the mass immigration ploicy of NU Labour and the "right on types" that have left the UK overpopulated whislt those already here suffer.
Including the NIMBYS who want housing for their children but not built near them.
No spite in me wanting decent housing for all i think with respect.:)
I have always believed council housing is there for those that need it not to give the poor a nest egg,in fact one of my dads ex workmates bemoaned the fact his sons could not get social housing,my dad said you know why that is don't you people have bought them,just like my dads ex workmate who had bought his.!
Yes their children have the advantage of no social housing left for them a nest egg is a very poor substitute.As a sidenote scores of ex council properties in my town are now turning up in some cases at treble the rent,with no security of tenure and sometimes p--s poor landlords.>:(
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/richest-mp-britain-slams-welfare-3178089
of course this has NOTHING AT ALL to do with the Tory opposition to the Labour proposals, nothing at all, and some of their supporters side with him and his government, while blaming the tenants for the amount of rent the landlords charge, Orwell would be laughing his backside off,
I DO have words to describe exactly what I think of this....... creature, but I can't use them here unfortunately,
ETA,
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/01/foaming-tory-response-labour-rental-reforms-stops-debate
So you disagree with the idea that benefits shouldnt rise faster than wages?
Brilliant, you 'cherry pick' that one point out of the entire thing, while ignoring everything else, like his "scrounging" from the tax payers, then going on to blame the very people he uses to increase his personal wealth,..... for claiming the benefits that enable them to afford the rent he charges them,
Well it appears that you are the one cherry picking - the story was quite plain, he objected to Welfare benefits rising faster than wages, what his investments are is irrelevant. In fact if he were as corrupt as you claim he would be supporting the Labour Party view that benefits should rise faster so that he gets more money in. By voting to cap welfare he actually hurts his own investment strategy.
He is providing homes for people, what is wrong with that? Where would they live otherwise? In the properties of other landlords?
I don't understand. Are you saying that they shouldn't accept tenants on housing benefit?
People who claim to be self-employed in order to claim certain benefits but never actually seem to be doing any work.:)
You mean the ones JOB CENTRES set up like, Catalogue distributors for kleeneaze, and avon, and telling people they are now self-employed and no longer unemployed, thousands of these jobs on the DWP job site, IDS job market what a laugh