The tories answer to council house shortage

[number 6]

1)Cut the budget by over 50%
2) Put the threat of being turfed out to any new tenants if they ever get a job
3)Raise rents to private sector levels so the age council tenant will be paying almost double what they would do now.
4)Add the proviso that any new houses built will be done on the cheap and will be miserably poor standard

Trying to find any sense in these proposals but this just stink of out and out hatred of poor people and payback time for 13 years of labour in govt. Lib dems hang your heads for proppng this up.

[one eyed jack]

Well, this may not appluy to you number 6 but the people have voted and they get what they voted for.

I guess the bank managers get to still have their bonuses then since the government bailed them out

[planeterotica]

I can see both sides of this argument, there are instances where couples and singles are living in three bedroom social housing after they have raised a family with other families on the waiting list, if the system worked as it was meant to then these people would move into smaller accomodation and make way for others to raise their families, but i do believe a carrot rather than a stick would be the best method of persuasion.

On another note in the year 1938-39 there were 360,000 houses built in the UK more than have been built in any year since, and just after WW2 when this country was more broke than it is now a massive social housing build was undertaken, yes it took years for this country to pay off its debt but in that time many fortunes were made and most peoples standard of living rose substantialy, so i do question wether these deep cuts are really necessary, still we are all in it together !wink!

[RoddersUK]

Can anyone explain why when the Bitch Thatcher created Right to Buy the Councils who sold their housing stock, and that must be all I suppose, were not allowed to replace them. Did all the money go to the Thatcher Bitch's government? Did the Councils get nothing? I have wondered about this and no one seems to explain it.

[David Johnson]

Hi

The answer to your question is a bit like asking why did Maggie Thatcher privatise the nationalised industries and not use the money to nationalise other private industries.
The Tories were ideologically against the government and local councils providing council houses just as they were opposed to the nationalised industries.
Just as they sold off nationalised industry shares at knockdown prices as part of the privatisation, they sold off a significant part of the social housing stock at knockdown prices. The result of this is clear - we all get ripped off by the privatised industries like the power companies and families looking for social housing often either end up in cramped council flats or paying exorbitant rents to landlords who saw a money making opportunity.

Cheers
D

[Bob Singleton]

RoddersUK wrote:

> Can anyone explain why when the Bitch Thatcher created Right to
> Buy the Councils who sold their housing stock, and that must be
> all I suppose, were not allowed to replace them. Did all the
> money go to the Thatcher Bitch's government? Did the Councils
> get nothing? I have wondered about this and no one seems to
> explain it.
>

Councils were only allowed to re-invest the money in new housing stock IF the council was debt free. Those councils in debt couldn't build new council houses, and those not in debt (mostly Tory) were not in favour of social housing anyway so chose NOT to build new council homes.

[David Johnson]

"Well, this may not appluy to you number 6 but the people have voted and they get what they voted for."

To be honest OEJ, I am not sure if this is correct. You could argue that people who voted for an unprincipled party like the Lib Dems got what they voted for I guess.

However, even though Gordon Brown was a very unpopular leader, the Labour party had been in power for 13 years and the UK had suffered since 2009 from the worst global recession since the 1030's the Tory party still couldnt get an overall majority of seats. Both the Labour party and the Liberal Dems had campaigned on an almost completely different agenda on areas such as the timing and depth of economic cuts.

So the Tories never had an electoral mandate for the spending review measures as far as I can see. The only reason they have been able to implement their policies at all is because the Lib Dems have thrown out the vast majority of the beliefs, principles and policies they campaigned on in return for some power in government

If the Lib Dems had given any intimation prior to the election that there was a serious chance that they might do what they have subsequently done in the weeks after the elction, I would have been gobsmacked if they had got anywhere near the votes they ended up with.

I would have to disagree that the people who voted got what they voted for.

Cheers
D

[sparky]

!rant!

Just as they sold off nationalised industry shares at knockdown prices as part of the privatisation, .......... The result of this is clear - we all get ripped off by the privatised industries like the power companies .....

About to happen again with the Post Office and they are encouraging foreign interest so the profit goes out the country.

Transport is another area where foreigners have a significant hold.
DB, the German State owned rail company, now own Arriva in addition to Chiltern Rail.
NED (Dutch rail company ) also have significant holdings in our rail system.

[Arginald Valleywater]

As an employee of a very large social landlord I can tell you that the majority of right to buy money went, and still does go to local councils, even many years after the stock has been sold off. If someone buys their property (although almost impossible as the banks and b socs aren't lending to any fucker at the moment) they get a discount off market value depending on how long they have been in the property. A simple example would be someone buying a 3 bed terrace in Cumbria for say ?90k market price. If they have been a tenant for 20 years they could get almost 50% discount. So the social landlord loses a house and gets ?5k for their pain and local council pocket the other ?40k. Most of the legislation was introduced by Callaghan not Maggie.

[David Johnson]

Your post is misleading in that it gives the impression that Callaghan was the key player in this transfer of council houses from public into private ownership.

I suggest you read the following extracts from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_buy_scheme

"Individual local authorities have always had the ability to sell council houses to their tenants, but until the early 1970s such sales were extremely rare"

"GLC housing sales were not allowed during the Labour administration of the mid-1970s but picked up again once Cutler became Leader in 1977. They proved extremely popular, and Cutler was close to Margaret Thatcher (a London MP) who made the right to buy council housing a Conservative Party policy nationally.

and "After Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister, the legislation to implement the Right to Buy was passed in the Housing Act 1980. The sale price of a council house was based on its market valuation but also included a discount to reflect the rents paid by tenants and also to encourage take-up. The legislation gave council tenants the right to buy their council house at a discounted value, depending on how long they had been living in the house, with the proviso that if they sold their house before a minimum period had expired they would have to pay back a proportion of the discount. The sales were an attractive deal for tenants and hundreds of thousands of homes were sold. The policy is regarded as one of the major points of Thatcherism.

CHeers
David