Social house building

[Clip]

This got me thinking with both the political party thread on here and me going back and reading the Thatcher death thread in the wake of Bob Crows death too.

There was a lot of talk about the buying your council house scheme and how it was poor because they didnt restock like they should have done properly - always something the left like to push across when talking about housing as something to bash her and that policy with - housing shortahe is all down to Thatcher.

And this then got me remembering about a small story in the Standard that had Tom Copley (LAB) saying that Labour should apologise for their horrifc housebuilding during their 13 years in power

He said: “As a Labour politician one of the things that really galls me is that there’s this statistic that more council homes were built in the last year of Thatcher’s government than were built in the 13 years of Labour government, and that’s something I think as a Labour Party we need to apologise for.” Official figures show only 6,330 council houses were completed from 1998 to 2010, compared with 17,710 in 1990 alone, which was Baroness Thatcher’s final year as prime minister. In one Labour year, 2004, the number fell to just 130 council homes completed.

Now that astounds me, it really does.We have the current opposition of the house calling on a Tory housing crisis yet they failed to build more in 12 years than the Thatcher govt did in 1 year.

I really dont like tit-for-tat politics about 'they did, but they did' but Im not sure many people are aware of this and that is the only reason why I am posting. There should have been far more built in the Labour years than was and Im struggling to see why they didnt which has now led us to the point where we are desperatly short of housing now. Yeah Thatchers govt sholdve built more too but surely the last govt should've built more than 600 per year given they knew about the immigration policy they were using which was always going to increase the population.

 

[SS4]

This all falls into place when you realise the last Labour government was Tory lite instead of an alternative - it depresses me the amount of people that think Labour is left. Both governments should have built more social housing and now we're paying the price, the trouble as I see it is that committing to build housing is a long term commitment which is something at odds with the short term thinking prevalent in Whitehall.

 

[transmanche]

Now that astounds me, it really does.We have the current opposition of the house calling on a Tory housing crisis yet they failed to build more in 12 years than the Thatcher govt did in 1 year.

I agree that's poor. But I think to get a more accurate picture we'd need to look at all social housing, rather than just council houses. Government policy (of both colours) seems to have favoured Housing Associations over Council Houses. Plus I don't what the effect of transferring council houses to "ALMOs" has made to the figures.

(However, whatever the true number, the end result will still be "not enough".)

 

[Clip]

This all falls into place when you realise the last Labour government was Tory lite instead of an alternative - it depresses me the amount of people that think Labour is left. Both governments should have built more social housing and now we're paying the price, the trouble as I see it is that committing to build housing is a long term commitment which is something at odds with the short term thinking prevalent in Whitehall.

We're all well aware of that but you speak to Miliband and his party members and they will still say they are socialists so unfortunately thats what they are,even if they do pull down their pants just to get into power.

I agree that's poor. But I think to get a more accurate picture we'd need to look at all social housing, rather than just council houses. Government policy (of both colours) seems to have favoured Housing Associations over Council Houses. Plus I don't what the effect of transferring council houses to "ALMOs" has made to the figures.

(However, whatever the true number, the end result will still be "not enough".)

I did wonder if it included HA's as they are on the rise quite alot over the last decade or so and making massive inroads with big money projects but with that surely by getting their money from the govt in some form or another shouldnt they also be included.

 

[DarloRich]

Are you missing the point that once the houses were sold off ( a good thing) they weren't replaced using the proceeds ( a bad thing) and the remaining "social housing" transferred away from the local authorities into the Housing Associations?

There was a drive from the Thatcherites to remove the local authority from the provision of housing. They felt it should be done/was best done by others. Labour didn't reverse this.

Presently, the Tories are allowing developers to water down their section 106 agreements/commitments AND reduce the number of "social housing units" that have to be offered as part of a new development further limiting the supply of new "affordable" homes. There is a pressing need for more affordable housing in this country and no body seems willing to deal with that problem!

 

[Nick W]

Do the arguments made take into account the following?

• The development of housing associations
• The provision of better benefits, including housing benefit
• The refurbishment of existing council houses
• The requirement for new housing projects to have affordable homes
• The demographics and ageing population
• The wealth acquired by younger generations
• The demolition of no longer sought after tower blocks

Look at Sturry, Kent, for a demonstration of a "divide" between council houses and private dwellings, with a shared park and play facilities. Is this the way forward or is the New Labour approach a better idea?

 

[Greenback]

I'd like to see the graph that shows social housing as opposed to council built housing.

 

[jon0844]

Where I live, it's 30% social housing on the estate that was built around 2000-2003. It was a requirement for planning consent.

And, over the last ten years, we've had a fair few incidents here. Police raids (drugs mostly), evictions, ASBOs given to young children that have - and still are - causing problems at times, and they're all from the social housing.

I can see the importance of integrating people, but in reality it doesn't seem to work. The social housing areas have effectively become a separate estate.

 

[DarloRich]

Where I live, it's 30% social housing on the estate that was built around 2000-2003. It was a requirement for planning consent.

And, over the last ten years, we've had a fair few incidents here. Police raids (drugs mostly), evictions, ASBOs given to young children that have - and still are - causing problems at times, and they're all from the social housing.

I can see the importance of integrating people, but in reality it doesn't seem to work. The social housing areas have effectively become a separate estate.

So what is your answer - shunt them away into a sink estate where you don’t have to gaze upon the poor?

 

[jon0844]

Who said they're poor?

I think the problem is far more complicated than that.

 

[fowler9]

Who said they're poor?

I think the problem is far more complicated than that.

You are right that it is more complicated than that. However, whilst I am not poor the only way I can get housing now is by queuing on the social housing list or paying a fortune to a private landlord.

Also as others have said the current Labour Party are only a tiny bit less neo Liberal than the Tories. Selling off council housing was what killed it.

 

[DarloRich]

Who said they're poor?

I think the problem is far more complicated than that.

Agreed - but the general perception, which you seem to support with your post, is that those in social housing are trouble.

I live on a new development with a similar level of social housing and there is very little trouble.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You are right that it is more complicated than that. However, whilst I am not poor the only way I can get housing now is by queuing on the social housing list or paying a fortune to a private landlord.

Welcome to my world

Also as others have said the current Labour Party are only a tiny bit less neo Liberal than the Tories. Selling off council housing was what killed it.

The selling of council houses is not wrong - the prohibition on using the proceeds to build houses for the next generation to live in IS. Surely you could have truly created a nation of home owners by selling homes, using the proceeds to build more homes, selling those to the next generation and building more and so on!

 

[Yew]

Not forgetting the consistent above inflation house price rises, that is somehow marketed as a good thing...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The selling of council houses is not wrong - the prohibition on using the proceeds to build houses for the next generation to live in IS. Surely you could have truly created a nation of home owners by selling homes, using the proceeds to build more homes, selling those to the next generation and building more and so on!

But this is the baby boomer generation, who got the best of everything and then cut services leaving a big bill for my generation to sort out, despite not benefiting from it.

 

[jon0844]

I live on a new development with a similar level of social housing and there is very little trouble.

That's good for you. Long may it continue!

 

[fowler9]

Agreed - but the general perception, which you seem to support with your post, is that those in social housing are trouble.

I live on a new development with a similar level of social housing and there is very little trouble.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Welcome to my world



The selling of council houses is not wrong - the prohibition on using the proceeds to build houses for the next generation to live in IS. Surely you could have truly created a nation of home owners by selling homes, using the proceeds to build more homes, selling those to the next generation and building more and so on!

Sorry mate, that is spot on. The selling of property in itself is not a problem. Not letting the councils reinvest that money in housing was a mistake.

 

[Butts]

Not forgetting the consistent above inflation house price rises, that is somehow marketed as a good thing...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


But this is the baby boomer generation, who got the best of everything and then cut services leaving a big bill for my generation to sort out, despite not benefiting from it.

Are your parents leaving their house to Charity then ?

 

[ainsworth74]

Are your parents leaving their house to Charity then ?

That assumes that they live in their house until they die and don't end up having to sell it to fund their care in their old age. Of course some people do (my grandfather is 94 and still lives in his home) but plenty don't and with the boomers expected to live for a very long time it's not unreasonable to expect that the vast majority will, at some point, end up needing to sell their homes not for the benefit of their children but to ensure they have the care they need in their old age.