Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
acooling08

Policy Exchange - Social Housing

Recommended Posts

Posted

I don't really buy the argument of creating ghettos. If an area is expensive I don't see why those who have social housing should benefit from living their if others cannot. That thinking is what lead to insane rents being paid by councils, which is partly to blame for the dramatic increase in private rent levels.

Erm - it was the sale of the rented housing stock which thrust everyone at the private sector market that, in conjunction with inflated house values, led to the ridiculous rental prices.

Posted

So what happens when you have nothing left to sell? :unsure:

You build 2for1 on the...um...near the...oh, err...right next to the old...fuck, there's nowhere to build them!

Posted

You build 2for1 on the...um...near the...oh, err...right next to the old...****, there's nowhere to build them!

You do know less than 10% of the country is built on I am sure.

Posted

You do know less than 10% of the country is built on I am sure.

You do know that if someone tries to build on a greenfield site a bunch of Tory NIMBYs start writing letters to the local paper?

Posted

Erm - it was the sale of the rented housing stock which thrust everyone at the private sector market that, in conjunction with inflated house values, led to the ridiculous rental prices.

I would be interested to see your evidence for that. I can well imagine it might have been a contributory factor, but instinctively you would think that 1) taking so many people into property ownership might have helped and 2) that a lot of social housing has in fact been built in the following 30 years, and that the open door policy of the previous Government combined with the absence of an actual plan to deal with the lack of houses might have also been a factor.

And lo a proposal came forward to build more houses than are sold (presumably to someone else who needs a house) which will clearly mean more houses available, and that is not good enough because they might not be in the right area. This is the mentality that leads nowhere. Stop looking for blockers for everything and give it a go.

Posted

You do know that if someone tries to build on a greenfield site a bunch of Tory NIMBYs start writing letters to the local paper?

There are plenty of NIMBYs of all political leanings in my experience.

Posted

I would be interested to see your evidence for that.

Seeing as evidence is an anathema to posters on FT I've decided to give up bothering too.

From hereonin I'm just typing bollocks like everyone else.

Posted

True, it can hardly be touted as a policy when in effect it is a one way, one time only sale of public assets. Still this is what the Tories are famous for, flogging public assets in order to bribe the electorate in an election year.

It is a proposal from a think tank. Not a policy. Which bit of sell expensive to built cheaper was too challenging? Did you read the article?

Seeing as evidence is an anathema to posters on FT I've decided to give up bothering too.

From hereonin I'm just typing bollocks like everyone else.

That is disappointing, I am too busy to do my own research and I was hoping you might do it for me :)

Posted

Seeing as evidence is an anathema to posters on FT I've decided to give up bothering too.

From hereonin I'm just typing bollocks like everyone else.

lol. From here on in? Riiiiight

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...