Enfield housing experiment
Discussion
randlemarcus said:
Because it transferred ownership of that asset to the individual, increasing their sense of community, rewarding them for the decades of rent they had paid, and shifted liability for that asset away from the local authority. The vagaries of the housing market are what they are, the fundaments of the policy are/were sound. It's just we failed to replace with new stock using that money. There is a place for social housing in a civilised society - but it's not a multi-generational one.
It was a political decision. The real desire to to get a significant number of people out of the rented market and into the demographic that would vote tory. It was the same with shares. Sell off nationalised industries and the great unwashed will then own shares and vote tory to keep up the returns.The local authorities did not 'fail' to build replacements, the councils were forbidden to do so as there was no desire for another generation of renters.
I accept this is simplistic and there were other pressures, such as appeasing the nutting right of her party, but overall this is what happened.
I admire Thatcher, but every time she went from her beliefs into politics she messed up.
Derek Smith said:
It was a political decision. The real desire to to get a significant number of people out of the rented market and into the demographic that would vote tory. It was the same with shares. Sell off nationalised industries and the great unwashed will then own shares and vote tory to keep up the returns.
The local authorities did not 'fail' to build replacements, the councils were forbidden to do so as there was no desire for another generation of renters.
I accept this is simplistic and there were other pressures, such as appeasing the nutting right of her party, but overall this is what happened.
I admire Thatcher, but every time she went from her beliefs into politics she messed up.
I already pointed out the flaw as regards stock replacement, thanks. The local authorities did not 'fail' to build replacements, the councils were forbidden to do so as there was no desire for another generation of renters.
I accept this is simplistic and there were other pressures, such as appeasing the nutting right of her party, but overall this is what happened.
I admire Thatcher, but every time she went from her beliefs into politics she messed up.
As regards beliefs vs politics, I suspect politics is to blame for most of the DM worthy clusterf&*ks we so enjoy on here
randlemarcus said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
JezzaV8 said:
Or alternatively working as an estate agent in Islington as I did, seeing buyers who had hardly worked a day in their lazy lives lives buy into instant equity and fly past me on the property ladder, despite the fact I had worked my a$$ off for 10 years.
Nail / head. For the record, I have never benefitted from RTB, and though I would rather horrible people didn't do well in life, sometimes they do.As much of a fan of Thatcher as I am, is this called irony....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/margaret-...
randlemarcus said:
Except they don't "belong to all of us", except in an airy fairy way. They belong to the Council, who will use those resources for the benefit of the Council, not "all of us". RTB significantly improved some areas in terms of upkeep, ASB and community cohesion. Councils having huge housing stocks doesn't benefit anybody, including the "all of us" who pay for the tenants to have new double glazing and roofing every decade.
Which areas have improved in terms of upkeep/ASB/community cohesion?"benefitting the Council" benefits the local taxpayer because it enables low cost housing to be provided to people in need, as well as avoiding having to pay market rents to private sector landlords.
It's cheaper to replace double glazing and roofing than it is to house somebody in a private sector house.
RTB makes as much sense as selling off hospitals and schools and using taxpayer money to send people to the same hospitals/schools that are now owned by the private sector and cost 20% - 30% more.
Edited by Countdown on Tuesday 2nd September 17:50
JezzaV8 said:
Or alternatively working as an estate agent in Islington as I did, seeing buyers who had hardly worked a day in their lazy lives buy into instant equity and fly past me on the property ladder, despite the fact I had saved and worked my a$$ off for 10 years.
How did you feel taking a fee and/or a percentage of the sale once you'd 'worked your ass off for 10 years'?Edited by JezzaV8 on Tuesday 2nd September 16:16
You don't like the practise but are happy to make a living from it?
Thatchers prodigy eh?
legzr1 said:
How did you feel taking a fee and/or a percentage of the sale once you'd 'worked your ass off for 10 years'?
You don't like the practise but are happy to make a living from it?
Thatchers prodigy eh?
Haha!! You don't like the practise but are happy to make a living from it?
Thatchers prodigy eh?
Well in all honesty it only ever represented a tiny part of our business, Foxtons et al generally cleaned up at that area of the market. But hell, I wasn't going to put my head in the sand and deny what was going on - if it helped towards my flat deposit who was I to pick and choose?! I still stand by my judgement - right to buy was a successful vote winner for Mrs T, but stupid and irresponsable idea in every other way.... housing bubble anyone ?! s1962a said:
Deng Xiaoping said:
It doesn't matter whether a cat is white or black, as long as it catches mice.
Derek Smith said:
It was a political decision. The real desire to to get a significant number of people out of the rented market and into the demographic that would vote tory. It was the same with shares. Sell off nationalised industries and the great unwashed will then own shares and vote tory to keep up the returns.
Not forgetting that 6 months later, the minister in charge of the share sell off usually ended up on the board of the nationalised industry he helped sell as a non exec director, on £750K a year for 1 day a month.And to think people look back on Thatcher's era with fondness. It accomplished much, but was rotten to the core.
The policy was deeply flawed throughout imo. Those buying were dangled a lovely carrot in front of them whether they could afford or not. Opportunity for fraud, loss of Social housing, no public consideration for new build Social housing. Still it seemed a good idea at the time for, some at least.
Social engineering?
Social engineering?
V8 Fettler said:
Build large tower block estates for social housing, it's the only answer.
I'm thinking Russian High rise commune housing, circa post revolution where they had communal showers, kitchens and socialising areas, and the flats were basically private bedrooms. Pretty much the Stalinist era removed this Trotskyist idea, and they just built s
t concrete apartments like Sheffield only MORE miserable. Pit Pony said:
V8 Fettler said:
Build large tower block estates for social housing, it's the only answer.
I'm thinking Russian High rise commune housing, circa post revolution where they had communal showers, kitchens and socialising areas, and the flats were basically private bedrooms. Pretty much the Stalinist era removed this Trotskyist idea, and they just built s
t concrete apartments like Sheffield only MORE miserable. wouldn't wish that on the worst dole scrounger
OllieC said:
Pit Pony said:
V8 Fettler said:
Build large tower block estates for social housing, it's the only answer.
I'm thinking Russian High rise commune housing, circa post revolution where they had communal showers, kitchens and socialising areas, and the flats were basically private bedrooms. Pretty much the Stalinist era removed this Trotskyist idea, and they just built s
t concrete apartments like Sheffield only MORE miserable. wouldn't wish that on the worst dole scrounger
1) You need a concrete building with running water and a toilet and a microwave.
2) You need to get a job, save up and then move somewhere you like?
Pit Pony said:
OllieC said:
Pit Pony said:
V8 Fettler said:
Build large tower block estates for social housing, it's the only answer.
I'm thinking Russian High rise commune housing, circa post revolution where they had communal showers, kitchens and socialising areas, and the flats were basically private bedrooms. Pretty much the Stalinist era removed this Trotskyist idea, and they just built s
t concrete apartments like Sheffield only MORE miserable. wouldn't wish that on the worst dole scrounger
1) You need a concrete building with running water and a toilet and a microwave.
2) You need to get a job, save up and then move somewhere you like?
Pit Pony said:
Maslow's Hierarchy of needs ?
1) You need a concrete building with running water and a toilet and a microwave.
2) You need to get a job, save up and then move somewhere you like?
Rather you need decent social housing that remains in the hands of the State. Where people can live with dignity and when able to can be supported with a small grant to go and put towards a deposit for their own home bought on the private market. 1) You need a concrete building with running water and a toilet and a microwave.
2) You need to get a job, save up and then move somewhere you like?
OllieC said:
Pit Pony said:
OllieC said:
Pit Pony said:
V8 Fettler said:
Build large tower block estates for social housing, it's the only answer.
I'm thinking Russian High rise commune housing, circa post revolution where they had communal showers, kitchens and socialising areas, and the flats were basically private bedrooms. Pretty much the Stalinist era removed this Trotskyist idea, and they just built s
t concrete apartments like Sheffield only MORE miserable. wouldn't wish that on the worst dole scrounger
1) You need a concrete building with running water and a toilet and a microwave.
2) You need to get a job, save up and then move somewhere you like?
V8 Fettler said:
The Barbican has some of the most desirable housing the UK, high rise and modular. Although to a slightly higher standard than the usual local authority system build. See also popularity of Trellick Tower, now over £500k for a flat.
Rather more down to location than quality though surely? Goldfinger's other tower (in Bromley-by-Bow) hasn't been as popular. TTwiggy said:
V8 Fettler said:
The Barbican has some of the most desirable housing the UK, high rise and modular. Although to a slightly higher standard than the usual local authority system build. See also popularity of Trellick Tower, now over £500k for a flat.
Rather more down to location than quality though surely? Goldfinger's other tower (in Bromley-by-Bow) hasn't been as popular. RedTrident said:
Rather you need decent social housing that remains in the hands of the State. Where people can live with dignity and when able to can be supported with a small grant to go and put towards a deposit for their own home bought on the private market.
Nice idea - except for people like the late tube drivers' union leader, earning >£100k plus benefits but seemingly unwilling to vacate his long term council house. Until he died, of course.Probably to be handed on to the next generation too.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff