Housing benefit cap.

[NicD]

rover 623gsi said:

NicD said:

OK, so:

Annual housing starts totalled 122,590 in the 12 months to December 2013, up by 23 per cent compared with the year before.

So i don't get your point at all. I have simply stated facts that around where I live, there has been an explosion of building.

If we invite the entire world here, we should instantly build a billion units or what?

when you start from a very low base it's easy to show a high percentage increase. There are no 'facts' that there has been an explosion of building because my any measure there hasn't been.

The point is that the number of properties (of all types and all tenure) has been falling while the demand has been increasing. While that continues, the HB bill will rise, rents will rise and prices will rise.

There are plenty of 'facts', on the ground, where housing is found. Come to TW8 and I will point out all the schemes that have been built since I arrived in 2003.

'number of properties (of all types and all tenure) has been falling' eh? How can that be, please explain?
How many have been demolished to counter the 100,000 + started in the year?

[rover 623gsi]

nationally, around 30,000 properties are either demolished or become uninhabitable each year - this figure is rarely alluded to when discussing housebuilding but is worht noting because, of course, if we build for example 100,000 homes, the net increase is only 70,000

and i'm not quite sure why you are failing to grasp that the number of new dwellings built each year has fallen as it is clearly shown in the official statistics

[69 coupe]

What I've always wanted to know, in 1979 Margaret Thatcher gave Council tenants the 'right to buy' which people did in their droves due to the Councils poor reputation and shoddy repairs at that time and it was affordable to do so on 3x salary.

What I've never understood is the Government made it illegal for Councils to rebuild stock with the sales profits to replenish lost stock; people were still queuing up behind in their thousands still hoping to get a Council property and the lists growing ever longer yet the Councils were banned from replenishing this was in 1979 a Conservative government with Labour decrying all the time about not enough housing, yet Labour gets into power and do nothing to repeal or change that ruling, the councils were still banned from doing so, back to the Conservative and Liberal coalition and its still banned and now in 2015 with a Conservative majority it is still the same with the cash from rent to buys going to Government's first.

I live in NW London, I see loads of building signs "Government and Communities Agency in partnership with Housing Association/ council" properties been built, when they are complete the vast majority are given to Housing benefit rents and the recipients the council rents to are people who've recently arrived on these shores, many from Brazil (Portuguese Passports) Poland, Afghans, Pakistan's Syrians and sham marriages but mainly Somalians, pretty much all new stock is given to people new to this country and or on very low incomes but Mr and Mrs indigenous very rarely get a look in as the 'Housing Laws' are written that; those 'In most need' get to the top of the list; whose going to be at the top of that list? someone with a recent "leave to remain" sticker on their newly acquired passport with Mum ready to pop and the rest of the kids needing English lessons with an ill mother in-law in tow and the Father allegedly just doing the maximum 16 hours on his newly acquired green taxi sticker whilst sitting outside a small mini cab office and weighing up the pros and cons of downloading the Uber App to keep him working just under the radar and keep the benefits flowing, or Mrs Indigenous/1st 2nd generation stuck living with Mum and Dad working at Tesco or the local factories saving to buy or stuck in generations of private renting. I see exactly where Council/HA properties are going every day.

The system is stacked in favour of new entrants all paid by welfare something the vast majority never put a penny into yet sucking every Government credit scheme up with Child benefit DLA (pip) thrown in for good measure which is handy because they've arrived with a gammy leg or whatever.

Meh!

[Sir Bagalot]

xjsdriver said:

Roll on Victorian Britain and workhouses seems to be the Tory way of thinking.

Lay off the Anti Tory crap. Labour were in power 97-10 and did fk all about housing

[xjsdriver]

98elise said:

xjsdriver said:

98elise said:

How would an occupied council house help with the shortfall? You can't put 2 families in a single house.

The Council need empty propertiies, not occupied houses.

As has been said above, when sold the same family lives in the same house. No more or less properties are available for occupation.

Said family lived there until they were able to sell it, which many did at a vast profit (not that I have a problem with that in principle)......council house building went into decline - fast forward to today and we have the mess that we have - all due to the idiotic prohibition placed on councils that they could not re-invest the money brought in from the sale of the houses on building new housing stock.
So councils ran short of housing stock and had to rely on the private sector to help house council tenants and those on HB further pushing up rental prices. A generation and more ago a house cost roughly 3 times the average salary..........now, fking forget it - Do you call that progress? I say it's a step backwards. Roll on Victorian Britain and workhouses seems to be the Tory way of thinking.

Regardless of if that family sell and move, the are still the same number of families living in the same number of properties. You have not created any additional capacity by keeping the property as a council house.

A generation ago houses were 4 times in my area. My father was an engineer, my parents house was 4x his salary in 1966. In 1988 i bought my first house in the same area for 4x my salary. Back then you were expected to come up with a 25% deposit, and you could borrow 3 - 3.5x your salary.

In the past 5 years I've bought 4 properties (of a similar size) in my area for between 108k, and 130k. Average salary is 26k so thats about 4x an average salary.

In the past few years prices have boomed again though, and they are now silly again. What we need is more houses being built to meet demand. That will keep prices reasonable.

Exactly my point that I've been making - however Maggie's insanity saw to it that houses weren't allowed to be built......madness on stilts and seemingly next to no-one on here thinks it's been the issue.

[xjsdriver]

Sir Bagalot said:

xjsdriver said:

Roll on Victorian Britain and workhouses seems to be the Tory way of thinking.

Lay off the Anti Tory crap. Labour were in power 97-10 and did fk all about housing

Why should I? I voted for Liebour once in 97 and never again after they proved that Nu-Liebour = Old-Tory, two cheeks of the same stty arse - both as rank and dirty as the other.

HTH.

[economicpygmy]

xjsdriver said:

98elise said:

xjsdriver said:

98elise said:

How would an occupied council house help with the shortfall? You can't put 2 families in a single house.

The Council need empty propertiies, not occupied houses.

As has been said above, when sold the same family lives in the same house. No more or less properties are available for occupation.

Said family lived there until they were able to sell it, which many did at a vast profit (not that I have a problem with that in principle)......council house building went into decline - fast forward to today and we have the mess that we have - all due to the idiotic prohibition placed on councils that they could not re-invest the money brought in from the sale of the houses on building new housing stock.
So councils ran short of housing stock and had to rely on the private sector to help house council tenants and those on HB further pushing up rental prices. A generation and more ago a house cost roughly 3 times the average salary..........now, fking forget it - Do you call that progress? I say it's a step backwards. Roll on Victorian Britain and workhouses seems to be the Tory way of thinking.

Regardless of if that family sell and move, the are still the same number of families living in the same number of properties. You have not created any additional capacity by keeping the property as a council house.

A generation ago houses were 4 times in my area. My father was an engineer, my parents house was 4x his salary in 1966. In 1988 i bought my first house in the same area for 4x my salary. Back then you were expected to come up with a 25% deposit, and you could borrow 3 - 3.5x your salary.

In the past 5 years I've bought 4 properties (of a similar size) in my area for between 108k, and 130k. Average salary is 26k so thats about 4x an average salary.

In the past few years prices have boomed again though, and they are now silly again. What we need is more houses being built to meet demand. That will keep prices reasonable.

Exactly my point that I've been making - however Maggie's insanity saw to it that houses weren't allowed to be built......madness on stilts and seemingly next to no-one on here thinks it's been the issue.

Often because many profit, asking them to be rational and selfless is futile. Which ever way you look at it, having ever increasing amounts of unproductive income is not desirable. As for right to buy; its a fantastic example of irresponsible use of public assets and lack of future planning.

[avinalarf]

B

69 coupe said:

What I've always wanted to know, in 1979 Margaret Thatcher gave Council tenants the 'right to buy' which people did in their droves due to the Councils poor reputation and shoddy repairs at that time and it was affordable to do so on 3x salary.

What I've never understood is the Government made it illegal for Councils to rebuild stock with the sales profits to replenish lost stock; people were still queuing up behind in their thousands still hoping to get a Council property and the lists growing ever longer yet the Councils were banned from replenishing this was in 1979 a Conservative government with Labour decrying all the time about not enough housing, yet Labour gets into power and do nothing to repeal or change that ruling, the councils were still banned from doing so, back to the Conservative and Liberal coalition and its still banned and now in 2015 with a Conservative majority it is still the same with the cash from rent to buys going to Government's first.

I live in NW London, I see loads of building signs "Government and Communities Agency in partnership with Housing Association/ council" properties been built, when they are complete the vast majority are given to Housing benefit rents and the recipients the council rents to are people who've recently arrived on these shores, many from Brazil (Portuguese Passports) Poland, Afghans, Pakistan's Syrians and sham marriages but mainly Somalians, pretty much all new stock is given to people new to this country and or on very low incomes but Mr and Mrs indigenous very rarely get a look in as the 'Housing Laws' are written that; those 'In most need' get to the top of the list; whose going to be at the top of that list? someone with a recent "leave to remain" sticker on their newly acquired passport with Mum ready to pop and the rest of the kids needing English lessons with an ill mother in-law in tow and the Father allegedly just doing the maximum 16 hours on his newly acquired green taxi sticker whilst sitting outside a small mini cab office and weighing up the pros and cons of downloading the Uber App to keep him working just under the radar and keep the benefits flowing, or Mrs Indigenous/1st 2nd generation stuck living with Mum and Dad working at Tesco or the local factories saving to buy or stuck in generations of private renting. I see exactly where Council/HA properties are going every day.

The system is stacked in favour of new entrants all paid by welfare something the vast majority never put a penny into yet sucking every Government credit scheme up with Child benefit DLA (pip) thrown in for good measure which is handy because they've arrived with a gammy leg or whatever.

Meh!

I have first hand experience of this....no doubt others will have a different spin.
The problem is that we do not have the figures to tell us the facts.....however from what I observe,living in London, it certainly appears to back up Coupe's post.

[98elise]

xjsdriver said:

98elise said:

xjsdriver said:

98elise said:

How would an occupied council house help with the shortfall? You can't put 2 families in a single house.

The Council need empty propertiies, not occupied houses.

As has been said above, when sold the same family lives in the same house. No more or less properties are available for occupation.

Said family lived there until they were able to sell it, which many did at a vast profit (not that I have a problem with that in principle)......council house building went into decline - fast forward to today and we have the mess that we have - all due to the idiotic prohibition placed on councils that they could not re-invest the money brought in from the sale of the houses on building new housing stock.
So councils ran short of housing stock and had to rely on the private sector to help house council tenants and those on HB further pushing up rental prices. A generation and more ago a house cost roughly 3 times the average salary..........now, fking forget it - Do you call that progress? I say it's a step backwards. Roll on Victorian Britain and workhouses seems to be the Tory way of thinking.

Regardless of if that family sell and move, the are still the same number of families living in the same number of properties. You have not created any additional capacity by keeping the property as a council house.

A generation ago houses were 4 times in my area. My father was an engineer, my parents house was 4x his salary in 1966. In 1988 i bought my first house in the same area for 4x my salary. Back then you were expected to come up with a 25% deposit, and you could borrow 3 - 3.5x your salary.

In the past 5 years I've bought 4 properties (of a similar size) in my area for between 108k, and 130k. Average salary is 26k so thats about 4x an average salary.

In the past few years prices have boomed again though, and they are now silly again. What we need is more houses being built to meet demand. That will keep prices reasonable.

Exactly my point that I've been making - however Maggie's insanity saw to it that houses weren't allowed to be built......madness on stilts and seemingly next to no-one on here thinks it's been the issue.

On that I agree with you. Selling the existing stock, and buying new with the proceeds would have been the logical thing to do. That would have created additional council house capacity.

[avinalarf]

98elise said:

On that I agree with you. Selling the existing stock, and buying new with the proceeds would have been the logical thing to do. That would have created additional council house capacity.

I assume this policy is based on Conservative political dogma.
Otherwise it makes little sense,to sell off council stock and not replace on at least an equal basis.
I was very surprised when Cameron announced the continuation of this policy as I understood him to be a " moderate " Conservative,especially in the light of the extreme shortage of affordable housing for youngsters trying to get "on the ladder"
and in a sense goes against the interest of a majority of Conservative voters i.e. those with children from working / middle class families that have no access to council housing in the first place.
The pressures on increasing house prices and by extension rentals is a "perfect storm" very low interest rates,stock shortage,pensioners investing their nest eggs,foreign investors looking for a safe haven.......
Of course markets are cyclical and this one will, at some time, end in tears......

[NicD]

rover 623gsi said:

nationally, around 30,000 properties are either demolished or become uninhabitable each year - this figure is rarely alluded to when discussing housebuilding but is worht noting because, of course, if we build for example 100,000 homes, the net increase is only 70,000

and i'm not quite sure why you are failing to grasp that the number of new dwellings built each year has fallen as it is clearly shown in the official statistics

perhaps because you left the key word 'built' out of your sentence?

But just building more units without providing the infrastructure (schools, GP surgeries, hospitals, roads, rail links and capacity and so on) to support them would be short sighted.

We should limit immigration to the numbers and profile that benefit the country and can be supported without a massive unsustainable building spree.

[daytona365]

''Roll on Victorian Britain and workhouses seems to be the Tory way of thinking''....And what on earths wrong with that ? We were the most successful nation on earth in those times. Not the poor whipped pup we've become.

[NicD]

daytona365 said:

''Roll on Victorian Britain and workhouses seems to be the Tory way of thinking''....And what on earths wrong with that ? We were the most successful nation on earth in those times. Not the poor whipped pup we've become.

I was thinking, who wrote that, but of course, it had to be XJ, but of course, hard to imagine a workhouse dweller parking a sign of conspicuous consumption (V12 sports ) outside.

[Negative Creep]

daytona365 said:

''Roll on Victorian Britain and workhouses seems to be the Tory way of thinking''....And what on earths wrong with that ? We were the most successful nation on earth in those times. Not the poor whipped pup we've become.

So just to clarify, you'd like to return to a time when people starved in the streets because there was no state help, infant mortality rates were massive, children were prostituted openly or sent to work in factories, crime was out of control, the mentally ill were thrown into lunatic asylums and left to die and women weren't allowed to vote? Riiiiiight.

[JagLover]

rover 623gsi said:

nationally, around 30,000 properties are either demolished or become uninhabitable each year - this figure is rarely alluded to when discussing housebuilding but is worht noting because, of course, if we build for example 100,000 homes, the net increase is only 70,000

and i'm not quite sure why you are failing to grasp that the number of new dwellings built each year has fallen as it is clearly shown in the official statistics

and so would be quite adequate were it not for the mass migration seen since 2000.

I quite agree that we should be building many more houses but this is primarily necessary due to the "open door" immigration policy since 1997.

[daytona365]

Negative Creep said:

daytona365 said:

''Roll on Victorian Britain and workhouses seems to be the Tory way of thinking''....And what on earths wrong with that ? We were the most successful nation on earth in those times. Not the poor whipped pup we've become.

So just to clarify, you'd like to return to a time when people starved in the streets because there was no state help, infant mortality rates were massive, children were prostituted openly or sent to work in factories, crime was out of control, the mentally ill were thrown into lunatic asylums and left to die and women weren't allowed to vote? Riiiiiight.

............Would anyone really be bothered, as long as it wasn't them ?

[Negative Creep]

daytona365 said:

Negative Creep said:

daytona365 said:

''Roll on Victorian Britain and workhouses seems to be the Tory way of thinking''....And what on earths wrong with that ? We were the most successful nation on earth in those times. Not the poor whipped pup we've become.

So just to clarify, you'd like to return to a time when people starved in the streets because there was no state help, infant mortality rates were massive, children were prostituted openly or sent to work in factories, crime was out of control, the mentally ill were thrown into lunatic asylums and left to die and women weren't allowed to vote? Riiiiiight.

............Would anyone really be bothered, as long as it wasn't them ?

I think the vast majority of people are glad that the things I listed have been eradicated

[Countdown]

daytona365 said:

...........Would anyone really be bothered, as long as it wasn't them ?

I'd be bothered. It's nice not living in a 3rd world dump.

[McTory]

xxxx

Countdown said:

daytona365 said:

...........Would anyone really be bothered, as long as it wasn't them ?

I'd be bothered. It's nice not living in a 3rd world dump.

Don't forget the greens think that it is worse to be living in the UK on benefits then starving to death in india

[rover 623gsi]

NicD said:

There are plenty of 'facts', on the ground, where housing is found. Come to TW8 and I will point out all the schemes that have been built since I arrived in 2003.

TW8 is in London Borough of Hounslow (2014 population 265,568)

Dwellings completed all types and all tenures

Year - Private - HA - LA - Total
2003/04 - 690 - 360 - 0 - 1,050
2004/05 - 440 - 330 - 0 - 780
2005/06 - 700 - 490 - 0 - 1,190
2006/07 - 710 - 840 - 0 - 1,560
2007/08 - 560 - 1,360 - 0 - 1,920
2008/09 - 750 - 460 - 0 - 1,210
2009/10 - 740 - 710 - 0 - 1,450
2010/11 - 590- 460 - 0 - 1,050
2011/12 - 300 - 550 - 20 - 870
2012/13 - 280 - 100 - 0 - 380
2013/14 - 270 - 250 - 0 - 520
2014/15 - 570 - 370 - 70 - 1,010

Total - 6,600 - 5,920 - 90 - 12,610

so, that's an average of 1,146 new dwellings per year - if Hounslow is in line with national figures it will also have lost somewhere between 250-300 dwellings per year. So that's a net increase of around 900 dwellings annualy.

I'll let you decide if that is the 'thousands upon thousands of units built in the last decade or so' you claimed earlier.