UK General Election 2015

[rover 623gsi]

becuase the Tories have a pathological hatred of social housing - in particular the low rents, secure tenancies and high quality properties - and want to encourage the continued growth of the private rented sector

[Justayellowbadge]

Obliging private landlords to sell properties to tenants would utterly destroy the sector. Overnight.

Whilst many decry the idle rentier btl scum, they now provide more accommodation than social housing does across the UK. Disincentivising them to that extent would be very, very, bad, not just for the market, but for the tenants. Finding a place to live would become immeasurably more difficult.

[Sir Humphrey]

Justayellowbadge said:

Obliging private landlords to sell properties to tenants would utterly destroy the sector. Overnight.

Whilst many decry the idle rentier btl scum, they now provide more accommodation than social housing does across the UK. Disincentivising them to that extent would be very, very, bad, not just for the market, but for the tenants. Finding a place to live would become immeasurably more difficult.

As would encouraging the sale of HA property (which is also privately owned). I'm certainly not in favour of expanding this program (I'm a firm believer in the free market so less government interference is a good thing IMO), I'm just curious as to the reason behind it being limited.

[johnfm]

rover 623gsi said:

becuase the Tories have a pathological hatred of social housing - in particular the low rents, secure tenancies and high quality properties - and want to encourage the continued growth of the private rented sector

Do they? I don't know anybody on the planet with a 'pathological hate' of social housing.

Could it be that they recognise that due to the house price boom LAs and HAs are sitting on large piles of equity that cannot be utilised unless some properties are sold?

[rover 623gsi]

less than half of local authorities own any housing - and housing associations use their stock to borrow against.

in 1981 33% of the country's housing stock was social housing - now it is 16%, while 17% is rented privately. The Tory idea of a property owning democracy never came to fruition and home ownership levels have dropped back to where they were when Maggie took office. Right to Buy is a failed policy and why anyone would want to persist with it is beyond me.

[Justayellowbadge]

rover 623gsi said:

less than half of local authorities own any housing - and housing associations use their stock to borrow against.

in 1981 33% of the country's housing stock was social housing - now it is 16%, while 17% is rented privately. The Tory idea of a property owning democracy never came to fruition and home ownership levels have dropped back to where they were when Maggie took office. Right to Buy is a failed policy and why anyone would want to persist with it is beyond me.

But that isn't true - more property is in private ownership. It's just not lived in by those that own it.

The state having to provide half the housing it did seems like a good thing to me, even given the absurd levels of hb given to those in private rents.

[rover 623gsi]

the point is that there is still the same proportion of people renting as in years gone by - but instead of low paid workers paying low rents and having a secure tenancy they now have to pay high rents (increasingly subsidised by the rest of society) to private landlords (many of whom are increasingly overseas owners) and don't even get the benefit of a long-term tenancy.

[vonuber]

johnfm said:

Could it be that they recognise that due to the house price boom LAs and HAs are sitting on large piles of equity that cannot be utilised unless some properties are sold?

Not everything is about 'equity' (although on PH it seems it's all about the monetary value of something - if there is no tangible amount of money to made by someone then it's pointless) - and this equity will be used for what? Building more houses? This is what they do anyway (i.e. borrow against this equity) so why reduce the stock of housing which is needed?

[Sir Humphrey]

rover 623gsi said:

the point is that there is still the same proportion of people renting as in years gone by - but instead of low paid workers paying low rents and having a secure tenancy they now have to pay high rents (increasingly subsidised by the rest of society) to private landlords (many of whom are increasingly overseas owners) and don't even get the benefit of a long-term tenancy.

The free market reduces costs because landlords have to compete with each other for tenants, when you have the government giving money to landlords there is no incentive for tenants to look for accommodation at a lower price because they aren't paying for it. Housing regulations limit the supply of new housing to the market so you have no reason for cheaper housing to come available or the chance for it to happen.

As for not getting a long term tenancy, it is in the landlords best interest to get a good tenant on a long term contract and not have to worry about where the next mortgage payment will come from, it is tenants wanting flexibility that drives short term rents.

[hidetheelephants]

Sir Humphrey said:

As would encouraging the sale of HA property (which is also privately owned). I'm certainly not in favour of expanding this program (I'm a firm believer in the free market so less government interference is a good thing IMO), I'm just curious as to the reason behind it being limited.

How is it private? HAs are custodians of public property, they were given council housing to administer because councils were st at managing this asset and were limited by law in what they could do in terms of raising money to renovate or build new units. They did not buy this housing, it still belongs to the taxpayer as far as I can see.

[Esseesse]

rover 623gsi said:

in 1981 33% of the country's housing stock was social housing - now it is 16%, while 17% is rented privately.

Interesting, so it's still 33%, but costs more.

[Scuffers]

Esseesse said:

rover 623gsi said:

in 1981 33% of the country's housing stock was social housing - now it is 16%, while 17% is rented privately.

Interesting, so it's still 33%, but costs more.

the next statistic needed here is what % of said rent is paid out of the public purse...

[IainT]

London424 said:

Didn't everyone say this last time? Here we are about to see them run it very close to getting back in!

There seemed to be a consensus last time round that whoever got in would be holding a poisoned chalice and become unelectable for the next generation. That's how bad the economy looked in 2010 to most. With hindsight I think the consensus was overly pessimistic and the coalition has actually done a really good job in managing things coupled with events elsewhere taking pressure off.

I'd be very happy if we could keep the current coalition in place rather than have a Lab/SNP flustercuck which looks a real possibility.

[rover 623gsi]

the annual housing benefit bill is now £25bn - it was £20bn in 2010. Most of that growth has been caused by the increasing amount of low paid workers renting privately. Recipients of HB in social housing get on average £75pw while HB recipients in the private sector get around £110pw.

[Scuffers]

rover 623gsi said:

the annual housing benefit bill is now £25bn - it was £20bn in 2010. Most of that growth has been caused by the increasing amount of low paid workers renting privately. Recipients of HB in social housing get on average £75pw while HB recipients in the private sector get around £110pw.

so, reading between the lines, the growth of the private rental sector has basically just been off the back of housing benefit?

[Axionknight]

Scuffers said:

the next statistic needed here is what % of said rent is paid out of the public purse...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/buy-to-let/10787462/Landlords-9bn-housing-benefit-fuelling-bubble.html

Not a percentage, sorry, but a figure at least.

[edh]

Ignoring the merits or otherwise of removing property from HA's, and the almost complete implausibility of a. the costings and b. the chance of building replacement social housing...

..Does it seem appropriate to offer a small proportion of the electorate tens of thousands of pounds each?

Good article in the Telegraph (never thought I'd say that)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservat...

[richardxjr]

That's it, the Tories have lost it.

Dig up an infamous 'Thatcherism', annoy the LAs and HAs, not do anything about housing shortage, alienate private sector renters, spend 6 fking billion quid, to appease a tiny fragment of the electorate?

And I thought the Green manifesto was stupid? This is bonkers.

Here's the keys to the UK Milliband & Sturgeon.

[turbobloke]

edh said:

Good article in the Telegraph (never thought I'd say that)

Relative to the nonsense served up in The Guardian on a daily basis the DT ought to be renamed the Daily Sane.

[HonestIago]

turbobloke said:

Relative to the nonsense served up in The Guardian on a daily basis the DT ought to be renamed the Daily Sane.

The Telegraph, or Shariagraph I've seen it called , really has fallen from grace in a big way in the last 5 years or so. They seem to have sacked all the decent journalists and instead employ "right-on" establishment drones.