| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
Orr may have the appearance of non partisanship but he certainly has a vested interest in the social housing sector. I'd suggest that anyone working in social housing believes in the political ideology behind social housing, certainly those at the top of the tree.Originally Posted by gnasher wrote on Tue, 14 April 2015 15:38
David Orr. Chief Ex of National Housing on this rent to buy scheme bolloxhttp://www.housing.org.uk/media/blog/extending-right-to-buy- to-housing-associations-and-other-distractions/Well Orr was hardly going to come out in support of the policy was he!!!??
I think Orr's opinion on this matter has a bit more weight than yours.http://www.24dash.com/news/housing/2013-04-08-Power-Players- Top-50-NHF-chief-David-Orr-is-housings-most-influential-figu re-as-Shapps-sinks-without-trace
Institute of housing have said the plan is not costed and will fail to provide replacements in new housing as the toriesc promised
Its a vote winning fib
Just now on radio 5
That's my last election post , the Tories are the same old Tories
Heavy Metal rules !!
If there is no money to build at present and no new houses are forthcoming, then since this policy doesn't add to or take away from the overall housing stock and the demand for housing, what exactly is the issue that people have with it?
If it's a vote winner as is being suggested, then surely it's a policy that people want in place.
It looks fair enough as long conditions are in place if they want to sell again, and that they also not be used to rent back to the council again straight after a sale.
It appears to be costed as well - BUT dependent on whether they get enough tenants who want to buy - at least people have the freedom to choose for themselves. And they have said the money raised who go into building new social housing.
The were talking figures of 15,000 homes sold and new ones built per year - not sure about those figures though.
Also what tenants would be allowed to buy ? - anyone, only people employed for x number of years, UK citizens only, or is it anyone ?
DisgracefulIs this the new breed of socialism Mick, I got my house I don't want anyone else to get theirs ?
The above mirrors my opinion 100%.Sludge - in 2 minds over this.
Is there a difference in giving some benefits to maintain a standard of living and giving someone a rebate so they can afford their own home? The majority of homes in the UK are owner occupied so this is a taxpayer funded policy ensuring those that don't have can have if they want itSludge - in 2 minds over this.
In other words Osbourne won't be sending the cheque out. It is a policy where a minority of tenants are bribed with money that should have been used for the benefit of their tenant neighbours.Sludge - in 2 minds over this.If your family have lived in a Council House / Housing Association house all your life and you've been paying rent etc - wouldnt you as a family want to be given the opportunity to buy - no more dead rent money and a family asset ? - why wouldnt anyone want that ?
Why will there be reduced resources? Surely there will be the same rent collected per property and if the LHA has less properties to manage it will have less maintenance costs and so onSludge - in 2 minds over this.If your family have lived in a Council House / Housing Association house all your life and you've been paying rent etc - wouldnt you as a family want to be given the opportunity to buy - no more dead rent money and a family asset ? - why wouldnt anyone want that ?It does depend then what the Council / Housing Association then does with the money surely ? , if they re invest it in new housing then fair enough - if they dont - then they have a problem.
The HA or Council may have its reduced income partly offset by a lower repair bill - but it will still be paying off its historic debts (most Councils borrowed from the Public Works Loans Board over 60 years).
This is one of the points David Orr made very well in his article.
There is no longer a subsidy adjustment for Council housing Housing Revenue Accounts to reflect RTB sales and Housing Associations have business plans that assume costs and revenues that will be sunk by this policy!
Remaining tenants will pay the price of RTB subsidies in both cases.
Robert Peston writes ..
"And another thing, about the extension of right-to-buy from council houses to housing association homes.
The point is that the collapse in the provision of social housing over the past 20 years means that housing association properties tend to be occupied by the poorest and most vulnerable, frequently those on housing benefit.
So as my colleague Chris Cook points out, just 23% of households in rented accommodation from a housing association contain someone in full time work, with a further 11% containing a part-time worker.
Maybe some of these will be able to afford to buy their homes if they qualify for the biggest discount, of up to 70% of the value of the property - but if they've been in the property a shorter time, the discount is 35% for a house and 50% for a flat.
Interestingly a leading Tory pointed me towards the 31% of housing association properties occupied by a retired person. And if they're retired they will almost certainly qualify for the full 70% discount.
In other words, this policy could be seen as a bribe to older people to vote Tory and gain a guaranteed windfall of many tens of thousands of pounds by buying their homes at a fraction of its true value.
Which could, I suppose, secure a few useful votes in marginal constituencies.
It would be interesting to know how many of these housing association homes occupied by older people are in marginal constituencies."
The LHA will receive a share of the disposal proceeds and can use that to repay the borrowing associated with the house.
Forgot-incorrect assumption.As I said twist the arguement which way you will.From what I heard the discount available depends on how long they have been in the property. The longer you have been there - the more rent you have paid - the bigger the discount.Yeah I get that but I just can't see how that makes financial sense. We have a stock of housing, why sell them for less than they are worth? To give people a shot at owning a house who perhaps otherwise wouldn't have? Great for them but unfortunately (as we have seen from the Thatcher years and beyond) that hurts future generations ability to rent affordably.Short term thinking in my opinion.The Tories rewarding their landlord supporters by reducing the availability of public rentals keeping the private sector buoyant and rents high.
You are a dirty horny old man who who slam is meat in any bun. Having said that Tubby we agree on one thing. This is a dirty election tactic. We need more of these social homes not less. Crazy stuff, but don't pretend your mob will help.The real left alternative is Plaid. You would be good in plaid. Come join us butt and smell the goodness.
I agree with you nearly everyone I know who bought their council houses are big wage earners it's a disgrace they should have bought like the rest of us and leave the council houses for those that desperately need themSludge - in 2 minds over this.
Like the late bob crowe?Sludge - in 2 minds over this.If your family have lived in a Council House / Housing Association house all your life and you've been paying rent etc - wouldnt you as a family want to be given the opportunity to buy - no more dead rent money and a family asset ? - why wouldnt anyone want that ?
Meaning he lived in social housing when could have afforded to rent/own privately.
I know what you meant and yes this applies to everyone who can afford yo buy privately
Meaning he lived in social housing when could have afforded to rent/own privately.
Even the Torygraph think this is bonkers, or rather, in thier words 'economically illiterate and morally wrong'
Its hard to take seriously an article that thinks the 5.8bn cost to the taxpayer is cash the treasury has that can be spent on other things, rather than the lost revenue from providing the discount.
Sorry - what lost revenue are you talking about?Even the Torygraph think this is bonkers, or rather, in thier words 'economically illiterate and morally wrong'
discount on market valueEven the Torygraph think this is bonkers, or rather, in thier words 'economically illiterate and morally wrong'Its hard to take seriously an article that thinks the 5.8bn cost to the taxpayer is cash the treasury has that can be spent on other things, rather than the lost revenue from providing the discount.
Sorry, you have lost me, the governmnet are planning on giving away up to £5.8bn of tax payers money away to prople who want to buy their social housing. What revenue are we talking about? Market value is not revenue.Even the Torygraph think this is bonkers, or rather, in thier words 'economically illiterate and morally wrong'Its hard to take seriously an article that thinks the 5.8bn cost to the taxpayer is cash the treasury has that can be spent on other things, rather than the lost revenue from providing the discount.Sorry - what lost revenue are you talking about?
It's not twisted it's the truth, now what other argument are you going to fabricate?From what I heard the discount available depends on how long they have been in the property. The longer you have been there - the more rent you have paid - the bigger the discount.Yeah I get that but I just can't see how that makes financial sense. We have a stock of housing, why sell them for less than they are worth? To give people a shot at owning a house who perhaps otherwise wouldn't have? Great for them but unfortunately (as we have seen from the Thatcher years and beyond) that hurts future generations ability to rent affordably.Short term thinking in my opinion.The Tories rewarding their landlord supporters by reducing the availability of public rentals keeping the private sector buoyant and rents high.Or perhaps giving an incentive to those not so well off who want to buy their own homes.Twist the arguement which way you will.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote