True socialism is the answer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TISS

I am saying that whilst the social housing stock has reduced, so has the demand by an equivalent amount.

---

Well that's not correct is it ?

If all things remain equal , everything is fine but society is not like for like

Relationship breakdown , domestic violence etc ........suddenly you have a mother and three children thrown onto the waiting list ......that four bedroom house that would have been handed back to the council has now been sold and has not been replaced .........so where are this woman and her children going to live ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pearcey3

Demand is bound to stay the same if the population has only increased by multi millions. Oh!

---

I don't think anyone has suggested demand stays the same. What has been said is that demand is the same in both cases. That is, RTB does not affect demand for new housing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TISS

Let's say the council still owned the stock. This house you wish to place the battered wife....where do you suggest the current occupiers live?

---

We build more social housing to house people , that's the inherent problem in the first place

Throw in the right to buy and you have the perfect storm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

Well that's not correct is it ?

If all things remain equal , everything is fine but society is not like for like

Relationship breakdown , domestic violence etc ........suddenly you have a mother and three children thrown onto the waiting list ......that four bedroom house that would have been handed back to the council has now been sold and has not been replaced .........so where are this woman and her children going to live ?

---

Lets assume the council had thw property to place the battered wife. Where are you suggesting the current occupiers are moved to?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

We build more social housing to house people , that's the inherent problem in the first place

Throw in the right to buy and you have the perfect storm

---

Since the lack of building new housing stock is the same in both cases the issue is not RTB it's the fact we haven't built enough houses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric the Half a Bee

Yes.

An older person passing away would leave a council house for someone on the waiting list to be homed in. A person passing away who has bought their property will pass their house on to family etc. If that house hasn't been replaced by the local authority, then there is one less property to go to someone adding themselves to a waiting list.

---

The family who currently live in the former council house after it's been passed down - where would these people be housed if the house was never sold off?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TISS

I don't think anyone has suggested demand stays the same. What has been said is that demand is the same in both cases. That is, RTB does not affect demand for new housing.

---

No , what's happened is a lot of retired people bought their four bed council house , which previously was lived in by an entire family and there is increasing demand for social housing ........as these units have not been replaced people are forced into the insecure private rented sector or in bed and breakfast

As for the single people in housing need , again the nice one and two bedroom flats were sold , the less desirable flats left for the council to rehouse those left

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

Rubbish , you are confusing socialism with communism , seen at its most blunt under Stalin

In 1945 we had a true socialist government that built the NHS , invested in public transport and social housing

That's socialism

---

The world has not seen a truly communist state - which itself is an oxymoron.

The USSR was socialist and that is What you are arguing for

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TISS

Since the lack of building new housing stock is the same in both cases the issue is not RTB it's the fact we haven't built enough houses.

---

No the right to buy directly affects the situation as we have not replaced those sold

The Tories are now even extending the right to buy to housing associations , they have learned nothing , or rather know exactly what they are doing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Croesy Blue

I'be forgotten the name of it but the railway that runs the east coast of England was nationalised for one year and made a decent profit the 2 years either side is was privatised and made huge losses.

---

It made a profit because it didn't have to pay a franchise fee. If you add in an equivalent franchise fee it was no more profitable than a private sector operator.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TISS

The world has not seen a truly communist state - which itself is an oxymoron.

The USSR was socialist and that is What you are arguing for

---

The USSR was about as close to a communist state as you could get , along with post war China

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TISS

Lets assume the council had thw property to place the battered wife. Where are you suggesting the current occupiers are moved to?

---

They stay where they are , we build more council housing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TISS

The family who currently live in the former council house after it's been passed down - where would these people be housed if the house was never sold off?

---

They either stay in the house or move , via the council house exchange system , to a smaller property

Or they enter the property owning market , if they have the wish and means to do so

At present uk housing policy since the early eighties has created a nightmare

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TISS

It made a profit because it didn't have to pay a franchise fee. If you add in an equivalent franchise fee it was no more profitable than a private sector operator.

---

Oh Christ feedback is on the case !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

No , what's happened is a lot of retired people bought their four bed council house , which previously was lived in by an entire family and there is increasing demand for social housing ........as these units have not been replaced people are forced into the insecure private rented sector or in bed and breakfast

As for the single people in housing need , again the nice one and two bedroom flats were sold , the less desirable flats left for the council to rehouse those left

---

Empty nesting is an issue but it isn't affected by RTB. A council tenant is likely to live in their house even when their children have left home.

You keep suggesting that the best houses were sold off and that only the worst stock was left. However in both cases the worst stock is still council owned and still occupied by social tenants - so no change and RTB makes no difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

They either stay in the house or move , via the council house exchange system , to a smaller property

Or they enter the property owning market , if they have the wish and means to do so

At present uk housing policy since the early eighties has created a nightmare

---

you misunderstand what I am asking.

You have stated that if the housing wasn't sold off it would be available for a new tenant. I am asking where you would house the current (private sector) occupier if the house was never sold off. It seems to me you replace one homeless family unit with another. RTB doesn't affect the requirement for new housing or the demand for housing overall.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

Oh Christ feedback is on the case !

---

Stating facts

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TISS

Empty nesting is an issue but it isn't affected by RTB. A council tenant is likely to live in their house even when their children have left home.

Well that's incorrect as the council house exchange system is always active

You keep suggesting that the best houses were sold off and that only the worst stock was left. However in both cases the worst stock is still council owned and still occupied by social tenants - so no change and RTB makes no difference.

---

It's not a suggestion , it's a fact

Do you know Cardiff?

Do you know the tower blocks in butetown or channel view in Grange town ?

How many of those units do you think have been sold compared to social housing units in the more disireable streets of Cardiff's council estates ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TISS

Stating facts

---

Well your facts seem to be at odds with those who have worked in social housing and experts such as Peter malpass who has written extensively on the subject

I suggest you e mail him for his views on your claim the right to buy has not affected the stock or demand on social housing since the Thatcher period and ever since

Let's see if his facts tally up with yours

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

It's not a suggestion , it's a fact

Do you know Cardiff?

Do you know the tower blocks in butetown or channel view in Grange town ?

How many of those units do you think have been sold compared to social housing units in the more disireable streets of Cardiff's council estates ?

---

Again you miss the point being made. No one is disagreeing with your statement vis a vis the best stock was sold off.

The point made was that in both cases the stock remaining would be council owned and occupied by social tenants - so RTB made no difference to this sub group of council houses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

Well your facts seem to be at odds with those who have worked in social housing and experts such as Peter malpass who has written extensively on the subject

I suggest you e mail him for his views on your claim the right to buy has not affected the stock or demand on social housing since the Thatcher period and ever since

Let's see if his facts tally up with yours

---

Once again you miss the point. The comment 'stating facts' was regarding th profitability of the ECML.

I did not say RTB didn't affect social housing stock, I said it didn't affect overall housing stock. And the demand for new social houses is not determined by RTB.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TISS

you misunderstand what I am asking.

You have stated that if the housing wasn't sold off it would be available for a new tenant. I am asking where you would house the current (private sector) occupier if the house was never sold off. It seems to me you replace one homeless family unit with another. RTB doesn't affect the requirement for new housing or the demand for housing overall.

---

Of course it does , you sell a house with four bedrooms to a retired couple and then Linda is beaten up by her husband and flees to a hostel with three kids , then a social housing property is lost , until it is replaced

You view this as simply the owner of the house no longer being the council , I am afraid it's far more complicated than that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TISS

Again you miss the point being made. No one is disagreeing with your statement vis a vis the best stock was sold off.

The point made was that in both cases the stock remaining would be council owned and occupied by social tenants - so RTB made no difference to this sub group of council houses.

---

Of course it did , you have 5000 council houses and sell off 3000 , then you have 2000 poorer quality council houses

E mail Mr malpass , he will put you right , I am wasting my time here

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

Of course it does , you sell a house with four bedrooms to a retired couple and then Linda is beaten up by her husband and flees to a hostel with three kids , then a social housing property is lost , until it is replaced

You view this as simply the owner of the house no longer being the council , I am afraid it's far more complicated than that

---

Why do you keep throewing in the bit about wife being beaten up by hsband as if this is somehow a direct reslut of RTB. what rlevence does it have to the argument, and how does thie poor girl being beaten up directly trranslate to a scoial housing propery being eternally lost?

If these are in some way directly related I miss the connection. And ewhat happens if mrs beaten wife lives in a private proiperty?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

Of course it does , you sell a house with four bedrooms to a retired couple and then Linda is beaten up by her husband and flees to a hostel with three kids , then a social housing property is lost , until it is replaced

You view this as simply the owner of the house no longer being the council , I am afraid it's far more complicated than that

---

If you don't sell the house and Linda still flees, you still have the same need and demand in both cases. RTB makes no difference as you have an extra requirement for additional stock in both cases

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

Of course it did , you have 5000 council houses and sell off 3000 , then you have 2000 poorer quality council houses

E mail Mr malpass , he will put you right , I am wasting my time here

---

You seem to be arguing with yourself. Everyone is in agreement that if you start with 5000 and sell 3000 you end up with 2000.

It appears you struggle with the fact that in both cases the 2000 houses are the property of the council and are occupied by social tenant. In either cases RTB makes no difference to the ownership or occupancy of the 2000 houses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TISS

You seem to be arguing with yourself. Everyone is in agreement that if you start with 5000 and sell 3000 you end up with 2000.

It appears you struggle with the fact that in both cases the 2000 houses are the property of the council and are occupied by social tenant. In either cases RTB makes no difference to the ownership or occupancy of the 2000 houses.

---

Rental price often doesn't correlate with house price as closely as one would assume. RTB has removed a reasonable alternative for the average person (you have to be a single mum of 8 in a wheelchair to get a council house now) and therefore landlords are left without competition lowballing them in 'decent areas' to live. RTB didn't create the housing crisis (not building houses did) but the lack of a decent social housing stock now has let landlords tear up the rule book and charge whatever they want really.

Forcing councils to sell houses for less than they were worth, taking most of the money away from them and then saying 'we think you should build another one now' is a nonsensical housing policy on all fronts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xsnaggle

Why do you keep throewing in the bit about wife being beaten up by hsband as if this is somehow a direct reslut of RTB. what rlevence does it have to the argument, and how does thie poor girl being beaten up directly trranslate to a scoial housing propery being eternally lost?

If these are in some way directly related I miss the connection. And ewhat happens if mrs beaten wife lives in a private proiperty?

---

Because the right to buy depletes the stock of council housing as those sold are not replaced , like for like , the Tories under Cameron said they would replace every house sold with a new one but that hasn't happened

You do indeed miss the connection .......if a woman was living in private property and had to flee then the council has a legal duty to provide her with housing under the 1985 housing act

But they can't , because they have lost loads of council houses !

So she and her kids are placed in a hostel or bed and breakfast

It's real life and it's happening again under the Tories with their plans to sell off housing association properties .........they have told the people they will replace every one of those sold with a new one for the needy ........we have heard it all before

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Cartman

Rental price often doesn't correlate with house price as closely as one would assume. RTB has removed a reasonable alternative for the average person (you have to be a single mum of 8 in a wheelchair to get a council house now) and therefore landlords are left without competition lowballing them in 'decent areas' to live. RTB didn't create the housing crisis (not building houses did) but the lack of a decent social housing stock now has let landlords tear up the rule book and charge whatever they want really.

Forcing councils to sell houses for less than they were worth, taking most of the money away from them and then saying 'we think you should build another one now' is a nonsensical housing policy on all fronts.

---

I agree with your first point (although rental income tends to be just a bit more than mortgage interest cost for landlords so it's not all down to nefarious private landlords) and partially agree with your second. That is, councils could spend the money raised after debt was paid off and the discount took into account how much rent and therefore repayment of initial debt the tenant he made.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

Because the right to buy depletes the stock of council housing as those sold are not replaced , like for like , the Tories under Cameron said they would replace every house sold with a new one but that hasn't happened

You do indeed miss the connection .......if a woman was living in private property and had to flee then the council has a legal duty to provide her with housing under the 1985 housing act

But they can't , because they have lost loads of council houses !

So she and her kids are placed in a hostel or bed and breakfast

It's real life and it's happening again under the Tories with their plans to sell off housing association properties .........they have told the people they will replace every one of those sold with a new one for the needy ........we have heard it all before

---

Sludge

In both cases the fleeing woman has a need for a new house as the husband is in situ. This need for a new house is unaffected by RTB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TISS

You seem to be arguing with yourself. Everyone is in agreement that if you start with 5000 and sell 3000 you end up with 2000.

It appears you struggle with the fact that in both cases the 2000 houses are the property of the council and are occupied by social tenant. In either cases RTB makes no difference to the ownership or occupancy of the 2000 houses.

---

I am not struggling with anything , you seem to be a lone voice suggesting the right to buy has not reduced the social housing stock , despite overwhelming evidence that it has , I have given you links to follow up , I would suggest you follow them up and educate yourself

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TISS

I agree with your first point (although rental income tends to be just a bit more than mortgage interest cost for landlords so it's not all down to nefarious private landlords) and partially agree with your second. That is, councils could spend the money raised after debt was paid off and the discount took into account how much rent and therefore repayment of initial debt the tenant he made.

---

I think you will find Thatcher moved heseltine on because he wanted councils to be able to spend money replacing housing stock , but it was ring fenced hence the fall in new build

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

I am not struggling with anything , you seem to be a lone voice suggesting the right to buy has not reduced the social housing stock , despite overwhelming evidence that it has , I have given you links to follow up , I would suggest you follow them up and educate yourself

---

Repeating a lie does not make it a truth. At no point have I said RTB hasn't affected social housing stock. For want of repeating myself I have said that changing the ownership hasn't affected the overall housing stock.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

I think you will find Thatcher moved heseltine on because he wanted councils to be able to spend money replacing housing stock , but it was ring fenced hence the fall in new build

---

Not relevant to what is being discussed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TISS

Sludge

In both cases the fleeing woman has a need for a new house as the husband is in situ. This need for a new house is unaffected by RTB

---

The fact that we have less council houses due to right to buy means this lady wether she was a previous tenant or an owner occupier needs a council house to live in

The council doesn't have these houses like they used to .....they have been sold and not replaced as the Tories promised .....and so the woman suffering domestic violence .......or another person in housing need ......is placed in temporary sub standard accommodation until a house comes up .......usually in about five years

I am finished now , it's like banging ones head against a brick wall

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TISS

Not relevant to what is being discussed.

---

Entirely and directly relevant

I am off to bed now

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

The fact that we have less council houses due to right to buy means this lady wether she was a previous tenant or an owner occupier needs a council house to live in

The council doesn't have these houses like they used to .....they have been sold and not replaced as the Tories promised .....and so the woman suffering domestic violence .......or another person in housing need ......is placed in temporary sub standard accommodation until a house comes up .......usually in about five years

I am finished now , it's like banging ones head against a brick wall

---

You are arguing against yourself now. You accept that in both cases the domestic abuse victim would need to be housed in an entirely new house, which infers that in both cases we have a requirement for an entirely new build.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

Entirely and directly relevant

I am off to bed now

---

Relevant to what? We are discussing your claim that RTB impacted the UK housing stock.

[QUOTE=SLUDGE FACTORY;4815838]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xsnaggle

I am all up for debate but calling someone a gay lord lefty in this day in age is when I knock it on the head

That's the sort of playground nonsense that's best left to kids , as they don't know any better

Have a good evening comrade

---

You self righteous throbbing **** . You start a thread like this and expect a reasoned debate . It is pointless trying to reason with you , you have one agenda which is left of left . Go and sing the red flag at Momentum Kenfig Hill meetings and dream of the day Mc Donell presents his first budget and clap and cheer that Britain will be in a better place 🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡

The thing which bothers me most about this thread is that so many people are totally one dimensional and cannot think beyond supporting one Political Party. How anyone can reconcile throwing money at everything and taxing business is good for the economy and the country's finances has a screw loose. Once I supported the Labour Party but cannot see how some of the barmy ideas of McDonnel and Co will be good for the nation's finances. Some of John Mc Donnel's utternaces are being shown on the BBC now and clearly he does not know the size of the nation's debt or the cost of servicing it. His deputy being interviewed by Andrew Neil now is equally clueless.