True socialism is the answer

[Feedback]

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 If that house hasn't been replaced by the local authority, then there is one less property to go to someone adding themselves to a waiting list.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?

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

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

[Feedback]

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

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

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

[Feedback]

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.

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

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

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

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

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

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

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

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 !

[Feedback]

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.

[Feedback]

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.

[Feedback]

Oh Christ feedback is on the case !

Stating facts

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

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 ?

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

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

[Feedback]

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.

[Feedback]

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.

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

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

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

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

[xsnaggle]

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?

[Feedback]

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

[Feedback]

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.

[Eric Cartman]

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.

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

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

[Feedback]

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.

[Feedback]

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