"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 22/01/2021 13:37, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
On 21/01/2021 14:46, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Lamb wrote:
I already had a house and didn't pay much attention at the time they
were sold off. Without knowing anything about the construction
funding,
it seemed not unreasonable at the time.

Is something preventing any local authority building more?

Thatcher specifically forbad the use of money obtained from the sale of
council housing being used to build more. She didn't want any in
subsidised housing, as they would be more likely not to vote Tory.

Which is the bit I feel was criminal. However it did save councils from
maintaining council stock, which was often at a loss wrt rent.

Of course. If you expect to pay an adult in full time work less than a
living wage you must also expect to subsidise where they live.

The need for a statutory minimum wage is the criminal aspect. Historically
wages were determined by demand rather than statute.

Housing was less of a problem then too.

Thats bull**** with the slums.

You can't
keep down a full time job sleeping rough. Now such subsidised housing is
rather rare, the subsidy goes to private landlords via UC etc. And that
private landlord has to make a profit.

Quite, all because of the housing shortage. I recall in the early 2000s
that if you had a house for rent you had more enquiries from estate agents
asking if you would consider selling than from prospective tenant.

Then we had the various Accession treaties courtesy of John Major and Tony
Bliar and we now get whingeing about profits Landlords make. You really
couldn't make it up.

And once you legislate how councils spend what money they have, it
becomes very difficult for them to go back to building housing.

Councils can borrow money, and could invest in housing stock if they
wanted.

Government have a great deal of control over what councils can and can't
do.

Quite, even labour controlled governments.