On 11/03/2021 09:34 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
JNugent wrote
Rod Speed wrote
JNugent wrote
Rod Speed wrote
JNugent wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Tim Lamb wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Â* Fredxx wrote

Perhaps some of voted so our children can purchase affordable
houses and have respectable income. I suppose that could also
be considered borderline selfish.

We did once have a decent amount of social housing. The
reasonable rents for that set a base for other rented housing,
and to some extent the value of housing in that sort of bracket
for sale. Which would be what most first time buyers bought.

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?

Yep, lack of the money to do that.

So what money were council houses originally built with?

After the war, the war rebuilding money.

What was that?

Assisting those who had been bombed out etc
and part of that was more council houses.

Where did it come from?

Treasury.

The Treasury *still* dispenses massive largesse every year in the
form of grants to housing associations.

But not for building more council houses since Maggie
started selling them off and stopped councils from spending
the revenue from the selloffs on new council houses.

There is a disconnect between those two ideas.

Nope.

The suggestion that the reason why councils don't build many council
properties is that they aren't allowed to use the revenue from council
house sales is a ludicrous argument.

It is a fact that Maggie wouldnt let councils spend the money they
got from selling council houses on building more council houses.

I am aware of that. If you sold your house, would you expect the
mortgage on it to be kept running?

Of course you wouldn't. Everyone would expect you to pay it off with (at
least part of) the proceeds of sale. Whether that debt lay with the
council or the Treasury is unimportant. the point is that the money
isn't for spending until the account is debt-free.

It could never have been a source of capital for building council
houses in the first place.

Never said it was. But it does explain why they
didnt build more when some were sold to
their tenants when Maggie encouraged that.

I (and plenty of others) have explained that.

When councils and the Treasury are debt free, that'll be the time to
spend the proceeds of sales. In the meantime, they should be used to
reduce debt.

Before the war, the slum clearances money.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_house#History

Again, from the taxpayer?

Thats all it can ever come from.

Apparently not, because there are those who insist that the money
raised from private buyers of council property (the former tenants)
should be used too (instead of using it to reduce public debt).

Those are still taxpayers.

Sophistry.

And councils had to buy "slum" housing from its owners. It wasn't
free. Almost, but not quite.

Sure, but we are discussing who paid for the replacements of those
slums with council housing.

Has that source of capital been stopped up?

Not stopped up so much as no longer needed given that
there are far fewer slums that need to be cleared now.

If so, when?

When the massive slum clearance programs ceased.

And if so, why?

Because the slums had been cleared.

Especially when housing associations are *still* building?

Thats an alternative to council houses that the govt now prefers to fund.

Possibly because they have a better reputation for maintenance and
management than councils have.

But HA tenants don't have the right to buy, which is disgraceful.

It obviously has nothing to do with the sales of council property or
the proceeds therefrom.

Corse it does when Maggie didnt allow councils to spend
what they collected from the sale of council houses to the
tenants of those house on new council houses.

Explained already.