"RJH" wrote in message
...
On 30/05/2016 23:41, Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2016 22:25:36 +0100, RJH wrote:

Who ever promised some kind of inalienable right to rent the exact same
property for generations on end?


I'd just return to that point - council tenants had/have a form of tenancy
that is about as secure in practice as owning. As did housing association
tenants until quite recently. Obviously not the same rights to succession
etc.

So 'who' was the policy makers, and it really came straight from
Beveridge. Before that I suppose.

And there's a very real prospect of all of that changing, with the Housing
and Planning Bill - which I haven't really kept up on, except to say that
the House of Lords has actually proved itself useful for once.


That was the assumption, if that's what the tenant wanted. Look up
'home', and try to think of it less as 'property'.

Home is a state of mind. No more than that. You can easily move your
home, if you want to.


I do agree that's a valid point, and this is one on which we might have to
agree to differ. The mind is what makes it real - not the bricks or
mortar.

Property is the bricks-and-mortar.

You rent property. You make your home.

I don't see why I should pay for somebody else's
nice-warm-fuzzy-feeling while they live in a property that's far bigger
than they need, simultaneously blocking others into overcrowded
conditions.

I somehow doubt you do.

Don't get me wrong - I'm _quite_ happy to pay for homes for those who
cannot otherwise afford homes.

Yes, they can be evicted as a direct result of the bedroom tax -
non-payment of rent is a mandatory ground for possession.

Seems like an indirect result, at best, to me.

As I said and you snipped, early research is suggesting that the
expected evictions haven't happened on the scale predicted. Households
are poorer, and relying on food banks.

Fourteen quid a week is not turning people to food banks.

As I say, early research is suggesting that it does.

Then that 'research' is bogus and isnt in fact 'research',
it's just opinion, a different matter entirely.

for example (one of many):

The bedroom tax has increased poverty

Even sillier than they usually manage. You only get that
result when you use an utterly bogus measure of poverty.

Someone on a council house receiving benefits isnt in
anything even remotely resembling anything like poverty.

and had broad-ranging adverse effects on health, wellbeing and social
relationships.

Usual utterly mindless very sweeping claim which has no evidence to
substantiate it.

http://jpubhealth.oxfordjournals.org...ed.fdv031.full

More than happy to defer to evidence elsewhere.

There is no evidence in that one. Interviews with just 38
tenants who have a vested interest in getting rid of the
bedroom tax isn't anything even remotely resembling
evidence. It's just CLAIMS a separate matter entirely.

But, anyway, that's a _completely_ separate question to whether eviction
for non-payment of rent would be a direct or indirect result.

Well, strictly I suppose the tenant is evicted for non-payment of rent.
But the 'why' isn't completely separate, I'd have thought.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Monday, 30 May 2016 21:49:31 UTC+1, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 30/05/2016 20:55, bert wrote:
In article , News
writes

I still struggle to understand why the sale of council houses thirty
years ago caused a shortage of homes. Suppose those houses had not
been sold. The occupants would not suddenly vaporise, making the
houses available to others. In other words, people who rented council
houses before the sale would have carried on renting even if they
couldn't buy.

Which was the logic behind selling them and would have been sensible
had
the councils been allowed to keep the proceeds and use them to build
more houses. But they weren't - by governments of both political
persuasions.

Thank you for that. A datum I was not aware of.

Mind, you could happily delete "Social" from the thread title.
That's why private rents and sale prices are both rising fast.

They aren't in fact rising fast.

No, that's a shortage caused by migrants.

Its a shortage caused by not building enough new houses.

On Tue, 31 May 2016 05:25:49 +0100, RJH wrote:

Who ever promised some kind of inalienable right to rent the exact
same property for generations on end?

I'd just return to that point - council tenants had/have a form of
tenancy that is about as secure in practice as owning.

And that - imho - is not right.

Social housing should be for those who are IN NEED. Not for those who had
a relative who was once in need.

But, anyway, that's a _completely_ separate question to whether
eviction for non-payment of rent would be a direct or indirect result.

Well, strictly I suppose the tenant is evicted for non-payment of rent.
But the 'why' isn't completely separate, I'd have thought.

When we're talking about such a small proportion of household income,
it's entirely down to prioritisation.

On 30/05/16 19:41, Nightjar wrote:
On 30-May-16 6:52 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 30/05/16 18:43, Nightjar wrote:
I thought that the driving force behind putting Council tenants into
private sector housing was that they wouldn't have the right to buy that
housing.

No, that was a piece of propaganda dreamed up by the left for the
purpose of being ****s as usual.

Obviously any tenant can make an offer on the house he rents.


A qualifying tenant in Council owned accommodation has a legal right to
buy it at a discounted price. That is quite different from making an
offer on a private property at the market price that the owner can refuse.


It may be 'quite different' but its not the loss of 'the right to buy';

Council tenants got handed a bonus on a plate. Some said 'thank you' and
some used it to complain more.


--
To ban Christmas, simply give turkeys the vote.

On 31/05/2016 08:18, Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2016 05:25:49 +0100, RJH wrote:

Who ever promised some kind of inalienable right to rent the exact
same property for generations on end?

I'd just return to that point - council tenants had/have a form of
tenancy that is about as secure in practice as owning.

And that - imho - is not right.

Social housing should be for those who are IN NEED. Not for those who had
a relative who was once in need.


Well, usually (IIRC) that relative had to have lived for at least a year
prior to death.

'Security of tenure' was just one of a package of aspects that
characterise social housing, and considered a necessary aspect of home.
Of course, you are free to disagree. Many do.


But, anyway, that's a _completely_ separate question to whether
eviction for non-payment of rent would be a direct or indirect result.

Well, strictly I suppose the tenant is evicted for non-payment of rent.
But the 'why' isn't completely separate, I'd have thought.

When we're talking about such a small proportion of household income,
it's entirely down to prioritisation.

Absolutely - they're prioritising their homes, and 'choosing' poverty,
ill health and food banks.

--
Cheers, Rob

On 31/05/2016 07:01, Rod Speed wrote:


"RJH" wrote in message
...
On 30/05/2016 23:41, Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2016 22:25:36 +0100, RJH wrote:

snip

Fourteen quid a week is not turning people to food banks.

As I say, early research is suggesting that it does.

Then that 'research' is bogus and isnt in fact 'research',
it's just opinion, a different matter entirely.

for example (one of many):

The bedroom tax has increased poverty

Even sillier than they usually manage. You only get that
result when you use an utterly bogus measure of poverty.

Someone on a council house receiving benefits isnt in
anything even remotely resembling anything like poverty.

and had broad-ranging adverse effects on health, wellbeing and social
relationships.

Usual utterly mindless very sweeping claim which has no evidence to
substantiate it.


You're not supposed to extrapolate from a small sample! Nobody, not
least the researchers, are suggesting proven cause and effect (not that
I've read more than the abstract). It's a possible association, no more.

http://jpubhealth.oxfordjournals.org...ed.fdv031.full


More than happy to defer to evidence elsewhere.

There is no evidence in that one. Interviews with just 38
tenants who have a vested interest in getting rid of the
bedroom tax isn't anything even remotely resembling
evidence. It's just CLAIMS a separate matter entirely.


There is a small body of evidence. I'd agree, it's not 'truth' or
'fact'. And they could triangulate by interviewing other people and
larger samples with different agendas, such as yerself ;-). That's what
I would do, if I had the time, skill and energy. But it's far more than
a groundless claim.

As I say, even the faintest glimmer of a suggestion to the contrary
would be welcome.


--
Cheers, Rob

"RJH" wrote in message
...
On 31/05/2016 08:18, Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2016 05:25:49 +0100, RJH wrote:

Who ever promised some kind of inalienable right to rent the exact
same property for generations on end?

I'd just return to that point - council tenants had/have a form of
tenancy that is about as secure in practice as owning.

And that - imho - is not right.

Social housing should be for those who are IN NEED. Not for those who had
a relative who was once in need.


Well, usually (IIRC) that relative had to have lived for at least a year
prior to death.

'Security of tenure' was just one of a package of aspects that
characterise social housing, and considered a necessary aspect of home. Of
course, you are free to disagree. Many do.


But, anyway, that's a _completely_ separate question to whether
eviction for non-payment of rent would be a direct or indirect result.

Well, strictly I suppose the tenant is evicted for non-payment of rent.
But the 'why' isn't completely separate, I'd have thought.

When we're talking about such a small proportion of household income,
it's entirely down to prioritisation.

Absolutely - they're prioritising their homes, and 'choosing' poverty,
ill health and food banks.

More lies. There isn't a shred of evidence of any poverty, ill health and
food banks.

"RJH" wrote in message
...
On 31/05/2016 07:01, Rod Speed wrote:


"RJH" wrote in message
...
On 30/05/2016 23:41, Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2016 22:25:36 +0100, RJH wrote:

snip

Fourteen quid a week is not turning people to food banks.

As I say, early research is suggesting that it does.

Then that 'research' is bogus and isnt in fact 'research',
it's just opinion, a different matter entirely.

for example (one of many):

The bedroom tax has increased poverty

Even sillier than they usually manage. You only get that
result when you use an utterly bogus measure of poverty.

Someone on a council house receiving benefits isnt in
anything even remotely resembling anything like poverty.

and had broad-ranging adverse effects on health, wellbeing and social
relationships.

Usual utterly mindless very sweeping claim which has no evidence to
substantiate it.

You're not supposed to extrapolate from a small sample!

But that is precisely what they do, and it isn't even a random sample
either.

Nobody, not least the researchers, are suggesting proven cause and effect
(not that I've read more than the abstract).

That shows. It isnt that big, read the whole thing. ALL they have
is a tiny group of welfare recipients who do nothing more than
whine in the way that plenty of welfare recipients have always
done since long before there ever way any bedroom tax.

It's a possible association, no more.

It isnt even that, just another example of some who dont like the
bedroom tax claiming it produces all sorts of undesirable outcomes
without even a shred of evidence that it does anything of the sort.

A few dont like moving from a house into a flat in a block of units ?

How utterly amazing, never ever heard of anything like that before.

http://jpubhealth.oxfordjournals.org...ed.fdv031.full

More than happy to defer to evidence elsewhere.

There is no evidence in that one. Interviews with just 38
tenants who have a vested interest in getting rid of the
bedroom tax isn't anything even remotely resembling
evidence. It's just CLAIMS a separate matter entirely.

There is a small body of evidence. I'd agree,

In fact not a shred of evidence at all. JUST opinion.

it's not 'truth' or 'fact'.

Not evidence either. JUST claims.

And they could triangulate by interviewing other people and larger samples
with different agendas, such as yerself ;-).

Or they could get real radical and have a proper random sample.

That's what I would do, if I had the time, skill and energy. But it's far
more than a groundless claim.

Like hell it is. ALL they have as a few who are receiving benefits who
believe
that they are entitled to more benefits than they are currently getting.

Stop the presses, we've never ever heard anything like that before from
welfare recipients.

As I say, even the faintest glimmer of a suggestion to the contrary would
be welcome.

THEY made the claims.

THEY get to provide evidence that substantiates the claims they make.

THAT'S how it works.

On 31-May-16 9:42 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 30/05/16 19:41, Nightjar wrote:
On 30-May-16 6:52 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 30/05/16 18:43, Nightjar wrote:
I thought that the driving force behind putting Council tenants into
private sector housing was that they wouldn't have the right to buy
that
housing.

No, that was a piece of propaganda dreamed up by the left for the
purpose of being ****s as usual.

Obviously any tenant can make an offer on the house he rents.


A qualifying tenant in Council owned accommodation has a legal right to
buy it at a discounted price. That is quite different from making an
offer on a private property at the market price that the owner can
refuse.


It may be 'quite different' but its not the loss of 'the right to buy';..

I didn't suggest that there was a loss of right to buy, only that it
does not extend to those in properties leased from the private sector.


--
--

Colin Bignell

On 31/05/2016 10:51, Rod Speed wrote:


"RJH" wrote in message
...
On 31/05/2016 07:01, Rod Speed wrote:


"RJH" wrote in message
...
On 30/05/2016 23:41, Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2016 22:25:36 +0100, RJH wrote:

snip

Fourteen quid a week is not turning people to food banks.

As I say, early research is suggesting that it does.

Then that 'research' is bogus and isnt in fact 'research',
it's just opinion, a different matter entirely.

for example (one of many):

The bedroom tax has increased poverty

Even sillier than they usually manage. You only get that
result when you use an utterly bogus measure of poverty.

Someone on a council house receiving benefits isnt in
anything even remotely resembling anything like poverty.

and had broad-ranging adverse effects on health, wellbeing and social
relationships.

Usual utterly mindless very sweeping claim which has no evidence to
substantiate it.

You're not supposed to extrapolate from a small sample!

But that is precisely what they do, and it isn't even a random sample
either.

Nobody, not least the researchers, are suggesting proven cause and
effect (not that I've read more than the abstract).

That shows. It isnt that big, read the whole thing. ALL they have
is a tiny group of welfare recipients who do nothing more than
whine in the way that plenty of welfare recipients have always
done since long before there ever way any bedroom tax.

It's a possible association, no more.

It isnt even that, just another example of some who dont like the
bedroom tax claiming it produces all sorts of undesirable outcomes
without even a shred of evidence that it does anything of the sort.


Um. The evidence is: it's what people say. Those people happen to be
those affected. That's a 'shred', to say the very least.

Even what you say sometimes has a 'shred' of truth ;-)

A few dont like moving from a house into a flat in a block of units ?

How utterly amazing, never ever heard of anything like that before.


But that is very point of the article - the impact has not been that
they move (although the sample is rather self-fulfilling in that
finding) - it's that they are affected in other ways.

Something's got to give. what's your best guess? They're on reduced
income - what would you expect to happen?

http://jpubhealth.oxfordjournals.org...ed.fdv031.full


More than happy to defer to evidence elsewhere.

There is no evidence in that one. Interviews with just 38
tenants who have a vested interest in getting rid of the
bedroom tax isn't anything even remotely resembling
evidence. It's just CLAIMS a separate matter entirely.


The thinking, rather than evidence as such, was that the reduction in
benefits would encourage those affected into employment. Or, encourage
people to move and make better use of stock. Neither of those things
have happened to a significant extent.

And of course further arguments relating to residualising the sector
further etc.

There is a small body of evidence. I'd agree,

In fact not a shred of evidence at all. JUST opinion.

it's not 'truth' or 'fact'.

Not evidence either. JUST claims.

And they could triangulate by interviewing other people and larger
samples with different agendas, such as yerself ;-).

Or they could get real radical and have a proper random sample.

That's what I would do, if I had the time, skill and energy. But it's
far more than a groundless claim.

Like hell it is. ALL they have as a few who are receiving benefits who
believe
that they are entitled to more benefits than they are currently getting.


Blimey. The pretext is that they know about the impact of the bedroom
tax. Which is not unreasonable. They certainly know more about it than
me. Of course they can misrepresent the situation. Welcome to the world.

Stop the presses, we've never ever heard anything like that before from
welfare recipients.

As I say, even the faintest glimmer of a suggestion to the contrary
would be welcome.

THEY made the claims.

THEY get to provide evidence that substantiates the claims they make.


Yes, triangulating would make the findings more robust. But a nightmare
in analysis - doable though, IMHO.

THAT'S how it works.

And that's what they did. Why don't you just drop one of the authors an
email, outlining your methods/methodology?

--
Cheers, Rob

On 31/05/2016 10:41, Rod Speed wrote:


"RJH" wrote in message
...
On 31/05/2016 08:18, Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2016 05:25:49 +0100, RJH wrote:

Who ever promised some kind of inalienable right to rent the exact
same property for generations on end?

I'd just return to that point - council tenants had/have a form of
tenancy that is about as secure in practice as owning.

And that - imho - is not right.

Social housing should be for those who are IN NEED. Not for those who
had
a relative who was once in need.


Well, usually (IIRC) that relative had to have lived for at least a
year prior to death.

'Security of tenure' was just one of a package of aspects that
characterise social housing, and considered a necessary aspect of
home. Of course, you are free to disagree. Many do.


But, anyway, that's a _completely_ separate question to whether
eviction for non-payment of rent would be a direct or indirect result.

Well, strictly I suppose the tenant is evicted for non-payment of rent.
But the 'why' isn't completely separate, I'd have thought.

When we're talking about such a small proportion of household income,
it's entirely down to prioritisation.

Absolutely - they're prioritising their homes, and 'choosing'
poverty, ill health and food banks.

More lies. There isn't a shred of evidence of any poverty, ill health
and food banks.

You could just look for yourself. In the meantime:

https://fullfact.org/economy/bedroom...oodbank-usage/

--
Cheers, Rob

In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2016 05:25:49 +0100, RJH wrote:

Who ever promised some kind of inalienable right to rent the exact
same property for generations on end?

I'd just return to that point - council tenants had/have a form of
tenancy that is about as secure in practice as owning.

And that - imho - is not right.

Social housing should be for those who are IN NEED. Not for those who
had a relative who was once in need.

So it's just fine to chuck an elderly couple or widow out of what was her
family home? That may be your view of an efficient caring society, but not
mine.

Different matter allowing what was a family council house (or whatever) to
be passed on to a sibling if they don't qualify for it. If they do
qualify, can make sense.

But, anyway, that's a _completely_ separate question to whether
eviction for non-payment of rent would be a direct or indirect result.

Well, strictly I suppose the tenant is evicted for non-payment of rent.
But the 'why' isn't completely separate, I'd have thought.

When we're talking about such a small proportion of household income,
it's entirely down to prioritisation.

--
*Why is it that to stop Windows 95, you have to click on "Start"?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"RJH" wrote in message
...
On 31/05/2016 10:51, Rod Speed wrote:


"RJH" wrote in message
...
On 31/05/2016 07:01, Rod Speed wrote:


"RJH" wrote in message
...
On 30/05/2016 23:41, Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2016 22:25:36 +0100, RJH wrote:

snip

Fourteen quid a week is not turning people to food banks.

As I say, early research is suggesting that it does.

Then that 'research' is bogus and isnt in fact 'research',
it's just opinion, a different matter entirely.

for example (one of many):

The bedroom tax has increased poverty

Even sillier than they usually manage. You only get that
result when you use an utterly bogus measure of poverty.

Someone on a council house receiving benefits isnt in
anything even remotely resembling anything like poverty.

and had broad-ranging adverse effects on health, wellbeing and social
relationships.

Usual utterly mindless very sweeping claim which has no evidence to
substantiate it.

You're not supposed to extrapolate from a small sample!

But that is precisely what they do, and it isn't even a random sample
either.

Nobody, not least the researchers, are suggesting proven cause and
effect (not that I've read more than the abstract).

That shows. It isnt that big, read the whole thing. ALL they have
is a tiny group of welfare recipients who do nothing more than
whine in the way that plenty of welfare recipients have always
done since long before there ever way any bedroom tax.

It's a possible association, no more.

It isnt even that, just another example of some who dont like the
bedroom tax claiming it produces all sorts of undesirable outcomes
without even a shred of evidence that it does anything of the sort.

Um.

Humming isnt going to save your bacon.

The evidence is: it's what people say.

That isnt evidence of the effects they claim from the bedroom tax.

Those people happen to be those affected.

Those people CLAIM to be affected, a different matter entirely.

Of course some have been affected by the bedroom tax, that
is the whole point of the bedroom tax, to have some effect.

There isnt a shred of evidence in that paper of anyone turning
to food banks, let alone there stupid claims about poverty,
worse health, wellbeing and social relationships etc etc etc.

That's a 'shred', to say the very least.

Like hell it is.

Even what you say sometimes has a 'shred' of truth ;-)

A few dont like moving from a house into a flat in a block of units ?

How utterly amazing, never ever heard of anything like that before.

But that is very point of the article - the impact has not been that they
move (although the sample is rather self-fulfilling in that finding) -
it's that they are affected in other ways.

Not a shred of evidence that they are.

Something's got to give. what's your best guess? They're on reduced income

Not if they do what the bedroom tax intends, move to a different
council house/flat that has the appropriate number of bedrooms.

- what would you expect to happen?

That they move to a different council house/flat
that has the appropriate number of bedrooms.

And even if they choose not to do that and instead of having
as many takeaways as they had before, they cook more meals
instead, that is hardly the end of civilisation as we know it or
a shred of evidence of any poverty, worse health, wellbeing
and social relationships etc etc etc.

http://jpubhealth.oxfordjournals.org...ed.fdv031.full

More than happy to defer to evidence elsewhere.

There is no evidence in that one. Interviews with just 38
tenants who have a vested interest in getting rid of the
bedroom tax isn't anything even remotely resembling
evidence. It's just CLAIMS a separate matter entirely.

The thinking, rather than evidence as such, was that the reduction in
benefits would encourage those affected into employment.

Pigs arse it was.

Or, encourage people to move and make better use of stock.

Yep.

Neither of those things have happened to a significant extent.

BULL**** on the second one.

And of course further arguments relating to residualising the sector
further etc.

Whatever that complete wank 'residualising
the sector further' is supposed to mean.

There is a small body of evidence. I'd agree,

In fact not a shred of evidence at all. JUST opinion.

it's not 'truth' or 'fact'.

Not evidence either. JUST claims.

And they could triangulate by interviewing other people and larger
samples with different agendas, such as yerself ;-).

Or they could get real radical and have a proper random sample.

That's what I would do, if I had the time, skill and energy. But it's
far more than a groundless claim.

Like hell it is. ALL they have as a few who are receiving benefits who
believe
that they are entitled to more benefits than they are currently getting.

Blimey. The pretext is that they know about the impact of the bedroom tax.

Its hardly surprising that some have more bedrooms than they need.

You dont have to ask them to know that.

Which is not unreasonable. They certainly know more about it than me. Of
course they can misrepresent the situation. Welcome to the world.

So it is nothing even remotely like real research to ask
those affected by the bedroom tax if they like it or not.
They are hardly going to say that they love it are they ?

Stop the presses, we've never ever heard anything like that before from
welfare recipients.

As I say, even the faintest glimmer of a suggestion to the contrary
would be welcome.

THEY made the claims.

THEY get to provide evidence that substantiates the claims they make.

Yes, triangulating would make the findings more robust.

And you could get real radical and actually check if
what they claim has actually happened to the person
who makes the claim or whether they are lying.

But a nightmare in analysis - doable though, IMHO.

Trivially easy to check if they are lying.

THAT'S how it works.

And that's what they did.

Like hell they did.

Why don't you just drop one of the authors an email, outlining your
methods/methodology?

THEY made the claims.

THEY get to provide evidence that substantiates the claims they make.

THAT'S how it works.

"RJH" wrote in message
...
On 31/05/2016 10:41, Rod Speed wrote:


"RJH" wrote in message
...
On 31/05/2016 08:18, Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2016 05:25:49 +0100, RJH wrote:

Who ever promised some kind of inalienable right to rent the exact
same property for generations on end?

I'd just return to that point - council tenants had/have a form of
tenancy that is about as secure in practice as owning.

And that - imho - is not right.

Social housing should be for those who are IN NEED. Not for those who
had
a relative who was once in need.


Well, usually (IIRC) that relative had to have lived for at least a
year prior to death.

'Security of tenure' was just one of a package of aspects that
characterise social housing, and considered a necessary aspect of
home. Of course, you are free to disagree. Many do.


But, anyway, that's a _completely_ separate question to whether
eviction for non-payment of rent would be a direct or indirect
result.

Well, strictly I suppose the tenant is evicted for non-payment of
rent.
But the 'why' isn't completely separate, I'd have thought.

When we're talking about such a small proportion of household income,
it's entirely down to prioritisation.

Absolutely - they're prioritising their homes, and 'choosing'
poverty, ill health and food banks.

More lies. There isn't a shred of evidence of any poverty, ill health
and food banks.

You could just look for yourself.

THEY made the claims.

THEY get to provide evidence that substantiates the claims they make.

THAT'S how it works.

In the meantime:

https://fullfact.org/economy/bedroom...oodbank-usage/

Just because some fool claims something...

Its hardly surprising that those who choose to **** what they receive
in benefits against the wall on grog, drugs, takeaways etc claim that
the reason they need a handout from a food bank is because of the
bedroom tax.

On 31/05/16 11:20, Nightjar wrote:
On 31-May-16 9:42 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 30/05/16 19:41, Nightjar wrote:
On 30-May-16 6:52 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 30/05/16 18:43, Nightjar wrote:
I thought that the driving force behind putting Council tenants into
private sector housing was that they wouldn't have the right to buy
that
housing.

No, that was a piece of propaganda dreamed up by the left for the
purpose of being ****s as usual.

Obviously any tenant can make an offer on the house he rents.


A qualifying tenant in Council owned accommodation has a legal right to
buy it at a discounted price. That is quite different from making an
offer on a private property at the market price that the owner can
refuse.


It may be 'quite different' but its not the loss of 'the right to buy';..

I didn't suggest that there was a loss of right to buy, only that it
does not extend to those in properties leased from the private sector.


Actually, you clearly did suggest exactly that..

May I remind you of what lies (sic!) above

"I thought that the driving force behind putting Council tenants into
private sector housing was that they wouldn't have the right to buy
that housing."



--
"In our post-modern world, climate science is not powerful because it is
true: it is true because it is powerful."

Lucas Bergkamp

"Dave Plowman (News)" posted
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2016 05:25:49 +0100, RJH wrote:

Who ever promised some kind of inalienable right to rent the exact
same property for generations on end?

I'd just return to that point - council tenants had/have a form of
tenancy that is about as secure in practice as owning.

And that - imho - is not right.

Social housing should be for those who are IN NEED. Not for those who
had a relative who was once in need.

So it's just fine to chuck an elderly couple or widow out of what was her
family home? That may be your view of an efficient caring society, but not
mine.

Would you like to demonstrate why you consider your view to be the
correct one? Your explanation will have to consider all the negative
outcomes of leaving elderly widows to occupy family-sized homes, as well
as the positive ones.

You might be interested to know that this is a not a new problem. It was
already emerging in the early 1960s, as the families that had moved into
the first big post-war council estates grew up and left Granny in sole
occupation.

The difficulties are discussed in Richard Crossman's diaries, written
when he was housing minister in the 1963 Labour government. He was well
aware that leaving Granny to occupy the family home for the next 20
years meant you couldn't afford to house the next generation of young
families. It's not so easy, and not susceptible to solution by the mere
mouthing of platitudes like "caring".

--
Les

On Tue, 31 May 2016 11:43:59 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Social housing should be for those who are IN NEED. Not for those who
had a relative who was once in need.

So it's just fine to chuck an elderly couple or widow out of what was
her family home?

Umm, we were talking about the "bedroom tax". Which doesn't apply to
people of retirement age.

But many elderly people DO need to move to properties that better suit
their needs, yes. In fact, I'm currently in the middle of discussions
around that with the housing association who my old man rents from.

In article ,
Big Les Wade wrote:
So it's just fine to chuck an elderly couple or widow out of what was
her family home? That may be your view of an efficient caring society,
but not mine.

Would you like to demonstrate why you consider your view to be the
correct one?

No point to the likes of you.

--
*Some days we are the flies; some days we are the windscreen.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Tue, 31 May 2016 11:28:49 +0100, RJH wrote:

Absolutely - they're prioritising their homes, and 'choosing'
poverty, ill health and food banks.

More lies. There isn't a shred of evidence of any poverty, ill health
and food banks.

You could just look for yourself. In the meantime:

https://fullfact.org/economy/bedroom...ling-foodbank-
usage/

You haven't actually read that, have you?

While Wodders is - as ever - talking complete ********, it really isn't
anywhere near as simple as you make out.

The piece you linked to wraps up with...

We spoke to the Trust about the data, and a spokesperson told us that
while the welfare reforms introduced at the beginning of the financial
year were "a major factor" in the increased demand it was witnessing,
it's difficult to be get a comprehensive picture of just how
significant it has been because much of the data gathered relied on
anecdotal evidence provided by different foodbanks, which may not be
comparable with previous years' data.

It's also worth remembering that the Trussell Trust has doubled the
number of food banks it runs since 2012, and the government argues that
much of the tripling in the numbers helped can be explained by "supply
induced demand": more people have been helped simply because the Trust
is better equiped to help more people (although the Trust itself says
that even "well-established foodbanks across the UK are reporting
significant rises in numbers helped.")

While the Mirror does include many of these caveats in its article,
readers who saw only the headline might have been left with the
impression that the 'bedroom tax' alone was responsible for driving the
rise.

So, no, that article doesn't "prove" in any way that the "bedroom tax" is
in any way responsible for a tripling of foodbank use.

In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2016 11:43:59 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Social housing should be for those who are IN NEED. Not for those who
had a relative who was once in need.

So it's just fine to chuck an elderly couple or widow out of what was
her family home?

Umm, we were talking about the "bedroom tax". Which doesn't apply to
people of retirement age.

Thought the discussion was about housing needs?

But many elderly people DO need to move to properties that better suit
their needs, yes. In fact, I'm currently in the middle of discussions
around that with the housing association who my old man rents from.

Nothing wrong in that if he wants to and there is somewhere suitable. A
very different matter from the 'chuck them out to sleep on the streets'
brigade on here.

Which was my point about the bedroom tax. No suitable smaller
accommodation available in many cases.

--
*Artificial Intelligence is no match for Natural Stupidity *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Tue, 31 May 2016 17:23:50 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Social housing should be for those who are IN NEED. Not for those
who had a relative who was once in need.

So it's just fine to chuck an elderly couple or widow out of what was
her family home?

Umm, we were talking about the "bedroom tax". Which doesn't apply to
people of retirement age.

Thought the discussion was about housing needs?

With specific reference to...

But, sure, if somebody is in a social rental property that's larger than
they need - and there are people who would better utilise it - then, yes,
they should be encouraged to move. How strong that encouragement is
depends very much on the local situation. And, no, their age should not
be relevant.

But many elderly people DO need to move to properties that better suit
their needs, yes. In fact, I'm currently in the middle of discussions
around that with the housing association who my old man rents from.

Nothing wrong in that if he wants to and there is somewhere suitable.

He doesn't. That's the problem. But he's going to need to soon.

Which was my point about the bedroom tax. No suitable smaller
accommodation available in many cases.

And, of course, there's a lot of smaller accommodation currently occupied
by families - for whom it is unsuitable, leaving them in overcrowding -
but the people in the larger accommodation won't swap. And why should
they? It doesn't actually COST them anything more to stay there, after
all...

On 31-May-16 12:26 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 31/05/16 11:20, Nightjar wrote:
On 31-May-16 9:42 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 30/05/16 19:41, Nightjar wrote:
On 30-May-16 6:52 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 30/05/16 18:43, Nightjar wrote:
I thought that the driving force behind putting Council tenants into
private sector housing was that they wouldn't have the right to buy
that
housing.

No, that was a piece of propaganda dreamed up by the left for the
purpose of being ****s as usual.

Obviously any tenant can make an offer on the house he rents.


A qualifying tenant in Council owned accommodation has a legal right to
buy it at a discounted price. That is quite different from making an
offer on a private property at the market price that the owner can
refuse.


It may be 'quite different' but its not the loss of 'the right to
buy';..

I didn't suggest that there was a loss of right to buy, only that it
does not extend to those in properties leased from the private sector.


Actually, you clearly did suggest exactly that..

May I remind you of what lies (sic!) above

"I thought that the driving force behind putting Council tenants into
private sector housing was that they wouldn't have the right to buy
that housing."

That housing = housing rented from the private sector. Nothing in there
about tenants in Council owned property not having the right to buy.


--
--

Colin Bignell

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
T i m wrote:
It makes sense if you are rattling about in a big place and fancy
summat smaller (and presumably cheaper to rent)?

The problem is there were far more family sized council houses built than
those for couples or even singles. If you are going to force someone out
of a too large house by taxing them, a decent 'authority' would make sure
they have a suitable alternative for them to move to.

No one has been taxed out - yet. They have had benefits reduced.
But then you'd not expect Mail readers to know the meaning of fair.


--
bert

In article . com,
lid writes
On 30/05/2016 16:42, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
If you rent privately and are on benefits they won't pay for you to rent
a house with spare rooms. Its been like this for many years. The spare
room tax is just a start to making it fair. Just why should someone in
council property get a spare room(s) for nowt when a private tenant
can't?

Because they could have been living in that house all their life and
brought up their family there.

The private rented ones may also have done so but they don't get the
extra money for the extra room.


But doesn't surprise me many think they should now be chucked out on the
street.


The can pay the tax and they can't be chucked out on the street anyway.

There's no tax to pay.
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Big Les Wade wrote:
So it's just fine to chuck an elderly couple or widow out of what was
her family home? That may be your view of an efficient caring society,
but not mine.

Would you like to demonstrate why you consider your view to be the
correct one?

No point to the likes of you.

Well for the rest of us then?
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2016 11:43:59 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Social housing should be for those who are IN NEED. Not for those who
had a relative who was once in need.

So it's just fine to chuck an elderly couple or widow out of what was
her family home?

Umm, we were talking about the "bedroom tax". Which doesn't apply to
people of retirement age.

Thought the discussion was about housing needs?

But many elderly people DO need to move to properties that better suit
their needs, yes. In fact, I'm currently in the middle of discussions
around that with the housing association who my old man rents from.

Nothing wrong in that if he wants to and there is somewhere suitable. A
very different matter from the 'chuck them out to sleep on the streets'
brigade on here.

Another of your inventions. No-one has suggested any such thing.
Which was my point about the bedroom tax. No suitable smaller
accommodation available in many cases.

Funny way of making such a point.
--
bert

In article , T i m
writes
On Mon, 30 May 2016 21:44:18 +0100, Vir Campestris
wrote:

On 29/05/2016 23:17, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 29 May 2016 22:40:00 +0100, News
wrote:


I have friends who bought their council
houses, mainly because there was no way they would have been able to
save a large enough deposit to buy on the open market, and could not
have afforded open market prices anyway.
Yes, but they did afford to buy and so took that property out of the
social housing / rental market?

And at the same time they took themselves out of the social
housing/rental market.

By buying something that should never have been sold in the first
place. ;-(

Net change in council houses required: Zero.

Net change in social housing stock, -1.
Net change in housing supply - 0

If they were renting they wouldn't live for ever so the house remains
'available' to others (in need).

Not if they had children who could inherit the tenancy under the Council
house system when sales were introduced.
Ok, the guy opposite us rented a council house whilst his neighbour
bought hers. He recently died and his kids thought they could live
there again.
Not if they had left home AIUI
They couldn't, and the place was gutted, put back to
stock / up to current code and is now being lived in by a new family.

When the woman who bought hers dies, it goes to her NOK and would only
be returned to 'social housing' if sold to a HA.

Cheers, T i m



--
bert

In article , 9pl
writes


"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , News
writes
In message , T i m
writes

[1] With a massive shortage of property, especially family and starter
homes, there could be a positive incentive put in place (assuming
there isn't) to assist people to downsize.

Perhaps nil rate stamp duty on the purchase, when the purchase price
is, say, 100k or more than the sale price?

It would be no less 'fair'
than giving away publicly owned property at below market value,
especially when they (The Councils) then have to rent property
themselves at the market value to home people in need! ;-(

I still struggle to understand why the sale of council houses thirty
years ago caused a shortage of homes. Suppose those houses had not
been sold. The occupants would not suddenly vaporise, making the
houses available to others. In other words, people who rented
council houses before the sale would have carried on renting even if
they couldn't buy.

Which was the logic behind selling them and would have been sensible
had the councils been allowed to keep the proceeds and use them to
build more houses. But they weren't - by governments of both
political persuasions.

Essentially because they didn't see that it made any
sense to have the govt involved in building houses.
They wouldn't have been. The money should have gone to the local
councils who had always built houses. Alternatively it could have gone
to Housing Associations for them to build.
--
bert

In article , Nightjar
writes
On 31-May-16 9:42 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 30/05/16 19:41, Nightjar wrote:
On 30-May-16 6:52 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 30/05/16 18:43, Nightjar wrote:
I thought that the driving force behind putting Council tenants into
private sector housing was that they wouldn't have the right to buy
that
housing.

No, that was a piece of propaganda dreamed up by the left for the
purpose of being ****s as usual.

Obviously any tenant can make an offer on the house he rents.


A qualifying tenant in Council owned accommodation has a legal right to
buy it at a discounted price. That is quite different from making an
offer on a private property at the market price that the owner can
refuse.


It may be 'quite different' but its not the loss of 'the right to buy';..

I didn't suggest that there was a loss of right to buy, only that it
does not extend to those in properties leased from the private sector.


Leased? Do you mean rented?
--
bert

"Big Les Wade" wrote in message
...
"Dave Plowman (News)" posted
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2016 05:25:49 +0100, RJH wrote:

Who ever promised some kind of inalienable right to rent the exact
same property for generations on end?

I'd just return to that point - council tenants had/have a form of
tenancy that is about as secure in practice as owning.

And that - imho - is not right.

Social housing should be for those who are IN NEED. Not for those who
had a relative who was once in need.

So it's just fine to chuck an elderly couple or widow out of what was her
family home? That may be your view of an efficient caring society, but not
mine.

Would you like to demonstrate why you consider your view to be the correct
one?

Essentially because it makes no sense for the state to be telling
people what is best for them, they should be able to decide for
themselves what they want to do with stuff as basic as where they live.

Your explanation will have to consider all the negative outcomes of
leaving elderly widows to occupy family-sized homes, as well as the
positive ones.

Only if you believe the state should be deciding stuff like that.

You might be interested to know that this is a not a new problem. It was
already emerging in the early 1960s, as the families that had moved into
the first big post-war council estates grew up and left Granny in sole
occupation.

The difficulties are discussed in Richard Crossman's diaries, written when
he was housing minister in the 1963 Labour government. He was well aware
that leaving Granny to occupy the family home for the next 20 years meant
you couldn't afford to house the next generation of young families. It's
not so easy, and not susceptible to solution by the mere mouthing of
platitudes like "caring".

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Adrian wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote

Social housing should be for those who are IN NEED.
Not for those who had a relative who was once in need.

So it's just fine to chuck an elderly couple or
widow out of what was her family home?

Umm, we were talking about the "bedroom tax".
Which doesn't apply to people of retirement age.

Thought the discussion was about housing needs?

You were the one who brought up an elderly
couple or widow being chucked out.

But many elderly people DO need to move to properties that better
suit their needs, yes. In fact, I'm currently in the middle of
discussions
around that with the housing association who my old man rents from.

Nothing wrong in that if he wants to and there is somewhere
suitable. A very different matter from the 'chuck them out to
sleep on the streets' brigade on here.

No one has ever said anything about chucking
anyone out to sleep on the streets except you.

Which was my point about the bedroom tax. No suitable
smaller accommodation available in many cases.

BULL****.

On 31/05/2016 11:43, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2016 05:25:49 +0100, RJH wrote:

Who ever promised some kind of inalienable right to rent the exact
same property for generations on end?

I'd just return to that point - council tenants had/have a form of
tenancy that is about as secure in practice as owning.

And that - imho - is not right.

Social housing should be for those who are IN NEED. Not for those who
had a relative who was once in need.

So it's just fine to chuck an elderly couple or widow out of what was her
family home?

Why just the elderly? Do you have some self-serving interest like being
old yourself?

"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , 9pl writes


"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , News
writes
In message , T i m
writes

[1] With a massive shortage of property, especially family and starter
homes, there could be a positive incentive put in place (assuming
there isn't) to assist people to downsize.

Perhaps nil rate stamp duty on the purchase, when the purchase price is,
say, 100k or more than the sale price?

It would be no less 'fair'
than giving away publicly owned property at below market value,
especially when they (The Councils) then have to rent property
themselves at the market value to home people in need! ;-(

I still struggle to understand why the sale of council houses thirty
years ago caused a shortage of homes. Suppose those houses had not been
sold. The occupants would not suddenly vaporise, making the houses
available to others. In other words, people who rented council houses
before the sale would have carried on renting even if they couldn't buy.

Which was the logic behind selling them and would have been sensible had
the councils been allowed to keep the proceeds and use them to build
more houses. But they weren't - by governments of both political
persuasions.

Essentially because they didn't see that it made any
sense to have the govt involved in building houses.

They wouldn't have been. The money should have gone to the local councils
who had always built houses.

That is part of the govt, local govt.

Alternatively it could have gone to Housing Associations for them to
build.

They didn't see that that made sense either.

9pl posted
"Big Les Wade" wrote in message
...
"Dave Plowman (News)" posted
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2016 05:25:49 +0100, RJH wrote:

Who ever promised some kind of inalienable right to rent the exact
same property for generations on end?

I'd just return to that point - council tenants had/have a form of
tenancy that is about as secure in practice as owning.

And that - imho - is not right.

Social housing should be for those who are IN NEED. Not for those who
had a relative who was once in need.

So it's just fine to chuck an elderly couple or widow out of what was her
family home? That may be your view of an efficient caring society, but not
mine.

Would you like to demonstrate why you consider your view to be the
correct one?

Essentially because it makes no sense for the state to be telling
people what is best for them, they should be able to decide for
themselves what they want to do with stuff as basic as where they live.

Even when the goods they are using for this purpose belong to the state,
and were created by the state in order to benefit society as a whole,
not one individual?

--
Les

On Wed, 01 Jun 2016 08:32:42 +0100, Big Les Wade wrote:

Social housing should be for those who are IN NEED. Not for those
who had a relative who was once in need.

So it's just fine to chuck an elderly couple or widow out of what was
her family home? That may be your view of an efficient caring society,
but not mine.

Would you like to demonstrate why you consider your view to be the
correct one?

Essentially because it makes no sense for the state to be telling people
what is best for them, they should be able to decide for themselves what
they want to do with stuff as basic as where they live.

Even when the goods they are using for this purpose belong to the state,
and were created by the state in order to benefit society as a whole,
not one individual?

Consider, also, Bob Crow...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...have-no-moral-
duty-to-move-out-of-council-house-despite-receiving-six-figure-salary-
as-8964238.html

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
News wrote:
Just the general, ongoing, household maintenance that we all do. I was
told, when I bought my first house in 1975, that I should allow an
annual average budget of one per cent of the value of the house for
routine maintenance, decoration etc.

If I had to pay out 1% of the value of this Victorian house every year on
maintenance, I'd have long since moved.

Perhaps your house, in London, skews the figures? I don't know. It was
an average figure, and, when you factor in replacement kitchens or
bathrooms, roofs etc., I still reckon that figure is probably fairly
accurate over the longer term, particularly for those who do not DIY.
Think about the cost of paying a 'little man' to redecorate a house,
internal and external. Not every year, of course, but we're talking
averages.

--
Graeme

On 01/06/16 08:32, Big Les Wade wrote:
9pl posted
"Big Les Wade" wrote in message
...
"Dave Plowman (News)" posted
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2016 05:25:49 +0100, RJH wrote:

Who ever promised some kind of inalienable right to rent the
exact
same property for generations on end?

I'd just return to that point - council tenants had/have a form of
tenancy that is about as secure in practice as owning.

And that - imho - is not right.

Social housing should be for those who are IN NEED. Not for those who
had a relative who was once in need.

So it's just fine to chuck an elderly couple or widow out of what
was her
family home? That may be your view of an efficient caring society,
but not
mine.

Would you like to demonstrate why you consider your view to be the
correct one?

Essentially because it makes no sense for the state to be telling
people what is best for them, they should be able to decide for
themselves what they want to do with stuff as basic as where they live.

Even when the goods they are using for this purpose belong to the state,

No, to the taxpayers. The state is the servant of the people, not their
master.

Oh sorry. You are talking about the EU now aren't you?

and were created by the state in order to benefit society as a whole,
not one individual?

Meaningless statement. Society is a group of individuals.

You're just talking leftydrivel again.


--
€œBut what a weak barrier is truth when it stands in the way of an
hypothesis!€�

Mary Wollstonecraft

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
Which was my point about the bedroom tax. No suitable
smaller accommodation available in many cases.

BULL****.

You know all of the UK so intimately, then?

Even a cursitory glance at the average housing estate would show the
proportion of small flats against family accommodation.

But don't let facts stop you lying about anything and everything.

--
*Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
So it's just fine to chuck an elderly couple or widow out of what was
her
family home?

Why just the elderly? Do you have some self-serving interest like being
old yourself?

Self serving, pet? I own my own extremely valuable house outright. Such
riches that the average fascist whiner on here could only dream about.
Which is probably why they are so bitter.

--
*Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
News wrote:
If I had to pay out 1% of the value of this Victorian house every year on
maintenance, I'd have long since moved.

Perhaps your house, in London, skews the figures?

I'd guess so.

I don't know. It was
an average figure, and, when you factor in replacement kitchens or
bathrooms, roofs etc., I still reckon that figure is probably fairly
accurate over the longer term, particularly for those who do not DIY.
Think about the cost of paying a 'little man' to redecorate a house,
internal and external. Not every year, of course, but we're talking
averages.

But I do DIY. At one time, this was the purpose of this group. ;-)

--
*Caution: I drive like you do.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.