On 31-May-16 9:20 PM, bert wrote:
In article , Nightjar
writes
....
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?

Leased by the Council, to rent to their tenants.


--
--

Colin Bignell

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
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. ;-)

And it still is if you look at the vast majority of threads.
--
bert

On Tue, 31 May 2016 21:14:42 +0100, bert wrote:

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

Except the thread and discussion was focused on 'social' housing.

""Social housing" (Shortage?)"

So, net change in *social* housing stock, -1, and I saw recently on TV
that many of the Councils are still way behind in replacing the
*Social* houses they sold off on the pretext (or 'lie' some call it)
they were shedding the (high, bs) maintenance cost by building new
(social) homes.


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.

However, the house still remains part of the social housing stock ...

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

Quite.

Cheers, T i m

On 31/05/2016 16:22, Adrian wrote:
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.


I did skim read it. I suppose I was hoping that the equivocal tone might
appeal. Not a tripling, but a link. A lot of those using food banks are
not affected by the bedroom tax.

--
Cheers, Rob

On 31/05/2016 15:14, Big Les Wade wrote:
"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".


It's still her home.

I used to work in social housing allocations (HA and LA) and even I used
to wonder how some folk would stick like glue to their back of Brixton
flat in the face of what would seem to be a very attractive alternative.
The trick is not to look at the fabric of their home alone but
everything around - familiar faces and places.

Bet Crossman changed his mind a few times anyways ;-)

--
Cheers, Rob

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
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?

My access to that information is actually better than yours is, thanks.

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

Pity about the blocks of flats etc.

In article , Nightjar
writes
On 31-May-16 9:20 PM, bert wrote:
In article , Nightjar
writes
...
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?

Leased by the Council, to rent to their tenants.


Leased? Leasing is a wholly different ball game to renting. Leasing
property has most of the disadvantages of ownership and none of the
advantages.
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
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.

So you'll be happy for Corbyn to come along and slap a wealth tax on you
then for all this unearned wealth?
--
bert

On 29/05/2016 08:01, harry wrote:
While out leafleting, I couldn't help noticing the number of council houses with two or three cars, parked on verges, front gardens (sometimes concreted over) etc.
BMWs. Audis. New cars. Caravans. Motor homes.

These people clearly don't need to sponge off the taxpayer for houses.
They should be chucked out to make way for people that do need it.

If they own cars like those you mention, there's a good chance they're
not sponging off the state and if working not a parasite on those who do
either.

Do you work? Some call not working retirement, others call it laziness.

On 01/06/2016 11:38, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
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.

So why shouldnn't those who are in receipt of housing benefit downsize
for those in greater need?

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
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?

My access to that information is actually better than yours is, thanks.

Of course, pet. You get bulletins about UK council house availability sent
to you regularly. Does your nurse read them to you?

--
*Why is it that doctors call what they do "practice"?

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

In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
On 01/06/2016 11:38, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
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.

So why shouldnn't those who are in receipt of housing benefit downsize
for those in greater need?

Nothing wrong with that. If a suitable property is available for them. But
in many areas of the country, they aren't.

--
*Reality? Is that where the pizza delivery guy comes from?

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
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?

My access to that information is actually better than yours is, thanks.

Of course, pet. You get bulletins about UK council house availability sent
to you regularly. Does your nurse read them to you?

Love the 'pet'

On 02/06/2016 00:20, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
On 01/06/2016 11:38, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
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.

So why shouldnn't those who are in receipt of housing benefit downsize
for those in greater need?

Nothing wrong with that. If a suitable property is available for them. But
in many areas of the country, they aren't.

Agreed.

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 29/05/2016 08:01, harry wrote:
While out leafleting, I couldn't help noticing the number of council
houses with two or three cars, parked on verges, front gardens (sometimes
concreted over) etc.
BMWs. Audis. New cars. Caravans. Motor homes.

These people clearly don't need to sponge off the taxpayer for houses.
They should be chucked out to make way for people that do need it.

If they own cars like those you mention, there's a good chance they're not
sponging off the state and if working not a parasite on those who do
either.

Do you work? Some call not working retirement, others call it laziness.



I wonder if they were ex council houses? I cannot imagine Harry asked the
people living there if they owned their own house.

--
Adam