Jeremy Corbyn’s plan for council house building

First topic message reminder :

Labour leadership candidate Jeremy Corbyn MP publishes his plans to comprehensively address Britain's housing crisis as part of his Vision for Britain 2020. Jeremy believes a secure and affordable home is a basic right. His housing manifesto proposes a radical rebooting of home construction permitting councils to be house builders and providers in order to meet the demand for affordable housing in their own areas

Giving to councils the right and the means to commission new homes is the most efficient way of achieving the minimum of 240,000 new homes our country now needs to build each year to meet demand and reverse the current housing crisis.
 
Short supply of affordable housing fuels high rents which, alongside unobtainable mortgage deposits, mean the dream of having a home of your own is now beyond the reach of too many people. And too many parents are now dealing with the fact that their grown children cannot afford to fly the nest.

"Under my ‘Vision for Britain 2020’ Labour will promote major council-funded, desirable energy efficient building projects to provide our young people with a good start in life, to stop paying exorbitant rents and the opportunity of a home they can at least call their own," said Jeremy Corbyn.

"It has become clear that when housing provision is left purely to market forces most of our young people simply cannot afford to get a foot on the rung of the market's so called housing ladder."

"It also makes economic sense, as today's housing document outlines."

“Housing has reached crisis point: families are shunted from council house to B&B to hostel, hundreds of miles away from support networks and denied stability or security; council homes are emptied, regenerated and sold at prices well out of the reach of normal people, causing the social cleansing of our cities."

Other points highlighted in the document:

• The pernicous bedroom tax and the benefit cap must be scrapped. For every £1 spent on housing construction an extra £2.09 is generated in the economy.
  
• Lower regulated rents and better housing conditions in the private sector.
  
• Private rents linked to local average earnings levels.
  
• Tenants should have the right to longer tenancies.
  
• Licensing and regulation of private landlords to ensure decent housing conditions.
  
• Four in five London employers say the lack of affordable housing is stalling economic growth in the capital.
  

NOTES TO EDITORS:

A first time buyer today requires ten times the deposit they did in the 1980s, according to the National Housing Federation. Fewer than 150,000 homes were built in every year of the coalition government, compared with 190,000 homes a year under New Labour, which was itself a low for a post-war government. Britain has the highest proportion of households of OECD countries receiving cash allowances to support rent, and we now spend around £10 billion on housing benefit for in-work households; and the eviction of tenants is at a record high. Official figures show that sleeping rough in England is up 55% since 2010 (and up 78% in London); while families in temporary accommodation are increasing too.

http://www.jeremyforlabour.com/housing

#JezWeCan

Conservatives are quaking in their boots.

sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes - thank you - I know what the point was. I'm just playing him at his own stupid game.

Honestly, you're all barking mad.

No, we just growl a lot at people who don't want to share the dinner.

Get your own dinner.

well if we are mad, it seems an infinitly better place to be that the vicious jealous mean minded place you inhabit

Raggamuffin wrote:

sassy wrote:

I think the fact you wouldn't kill it with kindness was the point.  You don't seem very good at handing out kindness to those weaker or more vunerable than yourself.

Yes - thank you - I know what the point was. I'm just playing him at his own stupid game.

Honestly, you're all barking mad.

you need more practice then

victorismyhero wrote:well if we are mad, it seems an infinitly better place to be that the vicious jealous mean minded place you inhabit

I think it's you who's jealous of anyone who doesn't need nannying. You're jealous of people who have intelligence and don't rely on the State to wipe their arses for them.

Raggamuffin wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
true though

Of course I wouldn't kill a pet with kindness. Do you habitually kill dogs then?

why? are you getting worried now ragga??

korban dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes - thank you - I know what the point was. I'm just playing him at his own stupid game.

Honestly, you're all barking mad.

you need more practice then

No I don't - you just shot yourself in the foot with your stupid and irrelevant post.

Raggamuffin wrote:

sassy wrote:

I think the fact you wouldn't kill it with kindness was the point.  You don't seem very good at handing out kindness to those weaker or more vunerable than yourself.

Yes - thank you - I know what the point was. I'm just playing him at his own stupid game.

Honestly, you're all barking mad.

yes there you problem lol you know the point
but go of on a tangent anyway it habitual i reckon

What about Sassy's comment? I've never had a puppy, so that apparently means I don't like dogs.

Not much logic there really.

korban dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes - thank you - I know what the point was. I'm just playing him at his own stupid game.

Honestly, you're all barking mad.

yes there you problem lol  you know the point
but go of on a tangent anyway it habitual i reckon  

Only when you make stupid remarks.

Raggamuffin wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
you need more practice then

No I don't - you just shot yourself in the foot with your stupid and irrelevant post.

oh i think you the expert in that field a grand master in fact

Raggamuffin wrote:What about Sassy's comment? I've never had a puppy, so that apparently means I don't like dogs.

Not much logic there really.

She has a point
It shows you will have less empathy than most because you do not care to have a dog

Raggamuffin wrote:What about Sassy's comment? I've never had a puppy, so that apparently means I don't like dogs.

Not much logic there really.

Ooooo citing sassys comment to deflect to others how......well you really

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:What about Sassy's comment? I've never had a puppy, so that apparently means I don't like dogs.

Not much logic there really.

She has a point
It shows you will have less empathy than most because you do not care to have a dog

I didn't say I didn't care to have a dog, I said I've never had a puppy.

Get a grip people ...

So people who don't have puppies don't have empathy then?

Now I've heard everything.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:


She has a point
It shows you will have less empathy than most because you do not care to have a dog

I didn't say I didn't care to have a dog, I said I've never had a puppy.

Get a grip people ...

come closer then i cant reach

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:


She has a point
It shows you will have less empathy than most because you do not care to have a dog

I didn't say I didn't care to have a dog, I said I've never had a puppy.

Get a grip people ...

So if you have never had one, how can you empathize in regards to owning one?

Benefits cap hits single parents with children under five, figures show
Official statistics show that nearly half the households affected by the benefits cap are headed by lone parents with at least one child under five

Nearly half the households affected by the benefits cap are headed by lone parents caring for at least one child under five, official figures have revealed.
The first government statistics detailing who has been affected by the policy, which caps welfare payments at £26,000, reveal that in May 2015 49% were single parents with children too young to attend school.
Critics say the figures show that the benefits cap is effectively penalising those parents who find it most difficult to get suitable work. They have called on the government to exempt single parents of children under five from the policy.
According to the statistics released on Thursday by the Department for Work and Pensions, 22,456 households were living with their benefits capped in May 2015, the most recent figures available.
Lone parents led 64% or 14,309 of the capped families. Of those, 76% – 10,810 – were raising a child under five.
The findings will be difficult for the government, which sells its benefits cap policy as an incentive for parents to get work. Critics say lone parents with young children face obstacles to finding jobs, including the high cost of childcare and a lack of flexible part-time positions which would allow them to work around childcare responsibilities.
The DWP’s own analysis found that those parents who had found a job after being hit by the benefits cap were more likely to have children aged four or over, suggesting that caring for young children is a serious impediment to employment.
Single parents claiming income support are not currently required to find a job until their youngest child turns five. At that point they are moved on to jobseeker’s allowance. However, the benefits cap is a de facto imperative to find work, with moving to a cheaper area the only other option for many families.
A total of 62,571 households have had their benefits capped since the scheme was introduced in April 2013. Of those, more than 45% – 28,327 – were in London, where a hot property market and a decline in social housing have led to soaring rents.
The next worst affected area was the wider south-east, another area which has seen soaring property prices. There, 6,356 households were capped – just over 10% of the national total. The least affected area was the north-east.
Gingerbread, a support group for single parents, warned that the benefits cap was putting single parents under increasing pressure at the expense of their children’s wellbeing.
The chief executive, Fiona Weir, said: “The cap is billed as a policy that incentivises parents to find work. However, we know that single parents are already highly motivated to work and that for those with very young children it is low pay, the high cost of childcare and lack of the right part-time jobs that make it particularly difficult for them to work.
“This is a policy that will push more children into poverty. We’re calling on the government to exempt single parents caring for a child aged under five from the cap.”

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/aug/06/benefits-cap-hits-single-parents-with-children-under-five-figures-show

Raggamuffin wrote:

victorismyhero wrote:well if we are mad, it seems an infinitly better place to be that the vicious jealous mean minded place you inhabit

I think it's you who's jealous of anyone who doesn't need nannying. You're jealous of people who have intelligence and don't rely on the State to wipe their arses for them.

now you know thats odd......

I spent most of my life either working as a microbiologist or in later years as a senior electronics field engineer...with a goodly number of underlings to watch over.....

and the state has never "wiped my arse" either. Ive paid my fair share in...and then some....and would be willing to pay a bit more, if it ensured that those in need were provided for, even at the risk that some few will abuse the system....

unlike you that resents every penny spent on support for those who need it...

Look some of us are having a debate, so stop spamming sassy

£26,000! If they can't manage on that, there's something wrong with them.

Raggamuffin wrote:£26,000! If they can't manage on that, there's something wrong with them.

Nice copout

Raggamuffin wrote:£26,000! If they can't manage on that, there's something wrong with them.

idiot...thats the MOST that anyone will be allowed.....

MOST dont get anywhere near that

victorismyhero wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:£26,000! If they can't manage on that, there's something wrong with them.

idiot...thats the MOST that anyone will be allowed.....

MOST dont get anywhere near that

I should hope not ...

victorismyhero wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:£26,000! If they can't manage on that, there's something wrong with them.

idiot...thats the MOST that anyone will be allowed.....

MOST dont get anywhere near that

Actually it's £23,000

so..once again whats YOUR problem

your two jobs not paying enough?

perhaps you should get one proper job

victorismyhero wrote:so..once again whats YOUR problem

your two jobs not paying enough?

perhaps you should get one proper job

Then I'd have to pay more tax for idle scroungers.

Couple of the 'scroungers'.

you already pay historically low rates of tax anyway.....

Raggamuffin wrote:

victorismyhero wrote:so..once again whats YOUR problem

your two jobs not paying enough?

perhaps you should get one proper job

Then I'd have to pay more tax for idle scroungers.

you mean you aint bright enough to do more than clean the bogs in one place and sweep the floors in another???

victorismyhero wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Then I'd have to pay more tax for idle scroungers.

you mean you aint bright enough to do more than clean the bogs in one place and sweep the floors in another???

No, I don't mean that.

or is it that you have managed to fix it so you dont pay any tax.....

I mean


2 part time jobs...add in a few "tax deductables" and away you go....

However, I think it's awful that some people look down on people who do those jobs and assume that they're not very bright.

Shame on you victor.

Raggamuffin wrote:

victorismyhero wrote:so..once again whats YOUR problem

your two jobs not paying enough?

perhaps you should get one proper job

Then I'd have to pay more tax for idle scroungers.

If they was zero unemployment you think you tax would go down ? what planet do you live on raggs ?

korban dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Then I'd have to pay more tax for idle scroungers.

If they was zero unemployment you think you tax would go down ?     what planet do you live on raggs ?

No, I don't think that Korban.

Raggamuffin wrote:However, I think it's awful that some people look down on people who do those jobs and assume that they're not very bright.

Shame on you victor.

I actually happen to think that those jobs are rather important, if somewhat underrated.
However I think its generally fair to say that those who do them are often "not the brightest bulb in the pack" Not to say however that i would find their company distatseful, in fact rather their company than a whole board of directors.

victorismyhero wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:However, I think it's awful that some people look down on people who do those jobs and assume that they're not very bright.

Shame on you victor.

I actually happen to think that those jobs are rather important, if somewhat underrated.
However I think its generally fair to say that those who do them are often "not the brightest bulb in the pack" Not to say however that i would find their company distatseful, in fact rather their company than a whole board of directors.

You're just a snob really.

yeah thats why I champion the casue of the disadvantaged ragga...as a pennace...
yah daft cow....

victorismyhero wrote:yeah thats why I champion the casue of the disadvantaged ragga...as a pennace...
yah daft cow....

Only because you think it makes you sound good.

In my area for some miles around there are a lot of neglected building, houses and flats that could easily be turned into council housing, with a bit of thinking, that would be far less spending.
Sick of these carbon copy hutches/homes with people spilling into each others lives as it is, so not looking forward to seeing their latest financial draining' project, that will most likely manage to find some way of the let's call it drainage seeping back into their own pockets, along with the other cowboy middlemen. Huh councils.

Do you think that people who do cleaning as a job are disadvantaged victor?

Raggamuffin wrote:Do you think that people who do cleaning as a job are disadvantaged victor?

that depends doesnt it....

they could be educationally challenged (which is a disadvantage not of their making, but may NOT be that much of a disadvantage if the employer values their input and pays a decent wage))
they could be just looking for a bit of a partime filler (in which case they likely aint )

and so on...it depends on circumstance

victorismyhero wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Do you think that people who do cleaning as a job are disadvantaged victor?

that depends doesnt it....

they could be educationally challenged (which is a disadvantage not of their making, but may NOT be that much of a disadvantage if the employer values their input and pays a decent wage))
they could be just looking for a bit of a partime filler (in which case they likely aint )

and so on...it depends on circumstance

Indeed it does, which is why your idea of being disadvantaged might mean something different to my idea.

that would be all very well ragga. if in fact you HAD any idea......

victorismyhero wrote:that would be all very well ragga. if in fact you HAD any idea......

A very poor response ...

That will be some day, the day you guys all agree.

korban dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

victorismyhero wrote:so..once again whats YOUR problem

your two jobs not paying enough?

perhaps you should get one proper job

Then I'd have to pay more tax for idle scroungers.

If they was zero unemployment you think you tax would go down ?     what planet do you live on raggs ?

If there was ever zero unemployment we would have rampant inflation.

Irn Bru wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
If they was zero unemployment you think you tax would go down ?     what planet do you live on raggs ?

If there was ever zero unemployment we would have rampant inflation.

is that anything like a rampant rabbit???