Another Tory Manifesto Pledge hits the deck - Tories U-turn on plan to build more socially rented council housing

Plan to build genuinely affordable homes ditched by housing minister

The Conservatives have U-turned on a flagship pledge to build “a new generation” of social housing announced in their manifesto just weeks ago.

Theresa May personally promised her policy would deliver “a constant supply of new homes for social rent”, but her housing minister has now admitted planned homes would be let at significantly less affordable rents.

The embarrassing admission represents the second about-turn on a Conservative manifesto pledge, after the damaging furore around the “dementia tax”.

Tory officials played down the reversal, but Labour claimed it showed one of the Prime Minister’s key pledges to help low-income families had “fallen apart”, while the Chartered Institute of Housing branded it “very disappointing”.

In mid-May the Conservatives announced they would build “a new generation of homes for social rent”, in a policy seen as critical to winning over the kind of working-class voters Ms May needs to steal seats off Labour.

The Tory manifesto spelt out a plan for “new council housing deals”, which would help councils "build more social housing”. And, in an intervention that spoke to the policy’s importance, Theresa May personally pledged it would create “a constant supply of new homes for social rent”.

But in an interview on Friday with trade magazine Inside Housing, minister Gavin Barwell admitted the party was planning to continue to build homes with higher rents and was not in fact reinstating traditional socially rented council housing.

Asked whether the homes would planned by his party would be let at low-level council rents, the minister said: “No, I think the idea is that they are what you’d call affordable rents in housing terminology, but they are social housing.”

The Department for Communities and Local Government defines social rented housing as having lower rents “determined through the national rent regime” – a specific formula set by the Government.

Affordable-rent housing, meanwhile, is separately defined, and simply requires homes to be “of no more than 80 per cent of the local market rent” – meaning rents could be considerably higher. In practice, social rent tends to come in at around 40 per cent of market rent, meaning that in some areas the difference in rent could be twice as much.

CIH chief executive Terrie Alafat called the switch “very disappointing”, adding: “In reality affordable rents are still often out of reach to a significant proportion of the population.

“We have to commit to building new homes that people can afford.”

The apparent reversal comes after Theresa May was forced to U-turn on the “dementia tax” care policy – introducing a cap at the last minute as her Tory poll trickled away amid the backlash.

Ms May also dropped a pledge to force companies to put ordinary workers on their boards of directors, scrapped a flagship rise in National Insurance for self-employed workers in this year’s Budget, and changed her mind on whether to call an election.

There has also been confusion over the Tory policy to scrap universal free school lunches for infants to save money and replace them with breakfasts – after it emerged the party had only budgeted 7p for each child. The party has indicated that those costings are now defunct.

Labour's shadow housing secretary John Healey said the Tories’ only housing announcement of the general election was collapsing.

“This is another policy pledge from the Prime Minister that has fallen apart,” he told The Independent.

“The housing minister has now contradicted Theresa May's only housing announcement of this election campaign. She promised that the Conservatives would build new homes for 'social rent', he has confirmed they will not.

“The Prime Minister now urgently needs to level with the public. Either her housing minister is wrong about Conservative housing policy or she is. Which is it?”

Asked about Mr Barwell's comments, a Conservative spokesperson said: “We will be supporting new council housing at below market rents. Councils will be in the lead in deciding the precise form of tenure – we expect a mixture of social and affordable rent, as at present.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tories-housing-policy-u-turn-affordable-homes-general-election-2017-manifesto-a7769866.html



Uncosted manifesto that might just as well have been written on toilet paper so they could tear bits off of it.

Sorry sass, but you do go on a bit.

That nicko, was utterly pathetic. So you don't give a fuck whether we have affordable housing for people? Have to say, actually thinking about what life will be like for the generations following us doesn't seem to be your forte. Good job others think about it.

sassy wrote:That nicko, was utterly pathetic. So you don't give a fuck whether we have affordable housing for people?  Have to say, actually thinking about what life will be like for the generations following us doesn't seem to be your forte.  Good job others think about it.

Wind your neck in.

Of course he cares, what he does not care for is your attitude.

Well affordable housing, well when Maggie made it affordable for people to buy council homes, people moaned.

She allowed for many people to have homes and what did you and other Far lefties decry?

Why not blame the cause for the mass rise in housing prices. Those abroad rich buying up properties and making the market sky rocket

Thorin wrote:

sassy wrote:That nicko, was utterly pathetic. So you don't give a fuck whether we have affordable housing for people?  Have to say, actually thinking about what life will be like for the generations following us doesn't seem to be your forte.  Good job others think about it.

Wind your neck in.

Of course he cares, what he does not care for is your attitude.

Well affordable housing, well when Maggie made it affordable for people to buy council homes, people moaned.

She allowed for many people to have homes and what did you and other Far lefties decry?

Why not blame the cause for the mass rise in housing prices. Those abroad rich buying up properties and making the market sky rocket

Who the hell do you think you are. Perhaps veya should ban you again for trying to run the site.

sassy wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Wind your neck in.

Of course he cares, what he does not care for is your attitude.

Well affordable housing, well when Maggie made it affordable for people to buy council homes, people moaned.

She allowed for many people to have homes and what did you and other Far lefties decry?

Why not blame the cause for the mass rise in housing prices. Those abroad rich buying up properties and making the market sky rocket

Who the hell do you think you are.  Perhaps veya should ban you again for trying to run the site.  

You do realise its against the rules to engage in posts looking to get someone banned?

As to who i am?

Well  I am stand up to hateful people as yourself

Nicko has every right to express his views, as do you, but everyone can see how angry you are in every single post and taking it out on people.#

Stop taking your anger out on people, its not their fault for things wrong in your life.

Like with Nicko, if I could, i would make you better in an instance, but since you have become unwell you have become angrier and nasty towards people.

Take some good advice, life is short and its a crying shame to waste it being angry and bitter

Building more social housing for rent is a waste of time anyway. There will never be enough, and it just causes resentment in those who can't get one. The answer is to regulate all rental properties and cut rent by quite a large amount.

Raggamuffin wrote:Building more social housing for rent is a waste of time anyway. There will never be enough, and it just causes resentment in those who can't get one. The answer is to regulate all rental properties and cut rent by quite a large amount.

100% agree.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Building more social housing for rent is a waste of time anyway. There will never be enough, and it just causes resentment in those who can't get one. The answer is to regulate all rental properties and cut rent by quite a large amount.

100% agree.

Really? Wow!

I do think this is a good subject to debate, but I don't expect anyone to actually agree with me.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


100% agree.

Really? Wow!

I do think this is a good subject to debate, but I don't expect anyone to actually agree with me.

Well i believe in all having equality under the law rags. So providing people with cheap housing takes away incentive for people to better their lives. Which it seems more and more in society today everyone thinks and believes they should have everything on a plate. Where is the work ethos to do well and work hard to better our lives. Its near non-existent these days. I think rent should be regulated to a level that is affordable to everyone.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Really? Wow!

I do think this is a good subject to debate, but I don't expect anyone to actually agree with me.

Well i believe in all having equality under the law rags. So providing people with cheap housing takes away incentive for people to better their lives. Which it seems more and more in society today everyone thinks and believes they should have everything on a plate. Where is the work ethos to do well and work hard to better our lives. Its near non-existent these days. I think rent should be regulated to a level that is affordable to everyone.

I think it's also unfair on those who can't get cheap social housing. I also don't approve of people buying their council house at a discount and then selling it at a profit.

I agree that rent should be affordable to everyone - it's absurd how much people have to pay these days.

I think we do need more social housing. Private renting to private landlords is out of reach for many, as is buying a property.
Thatcher did allow people to buy their council houses, sadly she didn't replace them.

The present situation is we have far too many people needing cheaper properties and no practical way of providing them.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Well i believe in all having equality under the law rags. So providing people with cheap housing takes away incentive for people to better their lives. Which it seems more and more in society today everyone thinks and believes they should have everything on a plate. Where is the work ethos to do well and work hard to better our lives. Its near non-existent these days. I think rent should be regulated to a level that is affordable to everyone.

I think it's also unfair on those who can't get cheap social housing. I also don't approve of people buying their council house at a discount and then selling it at a profit.

I agree that rent should be affordable to everyone - it's absurd how much people have to pay these days.

My parents did, but then they did buy the house Rags. We never got this until i was 8 and they had been renting for years before them. I see your point over fairness on this, but my dad did get ripped off and lost 10k that he had saved to buy a house before. That aside, it should be fair to all. I think its the worst thing in the world to take away purpose and meaning to life. When people have to do as little as possible for anything they become selfish and greedy. Others work hard and study or years to get where they are today. Its a kick in the teeth to those who do this, when people are given things on a plate.

Social housing should be for people in need....when their circumstances change they should move on.

The days of living in a council house for life, even passing it down to offspring should be gone forever.

Syl wrote:I think we do need more social housing. Private renting to private landlords is out of reach for many, as is buying a property.
Thatcher did allow people to buy their council houses, sadly she didn't replace them.

The present situation is we have far too many people needing cheaper properties and no practical way of providing them.

I don't think it's relevant that she didn't replace them, she shouldn't have allowed them to buy them in the first place. If private rents were regulated and lowered, it would make a big difference.

Syl wrote:Social housing should be for people in need....when their circumstances change they should move on.

The days of living in a council house for life, even passing it down to offspring should be gone forever.

People need opportunities, of that the poorest do need, but there is nothing stopping people from succeeding.

Case in point:

http://www.sunnyskyz.com/blog/2164/Harvard-Grad-Explains-What-He-Went-Through-To-Succeed-In-Viral-Facebook-Post

Here we have someone with a will to better their life. If everyone had his will to succeed, there would never be any poverty. Education and opportunity is the key to success. We should look to support people but do so by encouragement. By giving what people demand of us, is never going to teach people to be strong and independent. When they are dependent on others. Yes we have to ensure that the opportunities are in place.

I think you will like this video

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:I think we do need more social housing. Private renting to private landlords is out of reach for many, as is buying a property.
Thatcher did allow people to buy their council houses, sadly she didn't replace them.

The present situation is we have far too many people needing cheaper properties and no practical way of providing them.

I don't think it's relevant that she didn't replace them, she shouldn't have allowed them to buy them in the first place. If private rents were regulated and lowered, it would make a big difference.

The point is she did sell off the council house stock and didn't replace them.

It makes no sense for local councils to rent off private landlords in order to house people on benefits.
It would be cheaper in the long run to just build more houses for people who need help.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't think it's relevant that she didn't replace them, she shouldn't have allowed them to buy them in the first place. If private rents were regulated and lowered, it would make a big difference.

The point is she did sell off the council house stock and didn't replace them.

It makes no sense for local councils to rent off private landlords in order to house people on benefits.
It would be cheaper in the long run to just build more houses for people who need help.

Why should they be replaced?

Where is the incentive for people to better their lives?

If people know they can do less to be able to obtain anything, where is the will to better their lives?

They know they can do far less that others to get what others have.

How is that fair Syl?

Is that not the wrong message to send out?

If you continually support people to be down, then they will continue to do so.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't think it's relevant that she didn't replace them, she shouldn't have allowed them to buy them in the first place. If private rents were regulated and lowered, it would make a big difference.

The point is she did sell off the council house stock and didn't replace them.

It makes no sense for local councils to rent off private landlords in order to house people on benefits.
It would be cheaper in the long run to just build more houses for people who need help.

People on benefits can rent privately. The reason some landlords don't like renting to them is that they don't always pay their rent. If councils paid the housing benefit to the landlord, the problem would be solved.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

The point is she did sell off the council house stock and didn't replace them.

It makes no sense for local councils to rent off private landlords in order to house people on benefits.
It would be cheaper in the long run to just build more houses for people who need help.

People on benefits can rent privately. The reason some landlords don't like renting to them is that they don't always pay their rent. If councils paid the housing benefit to the landlord, the problem would be solves.

Correct and bang on the money, people on benefits are paid into their accounts and what do people do?

Spunk that money away.

The problem today is everyone is perpetually living on credit and living beyond their means, because the system enables people to do so.

nicko wrote:
Sorry sass, but you do go on a bit.

It is called "news", Nicko, and the OP is news?

eddie wrote:

nicko wrote:
Sorry sass, but you do go on a bit.

It is called "news", Nicko, and the OP is news?

Has he not a right to express his views Eddie?

Why not speak out on what breaks the rules?


Part 2: Basement-worthy infractions
"Gang activity" -- any members conspiring to get other members banned or otherwise punished will be basemented (rendered inactive) for a term subject to moderator discretion.

sassy wrote:


Who the hell do you think you are.  Perhaps veya should ban you again for trying to run the site.  

For the record, I want nothing done or any warnings given


I mean come on Eddie, its bad enough, I have been singled out for some new rules solely imposed upon me by Veya. That i know you stand against, of which I appreciate. But how is it fair when then someone knowing Veya is at odds with me plays off this, calling out to him off this in the hope he will then ban me?

Seriously, how wrong is that, as what have I done that is wrong?

I have no ill will against Veya and say things in the heat of the moment, but people looking to others to ban people is wrong. So why not speak out against that?

I have my faults, but sometimes you mods look towards more of protecting each other, by being one united. Noble as that is and no doubt is far removed from what is said off the forum. Like I said, i think sassy is lashing out and hate she is suffering, but how you pull up Nicko here for expressing a view? I mean seriously, what is that about?

On a side not, if you just pulled up Nicko as a poster fair enough.

On a further side note, that does not excuse you or the other mods from failing to pull up sassy for trying to get me banned,

Raggamuffin wrote:Building more social housing for rent is a waste of time anyway. There will never be enough, and it just causes resentment in those who can't get one. The answer is to regulate all rental properties and cut rent by quite a large amount.

I personally think we need more social housing. But I also agree that rents are way too high, and not regulated enough. Nobody should have to pay £750 for a single room in a shared house, nor live in a hovel because of unscrupulous landlords.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Building more social housing for rent is a waste of time anyway. There will never be enough, and it just causes resentment in those who can't get one. The answer is to regulate all rental properties and cut rent by quite a large amount.

I personally think we need more social housing.   But I also agree that rents are way too high, and not regulated enough.   Nobody should have to pay £750 for a single room in a shared house, nor live in a hovel because of unscrupulous landlords.

Serious question Horatio.
How will more social housing help?
What is wrong with society today>
They demand everything. Is not the problem that people expect everything?
When are people going to take responsibility for their lives.#I am all for helping people who need help, but how is making a system that makes people not try or work beneficial?

Thorin wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

I personally think we need more social housing.   But I also agree that rents are way too high, and not regulated enough.   Nobody should have to pay £750 for a single room in a shared house, nor live in a hovel because of unscrupulous landlords.

Serious question Horatio.
How will more social housing help?
What is wrong with society today>
They demand everything. Is not the problem that people expect everything?
When are people going to take responsibility for their lives.#I am all for helping people who need help, but how is making a system that makes people not try or work beneficial?

Well...I've lived in a council house and boy did I need a roof over my head at the time, and I was most grateful for it. My mum lived in a council house too, and she was able to buy it which made her very happy. We both worked all our lives...though I spent a spell on benefits when my marriage broke up because I had a baby to look after.

So, I guess my viewpoint is that there will always be people who need housing, or help with rent, and often it could be through no fault of their own that they find themselves in dire straits. You don't get a council house for free, you still have to pay for it and upkeep it. Nobody should be homeless in our society. There are Housing Associations too, but I feel the problem with private renting is that it's open to abuse and often very expensive. We need affordable housing for those who need it. I've been homeless. It's the worst feeling in the world.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Serious question Horatio.
How will more social housing help?
What is wrong with society today>
They demand everything. Is not the problem that people expect everything?
When are people going to take responsibility for their lives.#I am all for helping people who need help, but how is making a system that makes people not try or work beneficial?

Well...I've lived in a council house and boy did I need a roof over my head at the time, and I was most grateful for it.  My mum lived in a council house too, and she was able to buy it which made her very happy.   We both worked all our lives...though I spent a spell on benefits when my marriage broke up because I had a baby to look after.  

So, I guess my viewpoint is that there will always be people who need housing, or help with rent, and often it could be through no fault of their own that they find themselves in dire straits.  You don't get a council house for free, you still have to pay for it and upkeep it.    Nobody should be homeless in our society.   There are Housing Associations too, but I feel the problem with private renting is that it's open to abuse and often very expensive.   We need affordable housing for those who need it.  I've been homeless.  It's the worst feeling in the world.

I get that, i come from a family of a 11, of which two are now sadly gone. Everyone should have a roof over their heads and nobody should be homeless. So in your story both you and your mum worked hard and achieved many things, yes? It must have been horrible to have to be on benefits. I see you as someone who would have felt shame (when you never should) at doing this, because you want to provide for your family yourself. I get that. My point is people should have opportunities, as you should have as well, but that means also that people work for them. Okay its not that way in every case, but there is no reason why most cannot.

So if people need housing, the starting point is on opportunities. If people want to succeed and try, they will. If people fall on hard times, then yes we should place them first to help, because if people had an ethos to succeed, there would never be poverty. People see an easy option to not even try Horatio, that there is benefits. Yes we need to have benefits, but this denies people to even want to try.

catch 22

Right have to go, have good evening everyone

x

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:

The point is she did sell off the council house stock and didn't replace them.

It makes no sense for local councils to rent off private landlords in order to house people on benefits.
It would be cheaper in the long run to just build more houses for people who need help.

Why should they be replaced?

Where is the incentive for people to better their lives?

If people know they can do less to be able to obtain anything, where is the will to better their lives?

They know they can do far less that others to get what others have.

How is that fair Syl?

Is that not the wrong message to send out?

If you continually support people to be down, then they will continue to do so.

You don't support people to be down, but you can support them when they are down.
Many people need a helping hand sometimes, a woman left with children, a man suddenly unemployed, illness, death...there are many reasons why someone may need financial help.
If that help means providing a decent house for them to live in ...which we need more of, what's wrong with that.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Building more social housing for rent is a waste of time anyway. There will never be enough, and it just causes resentment in those who can't get one. The answer is to regulate all rental properties and cut rent by quite a large amount.

I personally think we need more social housing.   But I also agree that rents are way too high, and not regulated enough.   Nobody should have to pay £750 for a single room in a shared house, nor live in a hovel because of unscrupulous landlords.

It's my view that there will never be enough social housing for the number of people who want it. Of course everyone would rather pay less rent, so they'll all want to rent social housing. This creates waiting lists, unfair decisions, people queue jumping, etc. It all leads to resentment IMO.

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Why should they be replaced?

Where is the incentive for people to better their lives?

If people know they can do less to be able to obtain anything, where is the will to better their lives?

They know they can do far less that others to get what others have.

How is that fair Syl?

Is that not the wrong message to send out?

If you continually support people to be down, then they will continue to do so.

You don't support people to be down, but you can support them when they are down.
Many people need a helping hand sometimes, a woman left with children, a man suddenly unemployed, illness, death...there are many reasons why someone may need financial help.
If that help means providing a decent house for them to live in ...which we need more of, what's wrong with that.

How is that helping people though Syl?
I support helping anyone.

So what did i say?

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Why should they be replaced?

Where is the incentive for people to better their lives?

If people know they can do less to be able to obtain anything, where is the will to better their lives?

They know they can do far less that others to get what others have.

How is that fair Syl?

Is that not the wrong message to send out?

If you continually support people to be down, then they will continue to do so.

You don't support people to be down, but you can support them when they are down.
Many people need a helping hand sometimes, a woman left with children, a man suddenly unemployed, illness, death...there are many reasons why someone may need financial help.
If that help means providing a decent house for them to live in ...which we need more of, what's wrong with that.

Shouldn't everyone have a decent house to live in? It seems that only some people apparently deserve that kind of thing, which is why social housing is unfair. I have no objection to more houses being built by the Government, preferably in new towns rather than tagged on to existing towns, but why should some people have subsidised rent, a house for life, and the freedom to have pets, etc, when those in private rentals pay so much more and are more restricted in what they can do?

they should build a whole shitload of prefabs...modern ones are very nice indeed....
on brownfield sites especially in and around the cities and towns

and NO-ONE from a city or big town should be able to buy a second home in a rural area, indeed they should not be allowed to buy a house in a rural area AT ALL, unless they can pass an "A" level standard exam in countryside management and living.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

You don't support people to be down, but you can support them when they are down.
Many people need a helping hand sometimes, a woman left with children, a man suddenly unemployed, illness, death...there are many reasons why someone may need financial help.
If that help means providing a decent house for them to live in ...which we need more of, what's wrong with that.

Shouldn't everyone have a decent house to live in? It seems that only some people apparently deserve that kind of thing, which is why social housing is unfair. I have no objection to more houses being built by the Government, preferably in new towns rather than tagged on to existing towns, but why should some people have subsidised rent, a house for life, and the freedom to have pets, etc, when those in private rentals pay so much more and are more restricted in what they can do?

I don't think people should consider social houses are for life. Its fair that when people are working they should strive to rent or buy and vacate social or council houses for people more in need.

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:

You don't support people to be down, but you can support them when they are down.
Many people need a helping hand sometimes, a woman left with children, a man suddenly unemployed, illness, death...there are many reasons why someone may need financial help.
If that help means providing a decent house for them to live in ...which we need more of, what's wrong with that.

How is that helping people though Syl?
I support helping anyone.

So what did i say?

So how would you help a person who has no money to pay rent Thor?
If they cant work for whatever reason so cant afford to rent privately or buy, what would you suggest?
If there are too few council houses where do you suggest they go?

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Shouldn't everyone have a decent house to live in? It seems that only some people apparently deserve that kind of thing, which is why social housing is unfair. I have no objection to more houses being built by the Government, preferably in new towns rather than tagged on to existing towns, but why should some people have subsidised rent, a house for life, and the freedom to have pets, etc, when those in private rentals pay so much more and are more restricted in what they can do?

I don't think people should consider social houses are for life. Its fair that when people are working they should strive to rent or buy and vacate social or council houses for people more in need.

Why can't those in need rent privately? If they have a council house, they might be getting benefits anyway if they're in need.

Lord Foul wrote:they should build a whole shitload of prefabs...modern ones are very nice indeed....
on brownfield sites especially in and around the cities and towns

and NO-ONE from a city or big town should be able to buy a second home in a rural area, indeed they should not be allowed to buy a house in a rural area AT ALL, unless they can pass an "A" level standard exam in countryside management and living.

Prefabs are great - I don't know why they don't do that.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

I don't think people should consider social houses are for life. Its fair that when people are working they should strive to rent or buy and vacate social or council houses for people more in need.

Why can't those in need rent privately? If they have a council house, they might be getting benefits anyway if they're in need.

A lot of landlords do rent privately to people on benefits, the council pay, often over the odds.
I know of people who move to a second property and rent out, sometimes to DHSS, and the properties which people on benefits now live in drag down the neighbourhood......the owner doesn't care, he is getting a good rental and he will sell on when he is ready.
If specific houses were built to accommodate people on benefits (and I think prefabs are a good idea) it would stop landlords creaming off the state, which some now do.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/apr/17/councils-pay-private-landlords-up-to-4000-to-house-tenants

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/ampp3d/tory-mps-donors-taking-millions-5614468

Thorin wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Well...I've lived in a council house and boy did I need a roof over my head at the time, and I was most grateful for it.  My mum lived in a council house too, and she was able to buy it which made her very happy.   We both worked all our lives...though I spent a spell on benefits when my marriage broke up because I had a baby to look after.  

So, I guess my viewpoint is that there will always be people who need housing, or help with rent, and often it could be through no fault of their own that they find themselves in dire straits.  You don't get a council house for free, you still have to pay for it and upkeep it.    Nobody should be homeless in our society.   There are Housing Associations too, but I feel the problem with private renting is that it's open to abuse and often very expensive.   We need affordable housing for those who need it.  I've been homeless.  It's the worst feeling in the world.

I get that, i come from a family of a 11, of which two are now sadly gone. Everyone should have a roof over their heads and nobody should be homeless. So in your story both you and your mum worked hard and achieved many things, yes? It must have been horrible to have to be on benefits. I see you as someone who would have felt shame (when you never should) at doing this, because you want to provide for your family yourself. I get that. My point is people should have opportunities, as you should have as well, but that means also that people work for them. Okay its not that way in every case, but there is no reason why most cannot.

So if people need housing, the starting point is on opportunities. If people want to succeed and try, they will. If people fall on hard times, then yes we should place them first to help, because if people had an ethos to succeed, there would never be poverty. People see an easy option to not even try Horatio, that there is benefits. Yes we need to have benefits, but this denies people to even want to try.

catch 22

Firstly, it was very hard on benefits back then in the 1970s. Not the easier ride it can be today. Secondly, no I didn't feel ashamed. I was in need through no fault of my own with a baby to care for. The only people who should feel shame at being on benefits are those who choose it as a lifestyle choice.

Sadly, this country is too soft in many respects. We have a minimum wage nobody who is single can live off, and a benefits system that can be milked. We have a whole generation of young people who can never afford to buy their own house even though they work full time.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Why can't those in need rent privately? If they have a council house, they might be getting benefits anyway if they're in need.

A lot of landlords do rent privately to people on benefits, the council pay, often over the odds.
I know of people who move to a second property and rent out, sometimes to DHSS, and the properties which people on benefits now live in drag down the neighbourhood......the owner doesn't care, he is getting a good rental and he will sell on when he is ready.
If specific houses were built to accommodate people on benefits (and I think prefabs are a good idea) it would stop landlords creaming off the state, which some now do.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/apr/17/councils-pay-private-landlords-up-to-4000-to-house-tenants

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/ampp3d/tory-mps-donors-taking-millions-5614468

This is why there needs to be rent control - to stop landlords taking the piss. I'm not sure about people on benefits dragging a neighbourhood down - I thought they were merely people "in need".

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

A lot of landlords do rent privately to people on benefits, the council pay, often over the odds.
I know of people who move to a second property and rent out, sometimes to DHSS, and the properties which people on benefits now live in drag down the neighbourhood......the owner doesn't care, he is getting a good rental and he will sell on when he is ready.
If specific houses were built to accommodate people on benefits (and I think prefabs are a good idea) it would stop landlords creaming off the state, which some now do.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/apr/17/councils-pay-private-landlords-up-to-4000-to-house-tenants

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/ampp3d/tory-mps-donors-taking-millions-5614468

This is why there needs to be rent control - to stop landlords taking the piss. I'm not sure about people on benefits dragging a neighbourhood down - I thought they were merely people "in need".

Many are in need for the reasons allready stated.
Some people take advantage of the benefit system and they are the ones who drag down a neighbourhood.
Believe me, I have seen it happen...I'm surprised if you haven't too.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

This is why there needs to be rent control - to stop landlords taking the piss. I'm not sure about people on benefits dragging a neighbourhood down - I thought they were merely people "in need".

Many are in need for the reasons allready stated.
Some people take advantage of the benefit system and they are the ones who drag down a neighbourhood.
Believe me, I have seen it happen...I'm surprised if you haven't too.

If they're taking advantage, they're not in need then. Anyway, I don't see why some people should get subsidised housing and others can't. If they're claiming benefits, they don't actually need low rent.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

Many are in need for the reasons allready stated.
Some people take advantage of the benefit system and they are the ones who drag down a neighbourhood.
Believe me, I have seen it happen...I'm surprised if you haven't too.

If they're taking advantage, they're not in need then. Anyway, I don't see why some people should get subsidised housing and others can't. If they're claiming benefits, they don't actually need low rent.

Well that's why the benefit system should be overhauled.
One person taking advantage often puts others in need...ie their kids.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

Many are in need for the reasons allready stated.
Some people take advantage of the benefit system and they are the ones who drag down a neighbourhood.
Believe me, I have seen it happen...I'm surprised if you haven't too.

If they're taking advantage, they're not in need then. Anyway, I don't see why some people should get subsidised housing and others can't. If they're claiming benefits, they don't actually need low rent.

The benefits system including Housing Benefit has a cap and limitations. If you're single, then they won't pay for you to go into a three bedroomed house for example. So yes, they do need low rent just like everyone else. We do hear silly stories about whole families being put up in £1m homes but that's rare.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

If they're taking advantage, they're not in need then. Anyway, I don't see why some people should get subsidised housing and others can't. If they're claiming benefits, they don't actually need low rent.

The benefits system including Housing Benefit has a cap and limitations.  If you're single, then they won't pay for you to go into a three bedroomed house for example.  So yes, they do need low rent just like everyone else.   We do hear silly stories about whole families being put up in £1m homes but that's rare.

The fact is that social housing is cheaper to rent than private flats/houses. Someone who has to pay rent has an advantage if they get social housing, and I don't think that's right. I don't think circumstances are relevant. The whole rental thing needs to be sorted so that there is no competition for social housing. They can't build enough for everyone.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Thorin wrote:


I get that, i come from a family of a 11, of which two are now sadly gone. Everyone should have a roof over their heads and nobody should be homeless. So in your story both you and your mum worked hard and achieved many things, yes? It must have been horrible to have to be on benefits. I see you as someone who would have felt shame (when you never should) at doing this, because you want to provide for your family yourself. I get that. My point is people should have opportunities, as you should have as well, but that means also that people work for them. Okay its not that way in every case, but there is no reason why most cannot.

So if people need housing, the starting point is on opportunities. If people want to succeed and try, they will. If people fall on hard times, then yes we should place them first to help, because if people had an ethos to succeed, there would never be poverty. People see an easy option to not even try Horatio, that there is benefits. Yes we need to have benefits, but this denies people to even want to try.

catch 22

Firstly, it was very hard on benefits back then in the 1970s.   Not the easier ride it can be today.   Secondly, no I didn't feel ashamed.   I was in need through no fault of my own with a baby to care for.   The only people who should feel shame at being on benefits are those who choose it as a lifestyle choice.

Sadly, this country is too soft in many respects.    We have a minimum wage nobody who is single can live off, and a benefits system that can be milked.   We have a whole generation of young people who can never afford to buy their own house even though they work full time.

Well my parents had no benefit and 11 children and never used a food bank, nor ever had any of us every wanting. I have no doubt it was difficult and never at any point believed you should be shamed as again believe in  helping people who do need help. I disagree nobody can live on the minimum wage, when I see people who do. Yes its not great, but I see people better manage their money than others. So I am not saying anyone should be ashamed on this, as people need always help. What people should do is be better responsible with their money and nobody should ever need to use food banks in this country if they were better responsible with their money.

Lord Foul wrote:they should build a whole shitload of prefabs...modern ones are very nice indeed....
on brownfield sites especially in and around the cities and towns

and NO-ONE from a city or big town should be able to buy a second home in a rural area, indeed they should not be allowed to buy a house in a rural area AT ALL, unless they can pass an "A" level standard exam in countryside management and living.

You grumpy old bugger.....


So there should be a ten mile exclusion zone around your lands?  

Why cannot people buy land in rural areas based on your qualifications? When my parents retired, they bought a house in rural Ireland and they never needed any qualification. My mum still lives there on her own.

Thorin wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:they should build a whole shitload of prefabs...modern ones are very nice indeed....
on brownfield sites especially in and around the cities and towns

and NO-ONE from a city or big town should be able to buy a second home in a rural area, indeed they should not be allowed to buy a house in a rural area AT ALL, unless they can pass an "A" level standard exam in countryside management and living.

You grumpy old bugger.....


So there should be a ten mile exclusion zone around your lands?  

Why cannot people buy land in rural areas based on your qualifications? When my parents retired, they bought a house in rural Ireland and they never needed any qualification. My mum still lives there on her own.

primarily becasue most of em are (to use quills quit phrase) cunnus. They buy a rural property then complain about the cockerel crowing ...etc etc etc...they whinge about nettles, and brambles and moan about the smell of shit spreading on a few days a year. they havnt the foggiest idea of how the countryside works and functions, think its PERFECTLY ok to walk their dog off lead through a field full of sheep (even where there is no footpath) and get all shirty when the irate farmer tells em to bugger off....and even shirtier when the farmer rightly shoots their precious pooch for sheep worrying..... they dont know that you should leave ALL gates as found, unless there is good reason not to...as in its open but you have good reason to think it should be shut...in which case you shut it and then inform the farmer...there is NO instance in which you should think a shut gate should be open.....i.e. you should never leave open a shut gate...if you think somethings wrong...go ask the farmer. making these kinds of judgements requires eaperience and a countrymans 6th sense.

even when on a public footpath through otherwise private woodland they see nothing wrong with allowing their (usually ill disciplined moronic) muts to run unchecked for yards either side, allowing said walking crap makers to use the surrounding area as their toilet.



BUT ...most of all these brain dead townies are the single biggest cause of the rapid inflation in price of homes in rural areas, meaning that the children of the people local cannot possibly buy a home in their area.

Lord Foul wrote:

Thorin wrote:


You grumpy old bugger.....


So there should be a ten mile exclusion zone around your lands?  

Why cannot people buy land in rural areas based on your qualifications? When my parents retired, they bought a house in rural Ireland and they never needed any qualification. My mum still lives there on her own.

primarily becasue most of em are (to use quills quit phrase) cunnus. They buy a rural property then complain about the cockerel crowing ...etc etc etc...they whinge about nettles, and brambles and moan about the smell of shit spreading on a few days a year. they havnt the foggiest idea of how the countryside works and functions, think its PERFECTLY ok to walk their dog off lead through a field full of sheep (even where there is no footpath) and get all shirty when the irate farmer tells em to bugger off....and even shirtier when the farmer rightly shoots their precious pooch for sheep worrying..... they dont know that you should leave ALL gates as found, unless there is good reason not to...as in its open but you have good reason to think it should be shut...in which case you shut it and then inform the farmer...there is NO instance in which you should think a shut gate should be open.....i.e. you should never leave open a shut gate...if you think somethings wrong...go ask the farmer. making these kinds of judgements requires eaperience and a countrymans 6th sense.

even when on a public footpath through otherwise private woodland they see nothing wrong with allowing their (usually ill disciplined moronic) muts to run unchecked for yards either side, allowing said walking crap makers to use the surrounding area as their toilet.



BUT ...most of all these brain dead townies are the single biggest cause of the rapid inflation in price of homes in rural areas, meaning that the children of the people local cannot possibly buy a home in their area.

One could also say it's the fault of the local people who are selling the townies the houses.

Lord Foul wrote:

Thorin wrote:


You grumpy old bugger.....


So there should be a ten mile exclusion zone around your lands?  

Why cannot people buy land in rural areas based on your qualifications? When my parents retired, they bought a house in rural Ireland and they never needed any qualification. My mum still lives there on her own.

primarily becasue most of em are (to use quills quit phrase) cunnus. They buy a rural property then complain about the cockerel crowing ...etc etc etc...they whinge about nettles, and brambles and moan about the smell of shit spreading on a few days a year. they havnt the foggiest idea of how the countryside works and functions, think its PERFECTLY ok to walk their dog off lead through a field full of sheep (even where there is no footpath) and get all shirty when the irate farmer tells em to bugger off....and even shirtier when the farmer rightly shoots their precious pooch for sheep worrying..... they dont know that you should leave ALL gates as found, unless there is good reason not to...as in its open but you have good reason to think it should be shut...in which case you shut it and then inform the farmer...there is NO instance in which you should think a shut gate should be open.....i.e. you should never leave open a shut gate...if you think somethings wrong...go ask the farmer. making these kinds of judgements requires eaperience and a countrymans 6th sense.

even when on a public footpath through otherwise private woodland they see nothing wrong with allowing their (usually ill disciplined moronic) muts to run unchecked for yards either side, allowing said walking crap makers to use the surrounding area as their toilet.



BUT ...most of all these brain dead townies are the single biggest cause of the rapid inflation in price of homes in rural areas, meaning that the children of the people local cannot possibly buy a home in their area.

I can see your point, but many people can and do adapt to rural life. It was easy for my mum, as she came from that life. 

You cannot expect everyone to be of the same standard as yourself mate

sassy wrote:Plan to build genuinely affordable homes ditched by housing minister

The Conservatives have U-turned on a flagship pledge to build “a new generation” of social housing announced in their manifesto just weeks ago.

Theresa May personally promised her policy would deliver “a constant supply of new homes for social rent”, but her housing minister has now admitted planned homes would be let at significantly less affordable rents.

The embarrassing admission represents the second about-turn on a Conservative manifesto pledge, after the damaging furore around the “dementia tax”.

Tory officials played down the reversal, but Labour claimed it showed one of the Prime Minister’s key pledges to help low-income families had “fallen apart”, while the Chartered Institute of Housing branded it “very disappointing”.

In mid-May the Conservatives announced they would build “a new generation of homes for social rent”, in a policy seen as critical to winning over the kind of working-class voters Ms May needs to steal seats off Labour.

The Tory manifesto spelt out a plan for “new council housing deals”, which would help councils "build more social housing”. And, in an intervention that spoke to the policy’s importance, Theresa May personally pledged it would create “a constant supply of new homes for social rent”.

But in an interview on Friday with trade magazine Inside Housing, minister Gavin Barwell admitted the party was planning to continue to build homes with higher rents and was not in fact reinstating traditional socially rented council housing.

Asked whether the homes would planned by his party would be let at low-level council rents, the minister said: “No, I think the idea is that they are what you’d call affordable rents in housing terminology, but they are social housing.”

The Department for Communities and Local Government defines social rented housing as having lower rents “determined through the national rent regime” – a specific formula set by the Government.

Affordable-rent housing, meanwhile, is separately defined, and simply requires homes to be “of no more than 80 per cent of the local market rent” – meaning rents could be considerably higher. In practice, social rent tends to come in at around 40 per cent of market rent, meaning that in some areas the difference in rent could be twice as much.

CIH chief executive Terrie Alafat called the switch “very disappointing”, adding: “In reality affordable rents are still often out of reach to a significant proportion of the population.

“We have to commit to building new homes that people can afford.”

The apparent reversal comes after Theresa May was forced to U-turn on the “dementia tax” care policy – introducing a cap at the last minute as her Tory poll trickled away amid the backlash.

Ms May also dropped a pledge to force companies to put ordinary workers on their boards of directors, scrapped a flagship rise in National Insurance for self-employed workers in this year’s Budget, and changed her mind on whether to call an election.

There has also been confusion over the Tory policy to scrap universal free school lunches for infants to save money and replace them with breakfasts – after it emerged the party had only budgeted 7p for each child. The party has indicated that those costings are now defunct.

Labour's shadow housing secretary John Healey said the Tories’ only housing announcement of the general election was collapsing.

“This is another policy pledge from the Prime Minister that has fallen apart,” he told The Independent.

“The housing minister has now contradicted Theresa May's only housing announcement of this election campaign. She promised that the Conservatives would build new homes for 'social rent', he has confirmed they will not.

“The Prime Minister now urgently needs to level with the public. Either her housing minister is wrong about Conservative housing policy or she is. Which is it?”

Asked about Mr Barwell's comments, a Conservative spokesperson said: “We will be supporting new council housing at below market rents. Councils will be in the lead in deciding the precise form of tenure – we expect a mixture of social and affordable rent, as at present.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tories-housing-policy-u-turn-affordable-homes-general-election-2017-manifesto-a7769866.html



Uncosted manifesto that might just as well have been written on toilet paper so they could tear bits off of it.

the dementia tax as you call it actually means that those who might need care can keep a minimum of 4 times what they can at the moment and live in their homes until they die, unlike now where they often have to sell their homes to pay for care.

so we can only conclude that you prefer seeing the elderly and ill stripped of their assets entirely rather than have a larger proportion protected. the £100000 by the way is a floor and there will be a cap on the total payable after consultations with the relevant parties.

It seems like labour and their supporters really hate the elderly and infirm and are intent on taking every penny from them and their families as they are also going to increase inheritance tax as well.

Of course labour are economically illiterate and are afraid to tackle the difficult questions and prefer to give the magic money tree another shake whenever they come up.

All this free stuff labour promise is not free, someone has to work and pay tax to pay for it.