The wheels are falling off Tory housing policy too

The desperate search for shrinking votes has pushed Iain Duncan Smith into yet another spectacular own goal. His latest pet idea is to extend the Right to Buy to Britain’s 2.5m housing association tenants. However, whilst social homes are owned by Councils, this latest Tory brainwave means selling off housing association assets which are private property because housing associations are independent charities so that their £65bn in borrowing is securely off the public accounts. But as Osborne must know only too well, compelling housing associations to sell to tenants using the same Right to Buy discounts enjoyed by Council tenants (up to £102,000 in London and £77,000 elsewhere) would cost serious amounts of taxpayer money and bankrupt some housing associations. This is yet another unfunded Tory commitment.

Next, on the last sitting day of Parliament to which all the bad news is kept in the hope that hardly anyone will notice, the latest facts came out about homelessness. The number of children in temporary accommodation reached 90,000 in the 4th quarter of last year, up 25% on 2010. The number of families with children living in B&B hostels has quadrupled in that time to 2,040. Of these, 780 were in B&Bs for more than the legal limit of 6 weeks – almost 5 times higher than in 2010. Yet contrary to his own Department’s statistics, the hapless Tory Communities minister was telling Parliament that the government was “being clear that the long term use of B&B for families with children is both unacceptable and unlawful”!

Then there is the scandal whereby many of the poorest households have been hit by a £70m rent increase as housing associations quietly switch thousands of tenancies on to higher rents to compensate for a shortfall in government funding. Already nearly 25,000 homes in London have been converted from ‘social’ to so-called ‘affordable’ housing since 2012, and thousands more are to follow. Social rents are typically half the market rate, whilse ‘affordable’ tariffs are up to 80% of private rent levels – a description that has been called Orwellian. Many housing associations have exploited the category change to set rents at the highest level so that only affluent people can afford to live in homes originally meant for the poor. Changing the housing category when new tenants move into a property means neighbours in identical flats can pay vastly different rents.

The real reason behind all these changes which are now hitting poor tenants hard is that the government in 2010 made a 63% cut in capital investment budgets for housing associations – effectively a £3bn reduction in available funding. Moreover the policy could well turn out to be counter-productive because raising rents is a future burden on the public purse through increased housing benefit costs, and that could potentially outweigh any savings they are trying to make.

http://www.michaelmeacher.info/weblog/2015/04/the-wheels-are-falling-off-tory-housing-policy-too/

A policy that would bankrupt housing associations is such a good idea - not! So £8bill to be found for the NHS and they won't say where it is coming from, prompting a journalist to say to Jeremy Hunt 'You're making this up as you go along aren't you'. Presumably it will be found down the side of the sofa. Amazing how before the election austerity was going to have to get worse (not for the bankers and wankers of course), then bingo, someone searched the jackets in thw wardrobe and found a spare £8billion lol. Now out of the hat they pull a policy that is not only unthought out, it's bloody dangerous to the state of Britain's housing.

risingsun wrote:The desperate search for shrinking votes has pushed Iain Duncan Smith into yet another spectacular own goal.   His latest pet idea is to extend the Right to Buy to Britain’s 2.5m housing association tenants.   However, whilst social homes are owned by Councils, this latest Tory brainwave means selling off housing association assets which are private property because housing associations are independent charities so that their £65bn in borrowing is securely off the public accounts.   But as Osborne must know only too well, compelling housing associations to sell to tenants using the same Right to Buy discounts enjoyed by Council tenants (up to £102,000 in London and £77,000 elsewhere) would cost serious amounts of taxpayer money and bankrupt some housing associations.   This is yet another unfunded Tory commitment.

Next, on the last sitting day of Parliament to which all the bad news is kept in the hope that hardly anyone will notice, the latest facts came out about homelessness.   The number of children in temporary accommodation reached 90,000 in the 4th quarter of last year, up 25% on 2010.   The number of families with children living in B&B hostels has quadrupled in that time to 2,040.   Of these, 780 were in B&Bs for more than the legal limit of 6 weeks – almost 5 times higher than in 2010.   Yet contrary to his own Department’s statistics, the hapless Tory Communities minister was telling Parliament that the government was “being clear that the long term use of B&B for families with children is both unacceptable and unlawful”!

Then there is the scandal whereby many of the poorest households have been hit by a £70m rent increase as housing associations quietly switch thousands of tenancies on to higher rents to compensate for a shortfall in government funding.   Already nearly 25,000 homes in London have been converted from ‘social’ to so-called ‘affordable’ housing since 2012, and thousands more are to follow.   Social rents are typically half the market rate, whilse ‘affordable’ tariffs are up to 80% of private rent levels – a description that has been called Orwellian.   Many housing associations have exploited the category change to set rents at the highest level so that only affluent people can afford to live in homes originally meant for the poor.   Changing the housing category when new tenants move into a property means neighbours in identical flats can pay vastly different rents.

The real reason behind all these changes which are now hitting poor tenants hard is that the government in 2010 made a 63% cut in capital investment budgets for housing associations – effectively a £3bn reduction in available funding.   Moreover the policy could well turn out to be counter-productive because raising rents is a future burden on the public purse through increased housing benefit costs, and that could potentially outweigh any savings they are trying to make.

http://www.michaelmeacher.info/weblog/2015/04/the-wheels-are-falling-off-tory-housing-policy-too/

A policy that would bankrupt housing associations is such a good idea - not!    So £8bill to be found for the NHS and they won't say where it is coming from, prompting a journalist to say to Jeremy Hunt 'You're making this up as you go along aren't you'.   Presumably it will be found down the side of the sofa.   Amazing how before the election austerity was going to have to get worse (not for the bankers and wankers of course), then bingo, someone searched the jackets in thw wardrobe and found a spare £8billion lol.   Now out of the hat they pull a policy that is not only unthought out, it's bloody dangerous to the state of Britain's housing.

Bit by bit their lies and deceipt is is drifting out day by day.

Virtually every conservative msnifesto promise seems unfunded.
most wont happen, their pledges are proven to be lies, as was the case with VAT.
If elected expect massive cuts to all parts of government and welfare , vat increase and yet more tax cuts for the wealthy.

The same goes with Labour,all parties spin bullshit before an election.

Have you actually checked that or are you just repeating what you have been told Nicko. Labour have been very careful to underpromise so they know they can do it and hope to do more, but they won't promise it until funding has been done.

nicko wrote:The same goes with Labour,all parties spin bullshit before an election.

Did Dean tell to say that?
Have you actually read the Labour manifesto?
Does anyone know where this unfunded con money is coming from? The right to buy will cost yet anothr £5.8 billion of taxpayers money. I guess is is just monopoly money, but undoubtedly it will be the weakest in society who end up footing the bill.
Chuffing great idea.
Take the poorest - in council rented - living week to week and dependent on welfare and foodbanks, then offer a lifetime of huge debt by way of a morgage they cannot afford and the risk of losing their home if they default.
Vote winner that is!

Perhaps Osborne is going to buy lots of National Lottery tickets with taxpayers money in the hope of the jackpot.

Just found this interesting article in the Huffington Post.
Cannot wait for the bleating of "it's all Labour's fault" from Dean's puppets.

Associations Is Plain Bad Policy
David Orr 14/04/2015
We have a housing crisis. There is no longer any real argument about this. Around 86% of the British public think we have a housing crisis and even our politicians use this language.

We also have a general election and this is manifesto week. Housing is already shaping up to be one of the key issues in the manifestos and in the election campaign. That's great. But the headline issue in the Conservative Party manifesto is a promise to extend the Right to Buy (RTB) to housing association tenants.

This is comprehensively the wrong solution. In fact, as a measure to end the housing crisis, this is just about the worst idea yet. And here's why.

1. We have a housing crisis. To end the crisis we need to build new homes and regenerate those not up to standard. Any money we have should go to that task. The Conservative proposal will mean the transfer of huge sums of money to private individuals who are already some of the best and most cheaply housed people in the country.

2. The proposal apparently involves requiring councils to sell high value homes when they become empty, then give the money to the government so that it can be passed on as discounts of up to £102,000 to individuals. That means we don't just lose one rented home under RTB, but two. Two rented homes lost to social renting forever to allow one lucky household to own a home.

3. This is a very ineffective way to support the aspiration that many have to become home owners. Apparently, the Conservative Party believes it can raise £17.5billion to support this policy. Over the course of one parliament, that is enough money for housing associations to build over a million new homes for shared ownership. That is a million households getting a foot on the housing ladder and a million new homes built. That, to me, is aspiration and ambition.

4. There is a big fairness issue here. We have over nine million households living in private rented accommodation. Many of those people are desperate for a home to buy. They have no chance of becoming social tenants, and therefore no chance of benefitting from this bonanza. For a party that trades on being fair, this looks pretty unfair to me.

5. There are a further three million adults still living with their parents. Nothing for them in this either.

6. There are huge numbers of people in poor quality, insecure homes who are working hard but in low paid jobs. Their aspiration is a decent home to rent. Nothing for them in this announcement.

7. And then there is the small matter of principle. The Conservative Party wants to sell assets that don't belong to them, or to the nation. They belong to housing associations which are legally constituted as 'Community Benefit Organisations'. They exist to provide benefit to the community and they hold their assets in trust for the community. They do this by providing affordable homes for rent. To dispose of these assets to individuals is contrary to their legal objectives. To force housing associations to do so would require new law. That would be a law where the government tells a private social enterprise what it can and can't do with the assets it owns. Try putting Barnardos or Oxfam, or Hotel Chocolat or even Tescos into that sentence to see how ridiculous that is. Is this the party that wants to nationalise housing associations?

Housing associations are a huge force for good. They are the most effective public/private partnerships in the history of the nation. They contribute, on average, £6 of their own funds to every £1 from government. They build homes for rent and sale, both market and social and they invest huge sums in the communities and neighbourhoods where they work. All this is put at risk. This is plain bad policy.

David Orr is the Chief Executive of the National Housing Federation

I can't think of a policy idea that would show up more how they simply don't understand how to fix what is wrong with the country and how they think they can override everyone. They simply cannot tell Housing Associations to sell off their houses and they are stupid enough to think they can. Absolutely pathetic, grasping at straws and missing even them.

They are simply trying to reduce the housing waiting list, moving figures around. They all do it.

I have seen so many more new builds cropping up over the last five years - under this government there have been so many housing developments.

No they are not and no they don't. It would make the waiting list longer, not shorter.

risingsun wrote:No they are not and no they don't.  It would make the waiting list longer, not shorter.

Sorry perhaps I misunderstood?

If the people already in rented social housing are able to buy their houses (cheaper) that would take them off the list (can't be on council lists if you own a home) and the list would then appear to be growing shorter, wouldn't it??

Or have I got that wrong? I am asking honestly as I did skim-read the article I confess.

As the nation argues over the new Right To Buy policy announced by the Conservatives today, Theresa May’s attempt at explaining how exactly the system would work seems to have upset pretty much everyone.

Speaking to John Humphrys on BBC4’s Today programme this morning, the Home Secretary was quizzed about the Tory policy.

But Britain was unimpressed with her answers described her as “floundering around”, “spouting rubbish”, and “unable to defend a shameful policy”.

The interview was also labelled a “car crash”, a “dog’s dinner”

Beverley Clack tweeted: “Theresa May having a terrible time trying justify this back of an envelope house sell-off. #r4today #PoundShopThatcher”

The Sunday Times' Tim Shipman asked: “Has Theresa May answered a question yet?”

User @redskyatnight said: “Theresa May: no answers to anything & affects the tone of the sort of primary school head who talks to parents in her Reception Class voice.”

Charles Arthur tweeted: “John Humphrys skewering Theresa May with facts about social housing on @BBCr4today. Broken promises from 2012. Sure to break them again.”

Patrick Butler added: “Textbook demonstration by Theresa May on R4 Today just now of why evasive, patronising politicians are despised and distrusted.”

Ouch.

Under the new plans, David Cameron will announce later today, 1.3 million housing association tents will be given the right to purchase their homes.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/04/14/right-to-buy-theresa-may-general-election-2015_n_7060186.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

Right? That's what I thought? See my previous post, I'm not typing it again I'm too tired lol

Off to bed

Eddie, it's been said on many forums over and over. If you sell off social housing and don't build more, there is no housing left for the people at the bottom, Thatcher's sell off is the main reason we have a housing problem, and housing association houses are not the Governments to sell.

In 2013 a survey was done in London and a third of the council houses that had been sold under Thatcher's scheme were now being rented out for a fortune by private landlords.

This is affordable housing and they are not owned by the government and it's likely that those in them won't be able to afford the deposit anyway.

Replacing housing stock that has been sold off hasn't happened before and I doubt it will happen with this ridiculous scheme.

It's just another attempt to grab votes - nothing more.