Cameron's housing plans

Woden · 7 Oct 2015 at 19:52

Id be fine with charging people with spare bedrooms of there were somewhere for them to go. But there just isn't.

Being forced to stay where you are and penalised for it? But much even for the tories.

estebanrey · 7 Oct 2015 at 19:55

dowie said:
If they can't afford the pay the rent and/or don't own a property there then why not?

Just because you're born in say Chelsea doesn't mean the state is obliged to give you a flat worth close to a million to live in because you ended up in a modest job and can't afford to live there.

So who delivers the post, runs the local newsagent, works in the local Tesco etc in Chelsea?

robfosters · 7 Oct 2015 at 19:55

dowie said:
no just being realistic - you come across as having an entitlement issue

I don't have an issue with providing housing to people I do think it is wrong to expect a private company to subsidise it or to expect it to be provided in the most expensive areas of the capital where the assets could be put to much better use elsewhere.

1. I don't expect new developments to be built in the most expensive areas of the capital at all. Problem is, Camerons plans will affect the whole of the UK, rich and poor areas.

2. If the government refuses to build homes and the private developers dont have to any more, what then for the needy?

My only entitlement issue is that I believe everyone has a right to a home. Things will get better for those that work and can afford it, but that right will soon be lost to the unfortunate who can't.

V F · 7 Oct 2015 at 19:56

Woden said:
Id be fine with charging people with spare bedrooms of there were somewhere for them to go. But there just isn't.

Being forced to stay where you are and penalised for it? But much even for the tories.

I heard some people are renting out their garages. Some living on friends sofas. Some living behind the friends sofas. O_o

Tefal · 7 Oct 2015 at 19:57

dowie said:
that is another good thing - again private developers shouldn't be having to subsidise this

it just gets shifted onto the price of the houses sold to normal people, which helps cause the high prices the op is complaining about.

scorza · 7 Oct 2015 at 19:59

V F said:
I heard some people are renting out their garages. Some living on friends sofas. Some living behind the friends sofas. O_o

Dowie will tell us why this is a good thing in a minute

Tefal · 7 Oct 2015 at 19:59

PurplePhoenix said:
They need to build a lot of 1 bed houses with 2 parking spaces for the £130-150k range

I am 21 with 50k+ deposit, And I am still unable to find anything..

how would a 1 bed house even be practical?

would be a gross waste ofland

Caged · 7 Oct 2015 at 19:59

Oh hey it's this discussion again

Brutal biff · 7 Oct 2015 at 20:00

dowie said:
If they can't afford the pay the rent and/or don't own a property there then why not?

Just because you're born in say Chelsea doesn't mean the state is obliged to give you a flat worth close to a million to live in because you ended up in a modest job and can't afford to live there.

Typical tory garbage attitude rite there

dowie · 7 Oct 2015 at 20:00

balky12 said:
I have lived where I have lived all my life. I can't afford a house round here. I look elsewhere. How the world works.

Gentrification has been happening forever, sign of progression. There are winner and there are losers.

It's a con of renting. No security.

difference is

Frederick Poshworth grows up in Chelsea in a million pound flat - he gets a modest professional job, he rents elsewhere in London because now he can't afford to buy/rent in Chelsea

Dwayne Chavsworth grows up in Chelsea in a council flat that is now worth a million... he doesn't get a job - the state is supposed to house him in the area he grew up because moving a few miles away to another London borough would be traumatic and represent 'social cleansing'.

His parents also have the right in future to pass on the low rent tennancy in that million pound flat regardless of Dwayne's situation at the time and whether he'd have qualified for social housing or not.

bloodiedathame · 7 Oct 2015 at 20:00

So not only do private developers have to build social housing, they also have to build affordable housing too. HAHAHAHAHA. Good luck with that.

Tefal · 7 Oct 2015 at 20:02

bloodiedathame said:
So not only do private developers have to build social housing, they also have to build affordable housing too. HAHAHAHAHA. Good luck with that.

that's what they have been doing dear, they wont have to any more if this comes in.

dowie · 7 Oct 2015 at 20:03

Brutal biff said:
Typical tory garbage attitude rite there

expressing concern that expensive assets are not being used efficiently - oh the horror, suggesting that it might be better if some people were moved...

Woden · 7 Oct 2015 at 20:06

Tefal said:
how would a 1 bed house even be practical?

would be a gross waste ofland

Much better to build 2 and 3 bed homes, then punish the people forced to live in them for having too many bedrooms.

robfosters · 7 Oct 2015 at 20:07

Tefal said:
that's what they have been doing dear, they wont have to any more if this comes in.

So who does do it if the government won't?

Brutal biff · 7 Oct 2015 at 20:09

dowie said:
expressing concern that expensive assets are not being used efficiently - oh the horror, suggesting that it might be better if some people were moved...

OK then let's move everyone out of London who can't afford to live inside the m25 now you watch the property prices fall simply due to the fact that there will be no one there to do the low paid jobs you think someone will spend thousands a year to travel to London for 8ph

dowie · 7 Oct 2015 at 20:11

robfosters said:
So who does do it if the government won't?

No one does - you don't actually 'need' more social housing. I think it would be a good thing to build some and fund it through selling off the expensive stock that isn't used efficiently. But it isn't actually necessary - if no one is building it then you'll just get more people living in the private rental sector.

Jono8 · 7 Oct 2015 at 20:11

scorza said:
Basically the government is assuming that you're a couple

..and quite right too. It is hilariously unfeasible to expect everyone to be able to have there own house all to themselves.

dowie · 7 Oct 2015 at 20:12

Brutal biff said:
OK then let's move everyone out of London who can't afford to live inside the m25 now you watch the property prices fall simply due to the fact that there will be no one there to do the low paid jobs you think someone will spend thousands a year to travel to London for 8ph

you realise there is more to London than just zones 1&2

flogging off council housing in zones 1&2 isn't going to reduce the numbers of people available to do low paid work - plenty of people occupying that housing don't even work in the first place and plenty of people doing low paid work in London are in the private rental sector... people recently out of education - immigrants in shared accommodation etc.. you think it is only council tenants doing low paid work in London?

Oh the horrors of some council tenants who do work possibly having to commute from zones 3-6

bloodiedathame · 7 Oct 2015 at 20:12

Tefal said:
that's what they have been doing dear, they wont have to any more if this comes in.

Oh ****, I missed a very important word. Skim read fail, I blame the dogs. Thanks.

So who is going to build council homes, govt, council?

It might be a good thing, as I'm sure developers have been holding back because of the requirement to build social housing. I can think of a few plots that have been empty for years, probably waiting for something like this to come along. And making sure that some are affordable makes sense, but they're still too expensive. When I applied for a mortgage as a self employed person I could only borrow £160k max. I could borrow a little bit more now that I am employed but these homes are still to expensive.

If they really wanted to open up some housing stock they might have considered making it less profitable for landlords.