Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 11,523
|
Post by Khunanup on Jun 15, 2021 20:14:11 GMT
Absolutely right. within a mile of my home there are two digger ready development sites. One is a huge Homes England site, which has been available for housing (from memory) for about 4 years. Nothing happened so far apart from clearance. And when it does there will be far too little socially rented housing on it - which is what we desperately need here. Another site in my ward has had planning permission for 50 homes for around 5 years. No sign of anything happening. The problem is absolutely not lack of sites with planning approval, its developer land banking and the lack of public investment to build socially rented housing to replace the huge numbers of council homes lost to right to buy. In Birmingham we typically lose 600 or so a year to right to buy, lose another 150 or so to demolition (that number varies a lot but its typical) and build maybe just enough socially rented housing to cover the loss to demolition - but we don't even start to cover those lost to right to buy. The Homes England site should have been built literally years ago, instead it sits idle while thousands of Brummies live in inappropriate temporary housing. That is the scandal we should be shouting about. This argument has been around for at least 30 years and it as wrong now as it was then. I'm not a huge fan of 'Right to Buy' as a policy in and of itself, but what it meant was that for every purchase, there was one fewer family in social rented housing. If every home that was sold off was replaced by more social housing, then it wouldn't actually achieve anything, you'd just have a handful of lucky people who got to buy a property on the cheap.
To my mind the policy only had value if it meant that the overall level of social housing could be steadily reduced - ideally reaching an end point where there was no social housing at all. Why the fuck should the state be involved at all in where (some) people live anyway? It's needlessly authoritarian and unnecessarily divisive.
The real question we should be asking is: Why? Why should it be thus? How did we get here? Why should it accepted that a certain proportion of the population - including some fairly rich people - should live in housing owned and run and managed by local government and civil servants?
But nobody even wants to have the conversation. Too much self-interest.
The vast majority of social housing is not owned and run by local government...
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jun 15, 2021 20:19:42 GMT
|
|
|
Post by andrewp on Jun 15, 2021 20:32:12 GMT
4% behind 2 days before polling day is textbook leaked ‘internal polling’ isn’t it. The perfect number to get the activists out tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Jun 15, 2021 20:48:22 GMT
This argument has been around for at least 30 years and it as wrong now as it was then. I'm not a huge fan of 'Right to Buy' as a policy in and of itself, but what it meant was that for every purchase, there was one fewer family in social rented housing. If every home that was sold off was replaced by more social housing, then it wouldn't actually achieve anything, you'd just have a handful of lucky people who got to buy a property on the cheap.
To my mind the policy only had value if it meant that the overall level of social housing could be steadily reduced - ideally reaching an end point where there was no social housing at all. Why the fuck should the state be involved at all in where (some) people live anyway? It's needlessly authoritarian and unnecessarily divisive.
The real question we should be asking is: Why? Why should it be thus? How did we get here? Why should it accepted that a certain proportion of the population - including some fairly rich people - should live in housing owned and run and managed by local government and civil servants?
But nobody even wants to have the conversation. Too much self-interest.
The vast majority of social housing is not owned and run by local government... Though as a matter of fact, when it is, it is a useful source of income to the local authority. I see absolutely no market reason why LAs should not build housing for tenants that the private sector is unwilling to do so for, and recoup the cost from rent. There might be an argument for putting it up for sale when the cost of building has been recovered. The answer to sirbenjamin's question is the Beveridge one: it is not the job of the state to do a little better the things the private sector does, its job is to do the things the private sector does not do at all. One of which is to house the poor. As a result of the fuck-up successive governments have made of housing, in many areas people on average incomes can't afford to buy or even to rent securely (such as any normal person would want to do if e.g. bringing up children.) That is what is socially divisive, not some old bollocks about (insert hate group of choice) being "given" council houses. If some of those poor subsequently, as a result of secure housing, rise out of poverty (maybe a generation or two later): good. That's the fucking point.You might need a mechanism to move them on (in fact social housing can no longer be passed on for multiple generations, so I doubt it's a significant issue) but selling them the house (so they can have the house-inflation windfall while no-one else can have the home) once their rights of succession have passed quite clearly is not it. I await evidence that there are "fairly rich people" living in social housing in anything other than anecdotal and statistically insignificant numbers.
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Jun 15, 2021 21:11:49 GMT
The vast majority of social housing is not owned and run by local government... Though as a matter of fact, when it is, it is a useful source of income to the local authority. I know it's a long time now since I was a councillor but isn't there still a requirement for an independent Housing Revenue Account? With no subsidy either way between the HRA and the general fund?
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Jun 15, 2021 21:17:52 GMT
Absolutely right. within a mile of my home there are two digger ready development sites. One is a huge Homes England site, which has been available for housing (from memory) for about 4 years. Nothing happened so far apart from clearance. And when it does there will be far too little socially rented housing on it - which is what we desperately need here. Another site in my ward has had planning permission for 50 homes for around 5 years. No sign of anything happening. The problem is absolutely not lack of sites with planning approval, its developer land banking and the lack of public investment to build socially rented housing to replace the huge numbers of council homes lost to right to buy. In Birmingham we typically lose 600 or so a year to right to buy, lose another 150 or so to demolition (that number varies a lot but its typical) and build maybe just enough socially rented housing to cover the loss to demolition - but we don't even start to cover those lost to right to buy. The Homes England site should have been built literally years ago, instead it sits idle while thousands of Brummies live in inappropriate temporary housing. That is the scandal we should be shouting about.
This argument has been around for at least 30 years and it as wrong now as it was then.
I'm not a huge fan of 'Right to Buy' as a policy in and of itself, but what it meant was that for every purchase, there was one fewer family in social rented housing. If every home that was sold off was replaced by more social housing, then it wouldn't actually achieve anything, you'd just have a handful of lucky people who got to buy a property on the cheap.
To my mind the policy only had value if it meant that the overall level of social housing could be steadily reduced - ideally reaching an end point where there was no social housing at all. Why the fuck should the state be involved at all in where (some) people live anyway? It's needlessly authoritarian and unnecessarily divisive.
The real question we should be asking is: Why? Why should it be thus? How did we get here? Why should it accepted that a certain proportion of the population - including some fairly rich people - should live in housing owned and run and managed by local government and civil servants?
But nobody even wants to have the conversation. Too much self-interest.
A great deal of the council housing sold off is now rented out by private landlords, along with a lot of housing that was never social housing. So there are still lots of people who will never have the financial security of owning their own home. Imo it does not matter whether the landlord is private, public or housing association, the same rules should apply. So if council tenants have the right to buy, so should private tenants. But somehow that does not happen..
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Jun 15, 2021 21:24:05 GMT
4% behind 2 days before polling day is textbook leaked ‘internal polling’ isn’t it. The perfect number to get the activists out tomorrow. Similar numbers were passed to activists before the weekend
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Jun 15, 2021 21:28:33 GMT
Probably mildly more meaningful than "great response on the doorstep"
|
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 8,985
|
Post by maxque on Jun 15, 2021 21:29:47 GMT
Absolutely right. within a mile of my home there are two digger ready development sites. One is a huge Homes England site, which has been available for housing (from memory) for about 4 years. Nothing happened so far apart from clearance. And when it does there will be far too little socially rented housing on it - which is what we desperately need here. Another site in my ward has had planning permission for 50 homes for around 5 years. No sign of anything happening. The problem is absolutely not lack of sites with planning approval, its developer land banking and the lack of public investment to build socially rented housing to replace the huge numbers of council homes lost to right to buy. In Birmingham we typically lose 600 or so a year to right to buy, lose another 150 or so to demolition (that number varies a lot but its typical) and build maybe just enough socially rented housing to cover the loss to demolition - but we don't even start to cover those lost to right to buy. The Homes England site should have been built literally years ago, instead it sits idle while thousands of Brummies live in inappropriate temporary housing. That is the scandal we should be shouting about.
This argument has been around for at least 30 years and it as wrong now as it was then.
I'm not a huge fan of 'Right to Buy' as a policy in and of itself, but what it meant was that for every purchase, there was one fewer family in social rented housing. If every home that was sold off was replaced by more social housing, then it wouldn't actually achieve anything, you'd just have a handful of lucky people who got to buy a property on the cheap.
To my mind the policy only had value if it meant that the overall level of social housing could be steadily reduced - ideally reaching an end point where there was no social housing at all. Why the fuck should the state be involved at all in where (some) people live anyway? It's needlessly authoritarian and unnecessarily divisive.
The real question we should be asking is: Why? Why should it be thus? How did we get here? Why should it accepted that a certain proportion of the population - including some fairly rich people - should live in housing owned and run and managed by local government and civil servants?
But nobody even wants to have the conversation. Too much self-interest.
Well, the conversation isn't happening because everybody, except free market absolutists like you and Richard, knows that developpers cannot be trusted to build what is needed. Low supply means high selling prices and developpers build what is bringing them the highest margins, not what the market needs.
|
|
|
Post by samdwebber on Jun 15, 2021 23:25:05 GMT
Times story: (£) www.thetimes.co.uk/article/lib-dems-hopeful-of-by-election-upset-in-chesham-amp-amersham-zwqhrk60lLib Dems hopeful of by-election upset in Chesham & Amersham George Grylls, Political Reporter | Chris Smyth, Whitehall Editor | Patrick Maguire Wednesday June 16 2021, 12.01am, The Times The Liberal Democrats are close to an upset in the safe Conservative seat of Chesham & Amersham at a by-election tomorrow, the party’s internal polling has shown. Figures obtained by The Times suggest that the Lib Dems could gain 41 per cent of the vote compared with 45 per cent for the Tories. The by-election was triggered by the death of Dame Cheryl Gillan, who was the constituency’s MP for 29 years. At the 2019 election she held onto the seat with a majority of more than 16,000. Boris Johnson, Rishi Sunak, the chancellor, and Michael Gove, the Cabinet Office minister, have visited the seat in recent days. Lib Dem polling has shown that the race is tightening after a campaign dominated by the twin issues of HS2 and planning reforms. The polling was from last week but data from the weekend suggests the race could even be “neck and neck”, according to Lib Dem strategists. Peter Fleet, the Tory candidate, and Sarah Green, the Lib Dem candidate, have said that they are opposed to the multi-billion-pound HS2 railway line that runs through the constituency. The government’s proposals to make it easier for developers to obtain planning permission to build homes have also proved controversial in the traditionally Tory home county seat. Last week Johnson tried to counter suggestions the Tories were preparing to build new developments in the area. “I think what people want is someone who can carry on the great work of Cheryl Gillan and make sure that we turn the Chilterns into a national park and all the other wonderful things we’re going to do for the area,” he said. Conservative MPs have complained privately about a lacklustre campaign, saying that the race had been overlooked in favour of another more hotly anticipated by-election in the “red wall” seat of Batley & Spen on July 1. One Tory MP said: “I wouldn’t be surprised if we won Batley & Spen but lost Chesham & Amersham. It’s not a great look when we are running a by-election campaign and there are housing estates going up across the constituency.” Another Conservative MP said: “Planning is such a massive issue for voters in the shires, and we’re going to lose a lot of seats if we get it wrong.” Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, said: “The Conservative government’s white paper will rip power away from local communities and pave the way for a developers free for all. In areas like the beautiful Chilterns voters are getting worried. The Tories have already seen a Lib Dem-shaped hole in their blue wall in the local elections. The Liberal Democrats will continue to lead the fight against the Tory developers’ charters.”
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Jun 15, 2021 23:34:17 GMT
Though as a matter of fact, when it is, it is a useful source of income to the local authority. I know it's a long time now since I was a councillor but isn't there still a requirement for an independent Housing Revenue Account? With no subsidy either way between the HRA and the general fund? Yes
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Jun 16, 2021 5:20:57 GMT
Though as a matter of fact, when it is, it is a useful source of income to the local authority. I know it's a long time now since I was a councillor but isn't there still a requirement for an independent Housing Revenue Account? With no subsidy either way between the HRA and the general fund? Yes this hasn’t changed, and in general council housing is not “a useful source of income to the local authority” (very little is which is why services continue to decay and we get this dangerous commercial investment). Having said which the barrier between the HRA and the General Fund has always been porous, and you can cross subsidise if you pay attention to the legalities.
|
|
|
Post by michael2019 on Jun 16, 2021 6:03:52 GMT
I know it's a long time now since I was a councillor but isn't there still a requirement for an independent Housing Revenue Account? With no subsidy either way between the HRA and the general fund? Yes this hasn’t changed, and in general council housing is not “a useful source of income to the local authority” (very little is which is why services continue to decay and we get this dangerous commercial investment). Having said which the barrier between the HRA and the General Fund has always been porous, and you can cross subsidise if you pay attention to the legalities. In addition I believe a large amount (in at least a third of councils according to Wikipedia) of "council" housing is provided by ALMOs en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms-length_management_organisation And I believe a large amount of new housing is built by (or perhaps for) housing associations and little by/for councils. I know that Portsmouth did build some actual council housing (not housing association) in the 2000s/2010s but I am not sure how much that has been repeated by other councils - although Wikipedia reports that in 2009 the Government "diverted" money from ALMOs to councils to build council housing so there may have been money for councils at that time. In addition HAs may rent properties from private landlords which is normally for a lower rent but the HA may provide a guarantee etc. so there may be *some* advantages for landlords but at a guess this may be the less good properties or in less good state of repair. In addition those on low incomes on housing benefit have the problems of the curtailment of housing benefit by the LHA mechanism that limits the amount of housing benefit to the lower (?third - it may have become more generous with covid) of rental amounts in a local area - introduced I believe by Labour and a "housing/bedroom" tax that Labour activists don't often mention - for some reason!
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jun 16, 2021 6:22:27 GMT
Another fairly shallow and cliché ridden article about this by-election unherd.com/2021/06/could-boris-lose-amersham/I presume most of these journos just jump on the Met line out of London to Chesham or Amersham (mostly Amersham apparently - you'd think most of the electorate live in Amersham, with its Lib Dem town council, going by a lot of these articles) - never any mention of the Chalfonts and the various villages. I dare say a good many Lib Dem activists tread a similar path, though presume at least that the party is aware that the constituency encompasses other areas besides the two named towns..
|
|
Chris from Brum
Lib Dem
What I need is a strong drink and a peer group.
Posts: 9,180
|
Post by Chris from Brum on Jun 16, 2021 6:39:16 GMT
Another fairly shallow and cliché ridden article about this by-election unherd.com/2021/06/could-boris-lose-amersham/I presume most of these journos just jump on the Met line out of London to Chesham or Amersham (mostly Amersham apparently - you'd think most of the electorate live in Amersham, with its Lib Dem town council, going by a lot of these articles) - never any mention of the Chalfonts and the various villages. I dare say a good many Lib Dem activists tread a similar path, though presume at least that the party is aware that the constituency encompasses other areas besides the two named towns.. The activists will turn up at one or other of the campaign HQs, and be sent wherever needed. I've seen plenty of photos on my FB feed from villages small and large with Lib Dem teams gurning for the camera.
|
|
|
Post by woollyliberal on Jun 16, 2021 6:42:33 GMT
though presume at least that the party is aware that the constituency encompasses other areas besides the two named towns.. It has sent me to Chalfont St Giles, Prestwood and Lee Common on my visits. The press may only know of the two eponymous towns but the Lib Dem organisers know every small corner. I suspect the Tory organisers know too, they just haven't sent anyone there until very recently.
|
|
carlton43
Non-Aligned
Posts: 48,425
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Jun 16, 2021 7:40:36 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Jun 16, 2021 7:51:05 GMT
though presume at least that the party is aware that the constituency encompasses other areas besides the two named towns.. It has sent me to Chalfont St Giles, Prestwood and Lee Common on my visits. The press may only know of the two eponymous towns but the Lib Dem organisers know every small corner. I suspect the Tory organisers know too, they just haven't sent anyone there until very recently. In two visits I didn't spend any time in either Amersham or Chesham. Obviously I came in a car which may have made a difference. The Town Council thing really is bobbins, you sometimes wonder if the average journo actually knows what one is.
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Jun 16, 2021 7:57:20 GMT
I know it's a long time now since I was a councillor but isn't there still a requirement for an independent Housing Revenue Account? With no subsidy either way between the HRA and the general fund? Yes this hasn’t changed, and in general council housing is not “a useful source of income to the local authority” (very little is which is why services continue to decay and we get this dangerous commercial investment). Having said which t he barrier between the HRA and the General Fund has always been porous, and you can cross subsidise if you pay attention to the legalities.Well, quite.
|
|
iang
Lib Dem
Posts: 1,530
|
Post by iang on Jun 16, 2021 8:00:29 GMT
though presume at least that the party is aware that the constituency encompasses other areas besides the two named towns.. It has sent me to Chalfont St Giles, Prestwood and Lee Common on my visits. The press may only know of the two eponymous towns but the Lib Dem organisers know every small corner. I suspect the Tory organisers know too, they just haven't sent anyone there until very recently. Ditto - I was sent to Great Missenden. As a generalisation, the feeling seems to me that if we are roughly level in the villages, we should pull ahead in the towns
|
|