If it was used for mobility to jobs, it may be useful, on a short term basis.
But once people get in subsidised housing they never move and expect their offspring to inherit it. Far too many tenants are not productive, they have no paid employment
The bottom line is in so many cases the 'state' has proved they cannot organise a piss up in a brewery with a 'socialist' state by far the worst offender.
I'm sorry to say this, but if immigration had been better controlled we would not need this focus on more housing. It is just more housing to house those who should not be here. The whole system is corrupt and perpetuates corruption. We have limits on what we can build if we want to preserve the nature of our rural and suburban communities. In my local area (Wiltshire, on the edge of Salisbury Plain) where employment is scarce, along with supporting infrastructure (e.g. GPs), thousands of houses have been built - and who occupies them: people who do not look like me and do not share my culture, traditions or even language. Two years ago, we had not one black or other coloured person here, let alone other religions. I'm sick of it. There are plans for thousands more houses next door in Hampshire (a mile away from me). I am sick of it. British whites are a fast declining majority and there will be no reversal. Within 50-80 years we will be mainly a non-white country, and our great history will be lost. That may sound ok, but it is not. Absolutely not.
I thought this was well written and raised some interesting points.
However, regarding your line: “restore a functioning housing market in which the great majority of households can meet their needs through private provision”. What period are we trying to restore to?
I’m assuming you mean (maybe incorrectly, of course) roughly 1980-2010. Yet this period featured a significant number of houses being transferred from public to private ownership - below market prices - alongside considerably more social housebuilding than 2010 onwards.
I’m unconvinced the private sector will ever be able to adequately serve low-income households due to housing’s essential nature and how this can lead to / encourage predatory behaviour from landlords. However, completely acknowledge you did not call for an end to all social housing, so this is slightly diverging from the point!
Two factors should help without need for government interference.
Firstly, us boomers will be departing the scene in increasing numbers, freeing up good quality family homes. Secondly, any sensible policy to immigrants, current and prospective, should reduce their numbers, again freeing up properties. Some of these may have been -- modified -- away from the norm expected for UK dwellings. They should be ripe for converting to any social housing that may be needed.
This Pete I agree with. Social Housing, except for the vulnerable, undermines ambition and entrenches welfare. Avoid any programme like this. By contrast affordable private housing - helping people get a foot on the property ladder encourages work. a big difference that is often muddled by politicians and councils.
Totally correct, we already have a lot of it.
If it was used for mobility to jobs, it may be useful, on a short term basis.
But once people get in subsidised housing they never move and expect their offspring to inherit it. Far too many tenants are not productive, they have no paid employment
I agree and well explained.
The bottom line is in so many cases the 'state' has proved they cannot organise a piss up in a brewery with a 'socialist' state by far the worst offender.
How odd that aiming to remove millions of migrants leads to a higher housing demand?
Abracadabra - less people, housing demand increases? 🤫
Something isn’t right in the state of England 🏴
I'm sorry to say this, but if immigration had been better controlled we would not need this focus on more housing. It is just more housing to house those who should not be here. The whole system is corrupt and perpetuates corruption. We have limits on what we can build if we want to preserve the nature of our rural and suburban communities. In my local area (Wiltshire, on the edge of Salisbury Plain) where employment is scarce, along with supporting infrastructure (e.g. GPs), thousands of houses have been built - and who occupies them: people who do not look like me and do not share my culture, traditions or even language. Two years ago, we had not one black or other coloured person here, let alone other religions. I'm sick of it. There are plans for thousands more houses next door in Hampshire (a mile away from me). I am sick of it. British whites are a fast declining majority and there will be no reversal. Within 50-80 years we will be mainly a non-white country, and our great history will be lost. That may sound ok, but it is not. Absolutely not.
I thought this was well written and raised some interesting points.
However, regarding your line: “restore a functioning housing market in which the great majority of households can meet their needs through private provision”. What period are we trying to restore to?
I’m assuming you mean (maybe incorrectly, of course) roughly 1980-2010. Yet this period featured a significant number of houses being transferred from public to private ownership - below market prices - alongside considerably more social housebuilding than 2010 onwards.
I’m unconvinced the private sector will ever be able to adequately serve low-income households due to housing’s essential nature and how this can lead to / encourage predatory behaviour from landlords. However, completely acknowledge you did not call for an end to all social housing, so this is slightly diverging from the point!
Two factors should help without need for government interference.
Firstly, us boomers will be departing the scene in increasing numbers, freeing up good quality family homes. Secondly, any sensible policy to immigrants, current and prospective, should reduce their numbers, again freeing up properties. Some of these may have been -- modified -- away from the norm expected for UK dwellings. They should be ripe for converting to any social housing that may be needed.
This Pete I agree with. Social Housing, except for the vulnerable, undermines ambition and entrenches welfare. Avoid any programme like this. By contrast affordable private housing - helping people get a foot on the property ladder encourages work. a big difference that is often muddled by politicians and councils.
It signals they're going to grow the population... by more immigration.