ECONOMICS OF THE MADHOUSE!

Why the hell is the government saying the taxpayer shouldn’t pay for poor people to have a decent lifestyle, yet through the Housing Minister, Grant Shapps (Conservative
Member of Parliament for Welwyn Hatfield) is saying the taxpayer will bail out homebuyers who find they cannot pay their mortgage?

In other words, they are saying to the private housing industry, who were instrumental in bringing about this supposed economic recession through mortgaging people who couldn’t afford it, give 95% mortgages to people who can’t afford them and we’ll intervene if they cannot pay. The economics of the madhouse!!

The answer to the housing crisis and to stimulate the building and ancillary industries is to move away from the emphasis on home ownership and build good quality council housing, not piecemeal on bits of land here and there as the private housing industry does but wholesale, as in new housing estates. The money spent will come back to the government in rents and council taxes.

There is plenty of land on which to do it; unfortunately the minority rich own most of it.

TORIES SAY 'NO' . LIVINGSTONE SAYS 'YES'

I have just read the article:

RENT CAPS - TORIES SAY ‘NO’ … LIVINGSTONE SAYS ‘YES’

At

http://news.rla.org.uk/index.php/archives/1116?utm_source=RLA+News:&utm_medium=twitter

I have never read such rubbish.  Starting with the comment ““Private rents are market led and, therefore, significantly driven by housing supply…” I would argue that if that is the case then it is government’s job to ensure a plentiful supply of housing to keep rents low. In fact, my first argument against this statement would be that shelter is such a basic human need that market forces should not be involved in its provision or cost. Effectively, I am arguing for council housing and a massive local authority building plan to ensure affordable housing, controlled by government, both local and central so that low income families and single people can have good, secure accommodation without the fear of slum landlords and frankly unscrupulous landlords charging what they like for unsuitable accommodation.  

The statement ““Excessive regulation would drive up rents and reduce choice for tenants. Rent controls, historically, resulted in the size of the private rented sector shrinking from 55% of households in 1939 to just 8% in the late 1980s.” is balderdash. The reason that the private rented sector shrank so drastically is because of the lack of affordable council houses available in 1939 and the massive post war government provision of council houses; it had nothing to do with the needed regulation of unscrupulous landlords.

Traditionally, Shelter has been concerned with providing affordable rented accommodation for the poor. Their emphasis is on this and less on how we do it. It is time for Campbell Robb, Shelter’s chief executive to take the bull by the horns and say private rented accommodation doesn’t work for the people who need it; wealthy private landlords are against regulation to keep rents low, supported by their rich politician friend’s ; the only alternative is local authority provision of affordable rented housing.

Do the right thing, Mr. Robb. Say we need more local authority housing provision and less unregulated private landlords.

PAY, PAY AND PAY AGAIN

There is a BBC report (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14692596) that the unemployed may be made to pay full council tax.

It seems there is a need to save 10% off the current bill. But hang on; wasn't that money taken off benefits by Thatcher's government in the 1980's and paid direct to the council? So effectively it is going to be taken twice.

And how are the single unemployed expected, out of around £56 a week supposed to find £20 council tax? That leaves £36 to eat, pay gas and electricity bills.

All the while the debate continues as to whether to keep (and it looks like it will go) the 50p tax rate and whether there should be a mansion tax.

Looks like once again the poor pay while the rich gain.

Housing - private or state owned?

I have always thought council houses should not be sold. Once they go into the private sector, they seldom return to public ownership. There will always be a people who through choice or circumstance will require council housing. If the only houses being built are private, and council houses continue to be sold, we shall end up back to the bad old days of private landlords and tenant abuse. And don't kid yourself that that couldn't happen again. Whether there are laws to protect tenants or not, there will always be landlords willing to flout the law and terrify tenants into subservience.
But I am part idealist, part realist. My ideal of plentiful council housing which cannot legally be sold is unlikely to be accepted by the majority. Often it is the first step on the property ladder. (Why people are so obsessed with owning houses is beyond me!) And I have to accept that people have ideals and dreams that are diametrically opposed to mine. Much as I would like them to agree with me, most won't and short of revolution I have to accept that. So I have a suggestion that might be workable. It's not a new idea, and I didn't think it up. Why not 99 year leases?. Or whatever length of time can be agreed as reasonable? Then, when this lease is up, if there is a need to return the house to council stock, let's use it for the less fortunate. A time could also be set for the house to stay in public ownership before it becomes available for long-term leasing.