House prices

[davidatpreston]

A bit harsh on the 'Iron Lady' who wouldn't have

planned for immigration figures that would be five times higher than they were during her time in power.I believe that from 1979-1990 the average net immigration was around 60,000 a year.

 

 

This post is a classic example of misunderstanding history, you need to stop and think what was different in the Thatcher era re immigration, particularly from Eastern Europe.

 

pause.....

 

Got it ? The countries that are shipping economic migrants here by the million could not do so then, as Thatcher andf Reagan had not yet renaged on their deal with Gorbachov that in return for relinquishing Soviet influence over Poland, Rumania, Bulgaria, the Baltics and the rest, NATO (and the EU) would NOT expand eastwards.

 

If those countries that were in the Warsaw Pact had been left alone as a 'buffer' zone, they could have developed their own economies and not been part of the EU, which in turn would have prospored by not having to support them, either militarily, economically or by absorbing their cheap labour.

 

Thatcher and Reagan were so aggressive and deceitful that we are now paying the price (at least in GB, not so much USA) and without those economic migrants we could accept proper immigrants who need to escape wars, and have more houses and correctly paid jobs that are not below the minimum wage.

 

Thatcher was strategically hopeless, failing to ever look ahead to see the consequences of her actions, and totally absorbed with temporary triumphalism at any cost - ususally a later cost to all of us as in this case.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

A bit harsh on the 'Iron Lady' who wouldn't have

planned for immigration figures that would be five times higher than they were during her time in power.I believe that from 1979-1990 the average net immigration was around 60,000 a year.

 

It's a point but..her refusal NOT to allow councils to spend the money they received from sales on building more houses was just perverse. I know she wanted to encourage home ownership and there are merits to that but she should have know that as it's a housing MARKET not everyone would be able to buy a house nor indeed wants to.

 

her plan all along was that the private sector would take up the "slack" but didn't really do anything to support that happening.

 

Like any PM she got many things wrong and for me this was one of them.

[Fosse69]

Social housing is a form of buy-to-let. Are you going to restrict housing associations from owning more properties? As I've said below, we just need more housing, full stop, whoever owns it.

Housing associations by definition are not individuals. There is one way of sorting the situation out, revise the house rating system from bands, which have not changed for a while in any case, to a % system, whether occupied or not. Also a annual tax on land ownership, various rates dependent on use, both systems also bring in tax revenue from overseas as well as reducing land banks. But for the housing situation to improve there has to be the will to provide affordable housing, that hasn't happened since the 60/70s, will it ever change?

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Housing associations by definition are not individuals. There is one way of sorting the situation out, revise the house rating system from bands, which have not changed for a while in any case, to a % system, whether occupied or not. Also a annual tax on land ownership, various rates dependent on use, both systems also bring in tax revenue from overseas as well as reducing land banks.

 

What's to stop housing associations passing those costs on to tenants and therefore in some cases to the tax payer which will nullify any tax revenues? Unless you have rent control which then risks them pulling out of the market completely

 

But for the housing situation to improve there has to be the will to provide affordable housing, that hasn't happened since the 60/70s, will it ever change?

 

It would only be affordable if built and owned by non-profit making organisations like local authorities.

[Fosse69]

What's to stop housing associations passing those costs on to tenants and therefore in some cases to the tax payer which will nullify any tax revenues? Unless you have rent control which then risks them pulling out of the market completely

 

 

 

It would only be affordable if built and owned by non-profit making organisations like local authorities.

Agreed, I used to assume the HAs were, but salaries and expenses can be much higher than LAs. Of course there should be rent control for housing in the affordable range otherwise the increase in housing benefit goes to the landlord. Rental market dodgy where large holdings held overseas in any case due to uncertain £ etc. Changes tend to be gradual in any case. Going full circle really back to council housing economics, subsidise housing to subside low wages required to keep prices down to compete.

[Warren]

http://visual.ons.gov.uk/five-facts-about-housing/

[Warren]

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/welfare-reform-and-work-act-2016-social-rent-reduction

 

This is leaving some housing associations in significant financial trouble and creating pressure to merge etc.

[For Us All]

This post is a classic example of misunderstanding history, you need to stop and think what was different in the Thatcher era re immigration, particularly from Eastern Europe.

 

pause.....

 

Got it ? The countries that are shipping economic migrants here by the million could not do so then, as Thatcher andf Reagan had not yet renaged on their deal with Gorbachov that in return for relinquishing Soviet influence over Poland, Rumania, Bulgaria, the Baltics and the rest, NATO (and the EU) would NOT expand eastwards.

 

If those countries that were in the Warsaw Pact had been left alone as a 'buffer' zone, they could have developed their own economies and not been part of the EU, which in turn would have prospored by not having to support them, either militarily, economically or by absorbing their cheap labour.

 

Thatcher and Reagan were so aggressive and deceitful that we are now paying the price (at least in GB, not so much USA) and without those economic migrants we could accept proper immigrants who need to escape wars, and have more houses and correctly paid jobs that are not below the minimum wage.

 

Thatcher was strategically hopeless, failing to ever look ahead to see the consequences of her actions, and totally absorbed with temporary triumphalism at any cost - ususally a later cost to all of us as in this case.

 

Got it?That was one of Gordon Brown's favourite sayings.

Gordon never did get it,in 2009 when asked about immigration,I remember him saying"Yes,I get it".

Twelve months later he was caught on microphone calling lifelong Labour supporter Gillian Duffy a "bigoted woman" after she raised concerns about immigration.So obviously Gordon didn't get it.

 

Anyway,back to D@P's history lesson.

I agree that Maggie didn't have the same problems with uncontrolled immigration but to say she was strategically hopeless and failed to ever look ahead to see the consequences,is at best a poor statement.

 

New Labour built an average of just 562 council houses per year despite allowing 2,200,000 people enter the country.-Fact.Now that is strategically hopeless!!

Maggies Tories built an average of 41,343 per year.Fact

 

Margaret Thatcher's government built more council flats and houses in a single year than New Labour managed in it's entire period in office(13 years).Fact

Official data shows that Blair and Brown's government's built 7,870 council houses(local authority tenure) over the course of 13 years.Fact

Maggie's government never built fewer than 17,710 in a year.Fact

 

Despite all these figures neither government has done enough in the past to solve the issue of UK housing,but saying that,it is impossible to plan ahead when you don't know how many to plan for?

[Warren]

 

The above graph has the facts re housing building since 1980. By the way, these stats are a significant reason why I voted out in the EU referendum, though there were other reasons as well of course. It is obvious to every reasonable person that the number of people entering the country each year can't exceed the accommodation being built when there is already a shortage. The irony, well to correct the housing deficit we will need more foreign labour and professionals in the short term - and enough bricks!

[davidatpreston]

Got it?That was one of Gordon Brown's favourite sayings.

Gordon never did get it,in 2009 when asked about immigration,I remember him saying"Yes,I get it".

Twelve months later he was caught on microphone calling lifelong Labour supporter Gillian Duffy a "bigoted woman" after she raised concerns about immigration.So obviously Gordon didn't get it.

 

Anyway,back to D@P's history lesson.

I agree that Maggie didn't have the same problems with uncontrolled immigration but to say she was strategically hopeless and failed to ever look ahead to see the consequences,is at best a poor statement.

 

New Labour built an average of just 562 council houses per year despite allowing 2,200,000 people enter the country.-Fact.Now that is strategically hopeless!!

Maggies Tories built an average of 41,343 per year.Fact

 

Margaret Thatcher's government built more council flats and houses in a single year than New Labour managed in it's entire period in office(13 years).Fact

Official data shows that Blair and Brown's government's built 7,870 council houses(local authority tenure) over the course of 13 years.Fact

Maggie's government never built fewer than 17,710 in a year.Fact

 

Despite all these figures neither government has done enough in the past to solve the issue of UK housing,but saying that,it is impossible to plan ahead when you don't know how many to plan for?

 

 

 

 

You might be surprised to know that I agree with a lot of what you say. Firstly New Labour were a disaster as they were Tories in turned coats, friends of Murdoch and neither Blair or Brown were the last bit socialist. Both Milliband and Corwyn are far better leaders.

 

Brown was a pompous fool for his 'bigot' remark, but without excusing it, most politicians have said far worse, he was just foolish enough to be caught. Blair is a megalomaniac war criminal with psychiatric problems probably due to his 'religious conversion'.

 

If your figures are accurate, and I am prepared to believe they probably are, it doesn't surprise me. So I agree New Labour were hopeless on that front, and some others too (Iraq etc).

 

However, it was no use Thatcher building a modest amount more then selling them off to gain votes and lose money. Perhaps you wopuld like to quote figures showing the number built LESS the number sold but I doubt you will do that.

 

 

You also mock my 'history lesson' but have not commented on it - because it is factually correct and the real reason behind al this - it is the bigger picture that many refuse to address.

 

Finally, it won't get any better any time soon as Thatcher unleashed the 'profit/greed is good', 'there is no such thing as society' ideology and that does not fit with building social or affordable housing.

[Warren]

http://www.housing.org.uk/press/press-releases/private-landlords-double-takings-from-public-purse-to-9-billion/#.V7q0Ur5i-KU.linkedin