The Greens have no monopoly when it comes to unrealistic plans for government-funded housing projects. This was not as bad as Natalie's interview, but it shows just as clearly how the arithmetic is not thought through: I believe that the 4G licence auction raised not a lot more than £2billion, yet Reeves was suggesting it would make more than 3, and that Labour would use that to build 100,000 houses!
Since when did the government's duties include the role of state property developer? Governments don't "build" houses.
Settle down, Margaret. * For build, read, "cause to have built with a view to becoming the landlord of said properties for the purposes of providing affordable housing". * I'm joking here, I have a great deal of respect for you Gimlet
Which is one of the major downsides of post Thatcher Brittain. We need council housing. Where people with low income potential can have a home they feel safe, secure and expect to bring up their family in. Its called social responsibility, in case anyone wonders
Scotland pays more into the UK than it gets out. Just so you know the facts for next time. The same is true for SE England. ScottishGovernment - News - Scotland’s finances Everyone else is a net beneficiary or as you would put it Kirky a "leech". Wonder how fellow board members outwith these areas feel about your use of that term? As for SNP government. They have said they will not form a formal coalition with any party. But will vote only on issues which affect Scotland in support of a minority Labour government.
Expensive housing + minimum wage becoming almost a default wage = tax credits If it is considered a good idea to reduce the benefits bill and remember, excluding pensioners, most people on benefits have a job, you need to have low cost housing. The cost of the land can be the most expensive element, so I can see how if you strip that out, as it varies hugely across the UK, you could build a 1 bed flat for £30k.
There are many reasons why housing costs are excessive in the UK (in comparison to most other countries), but one key driver of rents and house prices is people's ability to pay (it is a market, after all). For that reason, it's also valid to say: Tax credits + Housing benefit = expensive housing Housing benefit, in particular, distorts rental costs. Successive governments (Conservative then Labour) greatly expanded the scope of it, and then Gordon Brown added tax credits as the icing on the cake (he so loved the idea that he arranged things so that a family with an income of up to £50K could claim tax credits!). One thing I find hard to swallow is that Housing Benefit has expanded to the point where changes to it have become a political football with the "bedroom tax" term being used to misrepresent what is, of course, a shambolic policy to reduce housing benefit costs, and perhaps re-balance social housing use, but to a trivial extent. Nobody seems to dare to say, "What's going on here? Social housing involves paying lower-than-market rents, effectively subsidised by taxpayers... yet now we're arguing about why some people should have to pay even a small part of that rent themselves?". I'm sure that when I was a kid, most people who were lucky enough to have council housing were paying their own rent. I think that there is a place for social housing, and we probably need more of it, but there are huge problems that nobody wants to deal with, apart from the question of funding the development of it: - Who is it for? Bob Crow (RIP) was still living in a council house when he died. How long should it be provided for? - Is it fair for immigrants to have equivalent rights to locals when entitlement to social housing is considered? - Is it right that young single women should be put in a position where producing children automatically gives them priority of access?
dude you have to forgive them, the rest of the uk has been bombarded with anti snp propaganda for at least the last three years, it still amazes me the bull you hear during question time and other currant affairs programs where the the average rest of the uk joe is asked for an opinion or comment. there is deffo a v.v.small anti english minority up here, but the vast vast majority that voted no including i would say a lot of the yes but where feart of that level of change are anti westminster, nothing more..
Anti westminster. There it is. Whatever happended to positive change, what you want ie an independent state free to make its own choices, raise its own revenue and sepnd its money (or overspend it) howsoever it chooses. Nope, its 'we dont want the English telling is what to do' Get over it matey. The vote was No. I'm looking forward to th Uk policies SNP are going to produce which talk about improving services across the UK, not just over the wall Fo me its starts to get to one man one vote and the winner is the one with the most total votes rather than constituancy based systems we have now. Elect a party, not a person, based on the values they deliver to the UK Then local elections to decide representation of your area.
Housing land is very much more expensive than agricultural land. During the massive house building programmes of the 1950s and 1960s, which were on a much bigger scale than anything today, lots of agricultural land was compulsorily purchased with the landowners' compensation being valued at agricultural prices (very low at that time). Then the local authority would grant planning permission to build housing, and build it. The value of the land thereby increased hugely, obviously, but the benefit of the increase went to the local authority and its ratepayers and tenants not to the original landowners. That is how authorities were able to build new social housing very cheaply, and thus could afford to build lots of it. If landowners wanted to develop their agricultural land themselves, they either were refused planning permission (this what the "Green Belt" was about), or they had to pay a heavy tax on the windfall enhanced value of the land (see e.g. the Land Commission Act 1967). All that has changed now. Local authorities are tightly restricted in what they can do. Agricultural land is much more expensive. Private developers are favoured, and development is highly profitable to them. And expensive, up-market housing is far more profitable than low-rent social housing, so that is what developers build.
i think your the one that needs to get over it, your an angry man. Scotland chose no, we know that,stop taking it so personal every time some one mention snp.are you happy with the currant crop?. . :smile:
No one here angry fella, and I've been avoiding all this stuff for a while now as its normally as purile and tits and religion in every thread. However you seem to bring it into every answer. The chip on your shoulder must only be matched by the day rate of a modern politician
Exactly Pete, so the only people that will build low cost housing are government agencies of one sort it another or through housing associations
Housin asociations are one of the proe,ns imho, becausethey are businesses that need to make a profit Same as the NHS and the council these days too So much for social responsibilities
Still can hardly find a no voter. The Dundee count "fire alarm", huge amount of postal votes. Am beginning to think it was rigged.
You sure? Mrs749er works for one and mature it's set up as a charity. They have a pretty austere car policy, that's for sure.
Westminste shipped them all south as part of resettlement agreement to vote No 3 days after the vote Then stuck them on a ferry from Hull back to the continent so they could share their payout with home
