Moderators: Moderators, Junior Moderators
CherineCherine wrote:I was going to add Birmingham as well. I do like its city centre very much all those old buildings plus it has very good housing stock lots of huge red brick Victorian terraces. My only issue is the city feels segregated along racial lines. Not enough mixing about and also it's dirty. Last time i was there i saw lots of rubbish strewn about the place.
The easy option is to blame the immigrants, but they are not the ones who are to blame for the crisis.Basra- wrote:octa
do u think the immigrants-- which are in great numbers in London have taken all the houses???? this is a disaster waiting to happen. If Britain doesn't go to capitalism like America--they in to be turning into a third world country lifestyle level
Basra, what insignificant town do you live in anyway? London is an international, world class city, home to an endless restaurants, museums, art galleries, sports venues, music venues, company HQ's etc. Its a place where you would struggle to be bored, if you have money.Basra- wrote:muslimstruggler
No thanks. I don't want to be depressed. London is so depressing, if the rain doesn't let u down, it is the none west looking family relatives of mine! I want to go a place where my relatives are flashing money and are sparkling. Not making me go with them to the store to buy electricity time.
In principle I am not opposed to the Right to Buy programme. But having said that, there is no doubt in my mind that it is compounding the shortage in social housing in general and the shortage in family homes in particular. I have no issue with people in social housing being allowed to buy the council house they inhabit; but the sale should be conditional on them continuing to live in that property, especially if it is a family home that they have bought. Otherwise what starts to happen is that would-be family houses are rented out on a per-room basis, which creates a shortage in family homes.Jasmine6 wrote:Octavius there is nothing wrong with the Right To Buy programme, if anything it has served its purpose which is to lift a great number of Brits to a better station in life as homeowners. What went wrong however is not replenishing this stock of social housing, by not allowing councils to build any more houses and leaving the responsibility in the hands of privately owned companies they opened a can of worms where these big firms were allowed to play on basic economics. Reduce the supply, prices rise and so does the profit
Also culturally Brits want to buy houses so there is always a huge demand until no one can afford it anymore but instead of letting the bubble burst - enter Help To Buy, inflating the bubble even further.
It is not in the interest of the majority for house prices to fall and so they shan't. Politics.
If there's a need for single rooms why would you cut off the supply?Octavius wrote:Otherwise what starts to happen is that what should be family houses are rented out on a per-room basis, which creates a shortage in family homes.
Perhaps house builders have struggled to get access to lending to fund their building projects, but even that doesn't make any sense. You would think that the market mechanism would mean that if house prices are increasing, rental prices are increasing and there is a shortage of house, this presents an excellent investment opportunity and we would see private companies seeking to build houses and either rent or sell them. And in theory banks (and other lenders) would see the merit and viability of their house building projects and would therefore be willing to lend to house them - but clearly this isn't happening.
Because that need should be met by purpose-built single-person housing and not converted family homes, which are sorely needed.Jasmine6 wrote:If there's a need for single rooms why would you cut off the supply?Octavius wrote:Otherwise what starts to happen is that what should be family houses are rented out on a per-room basis, which creates a shortage in family homes.
If I were arrogant and didn't give a shit, I would say: consider it a redistribution of wealth.Jasmine6 wrote:Also 64% of homes in the UK are occupied by their owners. How do you suggest going about convincing any of those people that falling house prices is a good thing. Introducing a policy which generates negative equity is the fastest way to be booted out of office.
But I will explain that it will save the tax payer billions of pounds in money spent on Housing Benefit that goes into the pocket of landlords. If we build more social housing, rental income from that social housing will go back into the government coffers and can be re-invested into public services. We spend £23 billion pounds per year on housing benefit and much of that goes to private landlords. In fact, one in four people in London is on Housing Benefit. It is a necessary. I was being sarcasticeliteSomali wrote:Spacious? There are sleeping beds near washers and inside the kitchen, that's hardly spacious man.
