It pays to exercise due-diligence.

[MtB]

7 hours ago, Onionman said:

 Unfortunately the other half of the policy did contribute. That was the half that forbade councils to use the money raised to build new council houses. The number of households was increasing, due to an uptick in family breakups as well as an increase in single parent households but the councils were unable to increase their housing stock to compensate. That's the root cause of some of the shortage.

 

I disagree to an extent. Had the council housing stock not been sold off, exactly the same housing shortage problem would have existed so it was not actually caused by the policy itself. 

 

The bit that was perverse and vindictive was, as you say, the cash raised from the sales was not allowed to be used to expand the housing stock.

[Chewbacka]

2 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

I disagree to an extent. Had the council housing stock not been sold off, exactly the same housing shortage problem would have existed so it was not actually caused by the policy itself. 

 

The bit that was perverse and vindictive was, as you say, the cash raised from the sales was not allowed to be used to expand the housing stock.

It wasn’t vindictive, it was the belief that the private sector would build homes for sale at affordable prices.  Of course this failed as a shortage of homes means more buyers than sellers forcing prices and profits up for house builders, so builders will not build quickly, coupled with there being a much better return on building nice middle & upper class houses than there is lower cost housing, and probably a loss on building stuff for single mothers, asylum seekers etc.  So a policy that in the short term bought votes but long term leads to misery and unrest.

[Onionman]

4 hours ago, Murflynn said:

agree entirely.  people expect that after a  family break-up, or single girls expect that after having a baby, they are entitled.  

 

responsibility remains with the individual, not the gubbinment. 

 

when I was a young man there was no entitlement.  

 

damn the nanny state !!

 

imagine what would happen if it became fashionable for married couples to separate after raising the kids.  

would that solve the housing shortage though?

 

................................   oh, sorry, you are back on topic (how very dare you?)    

 

No moralising required.

If a family breaks up then there are now two households where there was one. If someone moves out from their parents (for whatever reason), there are now two households rather than one.

 

That's the cause of the problem. The government forbade councils to add to the housing stock with money that was coming in. Result, more households, no increase in housing stock. So basic economics increased the price of houses.

 

See how easy it is to explain it without looking down your nose at anyone for their emotions or feelings?

Edited August 2, 2019 by Onionman

[BruceinSanity]

41 minutes ago, Chewbacka said:

It wasn’t vindictive, it was the belief that the private sector would build homes for sale at affordable prices.  Of course this failed as a shortage of homes means more buyers than sellers forcing prices and profits up for house builders, so builders will not build quickly, coupled with there being a much better return on building nice middle & upper class houses than there is lower cost housing, and probably a loss on building stuff for single mothers, asylum seekers etc.  So a policy that in the short term bought votes but long term leads to misery and unrest.

There’s much in what you say, but the main driver behind the policy was Thatcher’s belief that home owners are more likely than renters to vote Tory. It’s on record that, during the coalition negotiations, Osbourne replied to the Lib Dem proposals for increased LA housing with “Why should we encourage Labour voters?”

[Murflynn]

18 minutes ago, Onionman said:

 

No moralising required.

If a family breaks up then there are now two households where there was one. If someone moves out from their parents (for whatever reason), there are now two households rather than one.

 

That's the cause of the problem. The government forbade councils to add to the housing stock with money that was coming in. Result, more households, no increase in housing stock. So basic economics increased the price of houses.

 

See how easy it is to explain it without looking down your nose at anyone for their emotions or feelings?

you are missing the point - big time.   

[Chewbacka]

1 hour ago, BruceinSanity said:

There’s much in what you say, but the main driver behind the policy was Thatcher’s belief that home owners are more likely than renters to vote Tory. It’s on record that, during the coalition negotiations, Osbourne replied to the Lib Dem proposals for increased LA housing with “Why should we encourage Labour voters?”

Very true, and labour do it as well when raising taxes on the very rich, it doesn’t increase government revenue but it does impress people to vote labour.  It’s a fact that most individual taxation from a total revenue view comes from the middle classes, many of whom vote labour, so labour when in power for ten years didn’t raise taxes on the middle to pay for a house building surge as they didn’t want to piss them off.  All parties before an election now talk about increasing affordable house building, but after just give reasons why now is not the time.........

[MtB]

2 minutes ago, Chewbacka said:

All parties before an election now talk about increasing affordable house building, but after just give reasons why now is not the time.........

 

It's more brutal than that. Increasing the housing supply stops prices rising which is not in the government's benefit. Rising house prices make people feel flush and they make decisions to spend money they would otherwise not have done, thereby fuelling growth in the economy. In addition when they move house the Stamp Duty Land Tax income grows as houses move up into higher tax brackets and the percentage charged grows too.

 

It even benefits labour governments as if house prices ever became 'affordable' (whatever that means), that would lose a major plank in their election manifesto and lose a shedload of voters who now get cheap accommodation.

 

Its also the base reason governments of all colours support and encourage net immigration. To keep the upward pressure on house prices.

[Jerra]

19 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

The bit I don't get about this is when she sold the stock the houses didn't evaporate into the ether, did they? I think after the sell off there was exactly the same number of houses so in what way did selling them off make the housing shortage any worse? The only thing that changed was the names on the pieces of paper that said who owned them. 

The difference to me ia that whent he houses were councul owned they were (well in our area at least) allocated according to need.  Once sold they are allocated to the highest bidder when the first owner moves on.