Oh dear, the f***wits have come out to play...
1. In the blue corner, the Tories. To be fair, they make a good start...
The Conservatives say thousands of empty properties across the UK could be used to house those "languishing" on waiting lists for affordable homes. An estimated 4.5 million people are waiting for social housing, a figure the Tories say is "unacceptable".
It's not 'thousands', it's something approaching a million, but hey. Then they spoil it all again ...
Housing associations should think more flexibly about the tenancy arrangements they offer, Mr Shapps adds, to capitalise on the availability of the housing stock. They should also be given more freedom to match people with suitable properties, not just awarding the first property available to the person on top of the waiting list. The Conservatives accept some of properties in question will require investment in order to make them habitable. However, they say that the funding for this is available within existing government budgets for new social homes which is currently not being spent.
Woah! Stop right there! What do 'housing associations' have to do with this? There are empty homes and there are people who'd like to buy them or rent them, oil the wheels of the markets a bit and Bob's your uncle. And why the assumption that 'investment' has to be paid for by the taxpayer? Somebody who wants to sell or let out a property is in the best position to judge how much should be spent on what to make it saleable or lettable.
2. In the red corner, Nulabour...
Labour said the Conservatives had opposed past plans to allow councils to step in and maintain a private property if it was unoccupied for six months. The government had spent £19bn since 1997 in modernising social housing stock, said housing minister Iain Wright. "The proposals being put forward today are advocating a return to poor quality homes," he said. "We believe we can increase housing supply without the need to sacrifice high standards for tenants."
The Tories are probably right to oppose plans to prevent councils barging into private property (unless clearly abandoned etc). £19 billion divided by twelve years divided by four million social homes is about £400 per home per year, so I doubt that's achieved much. And the Tories did not advocate a return to poor quality homes - it's up to tenants to choose where to live, no doubt they will choose whichever is the nicest home available to them for a given price, as long as it's better than what they've got then they'll take it and I count that as a 'win'. And Nulab have an unenviable record of reducing the housing supply, via John Prescott's Pathfinder crap and handing over social housing to asylum seekers.
3. In the yellow corner, the LibDems...
By relaxing design and environmental regulations, the Lib Dems said people would be "condemned to living in cramped and drafty homes for 15 to 20 years as they wait to be rehoused". "This just shows how out of touch the Tories are," said the party's housing spokesperson Sarah Teather. "They have no idea of what it is like for a family living in a social home."
Sorry love, I've covered that point.
4. Bringing up the rear is the quangocracy....
"With such acute housing need in much of the country, no-one wants to see homes lying empty," said David Orr, chief executive of the National Housing Federation, which represents housing associations in England. "Many housing associations would be interested in new opportunities to renovate and manage these homes."
You're salivating at the thought of getting your hands on another few taxpayer billions to enlarge your empire and feather your nest, free of any sort of democratic accountability or market discipline, more like. Twat.
5. ... and to round off the evening, a fakecharity...
Shelter's chief executive Adam Sampson said the priority must remain building new homes. "Bringing empty homes back into use is an important part of the solution but, to really tackle the housing crisis, any government must commit to building the good quality, affordable and social homes that this country desperately needs," he said.
Surprisingly, Shelter's accounts show that it receives nearly £20 million a year in donations from individuals, but tucked away in note 4 on page 36 of their 2008 accounts is a nice round £12 million that they get from one government department or another.
Anyway, as I may have mentioned before, there is a quick and simple way of getting a lot of those homes back on the market that doesn't requite subsidies or government involvement ...
H/t Anton Howes.
What have we wrought in the UK?
3 hours ago
3 comments:
One problem with the empty homes scenario is that people assume there are 700,000+ empty houses just ready to be occupied in UK.
But an admittedly cursory look at the Empty Homes Agency website shows that a lot of them are empty because there is something seriously wrong with them and the owners/landlords cannot afford to put them right.
Some of them from the ilustrations appear to be plain derelict.
So not so much empty homes as empty sites,which might therefore benefit from the tuff luv approach of LVT.
There does appear to be a problem of impecunious people just hanging on to underutilised buildings in the hope that something will turn up.
This is a job for Citzens Dividend Funded by LVT!
Just a thought about "Shelter". I'd bet that many (most?) of those individuals donating to Shelter believe that Shelter itself provides housing to the homeless. From a brief look at Shelter's latest annual report you will conclude (correctly) that Shelter provides two services - advice to the homeless and lobbying. It doesn't undertake the messy business of actually providing "shelter".
I would consider it unfair to regard Shelter as - completely - a fake charity. But it does receive just under £12 million (about 25% of its income) from goverment/quasi government. It is a very loud voice in the cacophony - now joined by the loyal (to whom?) opposition - demanding more socialisation of the UK's housing arrangements.
Post a Comment