tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30194186.post2575499672521320251..comments2024-02-02T10:29:34.789+00:00Comments on A Conservative's blog: Margaret Hodge under fire over immigrationBenedict Whitehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01382732288664789210noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30194186.post-42051807685736977042007-05-28T11:31:00.000+01:002007-05-28T11:31:00.000+01:00Gaz, !. I don't think I am. I think you are making...Gaz, !. I don't think I am. I think you are making a difference where they may be none.<BR/><BR/>If you want to build a development of 50 houses you will have to hand over land for 5 units to someone to build social/affordable housing. That will go to a registered social landlord. (RSL) <BR/><BR/>2. If you want to build housing developments generally some of the development has to be for social housing.<BR/><BR/>As for not being against the right to buy, I am pleased to hear it. However who do you think Thatcher sold the houses to, to privatise them? The tenants? Housing associations are not normal private landlords. They are still controlled by government in ways which private landlords are not.<BR/><BR/>As for the lack of new social housing this government is building less that John Major's. Nuff said.Benedict Whitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01382732288664789210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30194186.post-54421362378578374832007-05-28T01:46:00.000+01:002007-05-28T01:46:00.000+01:001. your confusing social housing with affordable h...1. your confusing social housing with affordable housing.<BR/><BR/>2. there is no such thing as 'planning concent earmarked for social housing'<BR/><BR/>by the way, i am not necessarily against the right to buy, per se, only in the circumstances of today, where there is no social housing being built to replace it - hence the housing shortages.. <BR/><BR/>the current set-up is a disaster that is happening right now, and thatchers ideologically motivated privatisation is half of this equation.<BR/><BR/>"they are sold valued at full market value, from which there is a discount"<BR/><BR/>you do know how ridiculous that statement is, right?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30194186.post-39784307499144495832007-05-26T20:42:00.000+01:002007-05-26T20:42:00.000+01:00Gaz, how is it a waste of tax payers money?You mak...Gaz, how is it a waste of tax payers money?<BR/><BR/>You make the statement on this and subsidies on the basis that it costs as much to build social housing as private housing.<BR/><BR/>It doesn't. For a start the land does not cost as much. In fact if you want to build a large private development you have to give some of the land up for social housing.<BR/><BR/>Also land is only worth what it is by virtue of the planning consent you can get on it. So if it is designated as agricultural land it is not worth as much as prime building land. Land ear marked for social housing has a very limited market and hence cost.<BR/><BR/>However when they are sold off to the tenants who live in them they are sold valued at full market value, from which there is a discount. This does not stretch as far as the discount the land was bought at.<BR/><BR/>What allowing the right to buy does do is raise the aspirations of estates. It works.Benedict Whitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01382732288664789210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30194186.post-36623923452667453482007-05-26T12:20:00.000+01:002007-05-26T12:20:00.000+01:00thats great but i did manage to pick all this up i...thats great but i did manage to pick all this up in the original post.<BR/><BR/>you've not begun to answer my point.<BR/><BR/>1. this is a waste of taxpayers money<BR/>2. i thought you were against subsidiesAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30194186.post-85673959903317953852007-05-25T17:42:00.000+01:002007-05-25T17:42:00.000+01:00Gary, " you're not half as clever as you are pal"S...Gary, " you're not half as clever as you are pal"<BR/><BR/>Surely you meant "You're not half as clever as you THINK you are"?<BR/><BR/>Firstly part of teh problem is the number of new households in the country, and part of that is down to immigration.<BR/><BR/>Secondly thsi government is building less social housing than the Conservatives did. That needs to be fixed.<BR/><BR/>Thirdly if you want a full argument over the right to buy, start by reading this:<BR/>http://aconservatives.blogspot.com/2007/02/great-council-house-debate.htmlBenedict Whitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01382732288664789210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30194186.post-50698082950111148312007-05-25T04:16:00.000+01:002007-05-25T04:16:00.000+01:00you're not half as clever as you are palwhats your...you're not half as clever as you are pal<BR/><BR/>whats your solution exactly?<BR/><BR/>it seems to be that your in favour of selling off social housing at a discount while building new social housing (at full expense to the tax payer) to take its place? <BR/><BR/>i'm not sure thats a very effective use of tax payers money old chap.<BR/><BR/>and i thought you were against subsidies?<BR/><BR/>all in all, i'm somewhat confused old boyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com