Old Conservatives don't understand

[JonathanM]

and of course the above shows they haven't been restricted for the last 40 years.

Some basic snippets showing how various government restrictions caused social home building to fall by between a half and two thirds since 1980.

Two acts in the 1980s reduced the capacity for local authorities to build social housing. The Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 allowed central government to impose grant penalties on councils that exceeded newly imposed expenditure limits. The Local Government and Housing Act 1989 required local authorities to set aside 75% of sales receipts, which could only be used to pay down debt until the local authority became debt-free. These changes reduced the ability of local councils to borrow money for capital expenditure, including construction of social housing.

In the five full calendar years prior to the introduction of the Housing Act 1980, 627,830 local authority houses were constructed across the UK. In the five years following the act, 215,580 were built. This downward trend continued over the following decades, with 130 local authority houses constructed in 2004

In the 1980s, the Conservative government gave greater responsibility to housing associations for providing affordable accommodation. The Housing Act 1974 allowed housing associations to receive public funding for the construction of social homes. The Housing Act 1988 facilitated the transfer of social housing from local authorities to housing associations. This was done upon tenants’ approval by poll and supporters argued it allowed greater investment in housing stock.

Construction of housing association properties began to increase in the late 1980s. A peak of 35,910 housing association properties were built in the UK in 1993, compared to 13,150 in 1987. However, this did not offset the reduction in local authority construction.

New supply of social housing therefore began to falter, further impacted by the slashing of capital grants for social housing. On average, approximately 44,000 social homes were built annually in the 1980s

 

[denso13]

Some basic snippets showing how various government restrictions caused social home building to fall by between a half and two thirds since 1980.

A biggie was that, previously 75% of RTB receipts were paid to the government with 25% retained by local authorities. So you gave away houses/flats at up to 65% discount and could only reinvest 25% of the takings in new properties. Less than £9k per give away to invest at times.

No wonder none were built.

 

[Deleted member 221031]

A biggie was that, previously 75% of RTB receipts were paid to the government with 25% retained by local authorities. So you gave away houses/flats at up to 65% discount and could only reinvest 25% of the takings in new properties. Less than £9k per give away to invest at times.

No wonder none were built.

Still a good deal…..

 

[denso13]

Still a good deal…..

Great deal for the buyer, yes. Some even ended up renting them back to the councils at full market rent. What's not to like...

 

[JohnD]

Still a good deal…..

Not for the country, not for the taxpayer, not for those needing housing.

An expensive handout for a lucky minority.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Still a good deal…..

Only for those that benefited

 

[Deleted member 221031]

Great deal for the buyer, yes. Some even ended up renting them back to the councils at full market rent. What's not to like...

Exactly

 

[Deleted member 221031]

Not for the country, not for the taxpayer, not for those needing housing.

An expensive handout for a lucky minority.

Noted

 

[motorbiking]

Some basic snippets showing how various government restrictions caused social home building to fall by between a half and two thirds since 1980.

But you understand the difference between having restrictions imposed 40 years ago and having 40 years of restrictions. Unless you don’t believe the stats posted by the government the numbers have been increasing particularly since the late 90s.

 

[JonathanM]

But you understand the difference between having restrictions imposed 40 years ago and having 40 years of restrictions. Unless you don’t believe the stats posted by the government the numbers have been increasing particularly since the late 90s.

I think we must be talking at cross purposes because this appears so straightforward to me. TBH, I can't actually work out the point you are making.

There has been forty years of restrictions on councils starting in 1980, as detailed in my post above. As a result, social house building has dropped from an average of about 125,000 per year before the restrictions, to an average of about 50,000 per year after the restrictions. The numbers built by councils themselves fell to the low hundreds. These restrictions on councils aren't actual hard limits on numbers. Instead, they took the form of complicated rules surrounding local government finance, which effectively made it almost impossible in the end for councils to build housing.

The emphasis has since been on Housing Associations, and the actual numbers built each year mainly depends now on how much money the government of the day is prepared to put in as grants to subsidise social housing. The main reason for the recent uptick since 2012 is that the government have mainly switched the grants from social rented housing at low rents to affordable rented housing which has higher rents, so less subsidy is needed for each home, and you get more homes for the same overall grant money.

Very recently, some of the restrictions have been eased and councils are starting to build again, but still on a much smaller scale.

 

[Notch7]

But you understand the difference between having restrictions imposed 40 years ago and having 40 years of restrictions. Unless you don’t believe the stats posted by the government the numbers have been increasing particularly since the late 90s.

Housing associations not council houses

 

[Notch7]

Still a good deal…..

Yes

Thatcher wasn’t silly, she knew how to buy working class votes

50 years later and U.K. has amongst the most unequal wealth distribution of the Western World.

So an extremely bad deal for the working class

 

[gas112]

A biggie was that, previously 75% of RTB receipts were paid to the government with 25% retained by local authorities. So you gave away houses/flats at up to 65% discount and could only reinvest 25% of the takings in new properties. Less than £9k per give away to invest at times.

No wonder none were built.

are you sure it was only 25% councils could keep ?

 

[gas112]

Now what is it with the few in here who claim to be labour supporters in favour of the lower end of society that think it was so bad to sell houses and give the lower end of society renting them out a step up .
Would you rather they were kept down trodden than allowed to do a wee step in on society and become property owners ?

 

[JohnD]

the lower end of society

You mean the homeless and destitute? Disabled people living on meagre allowances? Single parents? The mentally or physically ill? People on minimum wage or zero-hours contracts? People with debt and no savings? Retired people on state pensions? Aged shipbuilders and steelworkers whose skills and experience were no longer needed? Tesco shelf stackers?

No, the "lower end of society" has no chance of getting a mortgage and buying a house.

The giveaways were aimed at the relatively prosperous tenants

And some with prosperous adult offspring who could see how to make a profit from getting their hands on assets sold below their value.

Motorbiking also used the same dishonest trick of pretending that a scheme designed to grow Thatcher's support by giving handouts to a lucky minority, at the expense of local councils, ratepayers and the poor, was a scheme helping those in greatest need. The opposite of the truth.