FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to The Lounge

Social Housing Budget cut

Jump to newest
 

By *atisfy jane OP   Woman
over a year ago

Torquay

We all expected to see sweeping cuts but a 50% cut in the Social Housing budget is the biggest blow to the less well off in the country, by not ploughing all that money from 'Right to buy' back into social house building the Tories hit the country hard in the 80's but this could be even more devestating.

Council property rents are expected to soar over the next Five years, that will in turn lead to bigger benefit bills.

Seems a bit on the strong arm side to me

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Should be looking who gets social housing a lot more. When even sitting members of the house of lords seem entitled.

Seems more than a bit strong to me, will be quite a few Torry voters with a grimace today but then what did they expect.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The Tories got it right with thier "Right to Buy" policy

They made a catastrophic and unforgiveable error of allowing Councils the choice to spend the income that came from the sales on anything they wanted.

Hardly any Councils (Tory, Labour or Lib Dem) put even a reasonable amount of the money into re-stocking which would have by now solved the whole housing problem, just putting 40% of that income back into new build council housing would have ensured a surplus of housing nationwide and still left 60% for other projects.

Stupid Tories but even more stupid council authorities

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *he_original_poloWoman
over a year ago

a Primark shoebox in Leicester

I’d like to see a few cabinet positions give up their houses. Not the ones they have bought or live in…. the ones which go with the job. A number of the cabinet positions get a house in London thrown in … many never move into them, yet the houses are fully staffed all year round, whether they are there or not.

The houses alone are worth millions…. I am sure I read one of the houses which was never occupied by the last position holder is worth over £7 million.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *atisfy jane OP   Woman
over a year ago

Torquay

Not that simple Jed, Council House sale receipts were taking into consideration when Central Government announced their yearly budgets.

In other words these individual councils having all this money just meant that Central Government reduced their budget allownce for that financial year.

Until those receipts ran down council budget allowances from Central Government were severely reduced between 1982 and 1993.

As these receipts ran down the governments of John Major, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown had to plough Billions more into local government to ensure services could be continued at anywhere near the levels of 1982-1993 when Council House receipts artificially boosted the coffers of councils.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

ooooooh

Well some buggar should have done what they were paid to do and ensure enough money went back into re=stocking and increasing the number of council houses in each area.

Vote Jed for PM (and get free condoms or chocolate when you pay for your TV licence) easy to offer because I would scrap the TV Licence

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *atisfy jane OP   Woman
over a year ago

Torquay

Have you noticed that councils will start to fill in all the holes in the road and replace all the broken kerbstones in the last few weeks of a financial year?, basically councils are encouraged these days to run at a deficit and not a budget surplus at the end of a financial year.

In the 80's it was the other way around, many councils struggled to run at any thing other than a surplus in places like Greater London, council stock receipts boosted the coffers so much that many councils like Westminster had a huge surplus.

Central Government ensured that the building of new local authority housing was kept to a minimum by adopting extremely strong planning regulations.

As a result Central Government in the 80's had local government budgeting down at record lows as the councils had all the house sales receipts in the bank.

For every Pound left in the bank by a council at the end of a financial year means between 40 and 50 pence was removed from their Central Government funding.

Hence it is almost unheard of for a modern day council to have a budget surplus.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

If reducing the social housing budget removes the layer of scandalous instances of unemployed people living in homes they would never be able to afford as working people then I'm all for it. By forcing councils to be more cash-accountable then I'm positive that we'll see a huge reduction in this level of waste, and maybe they'll be like the rest of us and start operating within their means.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"If reducing the social housing budget removes the layer of scandalous instances of unemployed people living in homes they would never be able to afford as working people then I'm all for it. By forcing councils to be more cash-accountable then I'm positive that we'll see a huge reduction in this level of waste, and maybe they'll be like the rest of us and start operating within their means."

I would agree with that i just hope it targets the right people. You know though some innocent hard working people may find they are better off not working if rents go too high though.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *he_original_poloWoman
over a year ago

a Primark shoebox in Leicester

The points system for allocating housing doesn't exactly put you at the top of the list if you are a responsible, hard working member of society.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The points system for allocating housing doesn't exactly put you at the top of the list if you are a responsible, hard working member of society."

Its all intended to make working people look to the private sector for accommodation.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Did I hear right that they also intend to move people out of social housing if they can afford to buy/rent in the private sector?!!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Did I hear right that they also intend to move people out of social housing if they can afford to buy/rent in the private sector?!! "

They are putting rents up on social housing. In effect if its similar to private housing costs then people will move if the prices are similar.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Not getting envolved in this. It winds me up !

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Not getting envolved in this. It winds me up ! "

Seconded lol - some topics are just not for me either...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ertnbeckyCouple
over a year ago

oldham


"Not getting envolved in this. It winds me up !

Seconded lol - some topics are just not for me either..."
thirded

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uton_coupleCouple
over a year ago

luton


"If reducing the social housing budget removes the layer of scandalous instances of unemployed people living in homes they would never be able to afford as working people then I'm all for it. By forcing councils to be more cash-accountable then I'm positive that we'll see a huge reduction in this level of waste, and maybe they'll be like the rest of us and start operating within their means."

there has been a system of giving alms to the poor since the tenth century

in these contempary times there still seems to be those that cannot afford to house themselves

the new development is the fact that the more affluent people that go to work and maintain there own home are in the same boat , THERE SKINT

its a bit like asking a beggar for the price of a cup of tea

"sorry mate im broke"

the pips have been squeezed till they squeek , but no matter how hard they press , blood will not appear

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *atisfy jane OP   Woman
over a year ago

Torquay


"Did I hear right that they also intend to move people out of social housing if they can afford to buy/rent in the private sector?!! "

Yes Sassy, the bench mark figure that is being mentioned in the media is households that have a total income of £37k plus.....that seems to be the point that families will be expected to branch out into the private rental sector.

£37k sounds a lot initially until you come to realise that this is not the income of the person who has their name on the rent book but the total income in the household.

So if Daddy Bear earns £17k and Mummy Bear earns £5k in her part time job and they have Two Baby Bears living at home who earn £15k between them then they would be expected to move out into the Private rental sector.

But when the Baby Bears leave the nest it is highly improbable that Mummy and Daddy Bear will be permitted to move back to a council rental.

So less than ideal......

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Cant afford to swing again, were going to delete our profile lol

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top