Willy, please, do stop….

Local authority budgets are so reduced that new council house building has dwindled to almost zero.

Dear God.

No, council house building has not shrunk to almost nothing as a result of budget squeezes. It\’s because we\’ve shifted all that social housing over into housing associations and they build the new houses, not the councils. We\’ve renamed it, not stopped it.

12 thoughts on “Willy, please, do stop….”

  1. As a matter of fact, I know rather a lot about this sector from the day job.

    We’ve even done more than rename this: most Housing Associations are not even owned by the Councils. Whilst a few are ALMOs, most are private, not-for-profit entities (with many of them assigning their tenants a certain percentage of the shares).

    Indeed, a lot of Housing Associations have now set up wholly-owned, profit-making, subsidiary companies: they use the profits from these to subsidise the not-for-profit parents.

    As such, the Housing Associations are not only building most of the subsidised “council” housing, but also a great deal of the private housing too.



  2. DK,

    and are the people involved in the HA also involved in the profit making subsidiaries?

    (I have a theory that the next stage of fake charities is finding a way to shift assets to the people in charge, so they’re not just making a 6 figure salary, but some serious money).

  3. @ The Stigler
    Little story for you.
    Back in the mid-eighties I moved into a housing association apartment. Cost me a thousand for the tenancy, paid cash. Don’t ask.. Nice flat made even nicer with the new bathroom & kitchen i put in. A few years went by & I got a notice to quit. The building had been adjudged beyond economical repair due to subsidence. Not saying it had a problem with subsidence, any more than thousands of other late 19thC houses. The tenant from the other flat got a co-ownership house & I got rehoused in a nice flat conversion not far away. The property sat vacant for a year, was squatted, vandalised & eventually sold at auction.
    The new flat was even better than the last. Didn’t need a kitchen as that was brand new, including built in oven & hob. Gained a fancy bathroom though & wood floors throughout. It’s what i do. Few years go by… wadya know? Building adjudged not economical to repair. Watched the surveyor inspect it. Small amount of subsidence in the front bay. Roof in need of couple days work. OK, the windows were all going rotten but they’d been painted once in 8 years. Took one guy 3 days to do a 3 high house, front & back. 20 windows & doors. No rubbing down or cleaning.. Just painted straight over the spiders.
    The other tenant got offered a co-ownership place way out in the sticks & moved. But this time yours truly was up to speed on the law. It’s not legal to require relinquishment of a tenancy on these grounds. The landlord is required to keep the property in liveable condition. At this point, they’ve a house with one empty flat full of damp due to a roof that’s been leaking for years & an awkward tenant. We cut a deal. Property was empty for a year & went to auction. made over £600k. But that’s in a road where similar houses in good condition fetched over 900. Except for the other HA managed property a few doors along which was “not economical to repair”. Looked like the same company bought it at auction, too.
    And your theory is?.

  4. It’s a good job that the private sector’s built so many houses or we’d be in a heck of a mess, so bad that young people would be spending half their incomes on rents and housing expenses + a car to go shopping at the supermarket. Thank God, and the Conservative Party, we’re on top of this or it would be a right crisis.

  5. My experience of HAs is that they gave jobs to helplessly socialist Jemimas who bought sensible, nice, Victorian houses in down-to-earth but otherwise nice, what one might shudder to describe as “working-class”, inner-city neighbourhoods, and put the absolute scum of the earth in them. The kind of fuckwads who made so much trouble in their flagship developments that they had to move them somewhere else. So find a neighbourhood of not very well-off people, unlikely to be much good at legal fights, but with 30 or 40 grand (being a good deal of money to these people) invested in their properties, and watch the value tumble as the place becomes a gang-infested wasteland, until eventually the troublemakers manage to burn down their own house (and usually 2-3 neighbours with it).

    Even more properties to be sold at auction, eh?

  6. @DBC Reed, that would be the private sector that you and every other fucking property price-obsessed NIMBY in the known world stymies at every single planning application ever submitted to any council in the known universe?

  7. I should declare my interest: I once illegally sub-let (I was the sub-tenant) an HA flat in one of said flagship developments of utterly superb flats a stone’s throw from the centre of England’s finest city (opinions may differ, no warranty is hereby entered into).

    The real tenant, who was away for a year said we wouldn’t attract any attention compared to the other fuckwads in the building, and boy was she right.

  8. James V
    A singularly inept ad hominem outburst, since ,clearly, I favour more house building.
    On the real subject: the culprit is the Conservative Party whose not very bright elite call for a bonfire of controls to set business free to build, while, down at the grass roots, the members and sympathisers invoke every possible control to stop them building.
    The right wing needs to sort itself out.

  9. Surreptitious Evil

    DBC Reed needs to sort himself out if he thinks there is much “right wing” about the current Tory party.

    It’s a fair strange day, pace the other thread, when the Archbishop of Canterbury (modern era, at least) is a hefty half-brick’s throw to the right of the Leader of the Conservative Party.

  10. Of course, just insulting someone isn’t an “ad hominem”. Ad hominem would be “DBC Reed says X therefore X is false.”

  11. So it is all the Tories’ fault that house prices rose 145% under New Labour – 45% more in 13 years than the previous 13 millennia?
    Yes, I’ve said this before – so why is DBC Reed repeating his lies after I have pointed this out?
    The bonfire of (wartime) controls and the abolition of the Attlee government levy on development land by MacMillan in 1951-2 rapidly increased private sector housebuilding from a trivial amount to around 100,000 houses pa
    Every attempt that the Conservatives make to ease the housing shortage is condemned and delayed by guardianistas – and then the lefties blame us for the delays. Is there no limit?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *