Demolishing housing estates

We don't know! No guarantees of anything in this world. Will have to wait and see.

Yes, no guarantees, even for sarcasm, luckily I have a few months still to go until that birthday, so must enjoy all the sarcasm that comes my way.

I was not suggesting not doing anything. I was suggesting something else, which I listed in two posts above.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"
Politicians have short memories.

Me too roses - can't believe we'll have to give it up later this year...

Wait and see? Wait and see for this stupid government? Wait until they've trashed everything that was good in this country and we're all serfs again?
Pathetic.

Sink estates, all that is good.....?

Monica I'm not sure how long it is since you were last in Newcastle, but over the last 28 years the Labour council has steadily improved the housing stock. Some property has been demolished and replaced - one of my employees had her house compulsorily purchased and was able to buy a much better one. She saw it as an opportunity not to be missed.
Other tower blocks were redeveloped and are sought after by single people. The council has a policy of not housing families in tower blocks.

I am all for good political debate, but this attitude to something that all governments would like to improve ( ghastly council estates) is surprising.Could it be that anything this government says is simply shouted down by some ( only some) posters? If a Labour government had announced this, nobody would have turned a hair.

My husband designed council houses in the 60s. As Jane says, they are not all bad.
One thing that they used to do was to build new houses first, then demolish those past redemption. Makes much more sense, even you should agree, roses.
Some he designed were in Peterborough for London overspill. We lived in one ourselves for a year. We also lived on Bransholme estate in Hull in the 80s for six months, at the time the largest council estate in Europe. The house was excellent.

Where my sister lives in Hull, their street was due for demolition five years ago. The coalition government put a stop to it by withdrawing the finance.
Many of the houses were owned, some rented. Now most of them are rented, and only a few owned. The prices have reduced by 50% in that time.
It's not a sink estate, but has been blighted by the government withdrawing the finance, and the owners not knowing what is happening over the last five years. It was planned under the Labour government.
The people were going to be given other houses to live in, half the houses were to be pulled down, giving the ones left gardens instead of back yards. The scheme looked excellent. Then the original owners were to be given the choice of staying where they were or moving back into their houses.

So actually I do know a bit about what I am talking about. I do not just label all council housing as sink estates. I know how much planning goes into these ideas.
I know that if Cameron allowed the councils the money, they could do the job properly instead of just mouthing platitudes.

However, Newcastle and Hull are part of the Northern powerhouse. They will not get any money to do anything sensible until just before the next election.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_Market_Renewal_Initiative

I do hope it doesn't end up like the Pathfinder project of New Labour under John Prescott and Yvette Cooper.

janeainsworth that sounds as if your council has the right idea.

As I have just explained, Jalima, it would have been okay for lots of homeowners in Hull, like my sister. Cameron put a stop to it in 2011.

www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2016/jan/05/expert-views-housing-bill-end-affordable-housing

sorry, didn't read the whole thread
I just remember a Panorama programme about the Pathfinder project, and this sounded similar.

You are so wrong Rosesarered, I am one socialist who would say the the same if a labour government came up with this stupid idea of moving people out of their homes at a time when there a such a serious housing shortage and say they would not guarantee the tenants could move back into the new homes . I would expect an explanation of where the tenants would live and assurance they would be allowed to move into the new buildings .

You explain where people on a large estate in a city could expect to be moved to and keep their jobs

You don't seriously think a whole estate would be bulldozed at once do you?
It would be done bit by bit I expect, and accommodation would have to be found locally for tenants.It shouldn't be beyond the realms of fantasy for this to happen, it takes money that's all.Cameron said today that councils would be working with tenants and owners , and it would happen with their consent.I say again, that if a Labour government had come up with a plan for regeneration it would be applauded.

Yes I'm sure if JC had come up with this plan it would have been applauded as a wonderful idea by those on the left.

The PM said local councils and residents would be involved in the process which would "make sure that tenants get good homes, make sure homeowners get rehoused in new houses".

(quote from PMQs today)

You're not listening, roses.
The Labour government did. The Tories put a stop to it in 2011.

If Cameron thinks it's a good idea now, why did he stop it in 2011 and allow all those estates to become blighted?
Why do you think it's a good idea now, but it wasn't before?
If it was always a good idea, why are you not criticising Cameron for stopping it in 2011?

Possibly because it was such a shambles under John Prescott?

Well, good old Cameron. He's come up with a plan that the Labour government had and he put a stop to. Clever him!

Yes indeed, glad you agree. Hopefully it will be better managed than by the Labour government.

Corbyn mentioned Shelter research in his PMQs.

This is the research he was referring to.

blog.shelter.org.uk/2015/08/non-starter-homes/

Fullfact say he was right, that people will not be able to afford the starter homes except in 2% of the council areas.

Obviously, Ana, you are older than you say you are, as you do not recognise sarcasm already.

Because at that time the economy wasn't healthy enough to consider it, but now it is. good ideas are always good ideas, but sometimes the timing is wrong.

Oh dear, were you being sarcastic durhamjen...?

I would not ( do not) care who's idea a good idea is for the benefit of people,
if Corbyn had suggested it, I would think it was the best idea he had to date.