Labour - party of building?

Councils always used to have small bungalows for pensioners, my own Nan used to live in one, she was happy there.

My grandparents had one in a 1950s built council estate. It had a garden big enough for grandpa to grow a fair amount of veg and granny to grow her flowers. They were very content there, too.

We have them around the villages, very popular for the lucky ones, never enough of course. A friend of nine had been living in a mobile home she had to move and got one, very pleased.

Labour are being devious by talking up affordable homes. They know they are unaffordable to most people but they want to avoid being seen committing taxpayers' money to the massive Council house programme which is necessary. Hopefully they will start building Council houses once they achieve government otherwise they are as bad as the Tories.

Council houses are not the only solution to the housing crisis Grantanow, and they aren’t for everybody, although they should be part of the solution. A mixed housing economy is a good position from a consumer perspective, provided rents in all types of accommodation are affordable. I know several people who have purchased the affordable homes on new developments or opted for the part ownership model too, all single younger people who are happy with their choices.

Of course a variety of homes is desirable but Labour are not talking about Council houses and I doubt a building programme for them will be in the Manifesto. Our former MP (a Tory, unfortunately) was very clear that so-called affordable homes are out of reach of many people in this rural area and they are driven into the low quality private rented sector.

The greatest need is for affordable rented homes owned and managed by councils or housing associations. The need will become even more acute as private landlords continue to sell up owing to the proposed new legislation and to increased mortgage rates.

I’m not keen on shared ownershipaffordable homes but affordable rented homes run by housing associations have a massive benefit. Because they are charities they don’t pay tax anywhere near to the extent of a private landlord, so the higher rent a private landlord would charge goes straight to the government.

One other important factor is security of tenure. Too often renters are given notice by private landlords (sometimes for trying to get improvements to substandard properties) and this causes no end of disruption to working families and may lead to homelessness. Council housing offers security and a high bar to eviction. I hope Labour will include Council housing in its new towns proposal: much of former new towns like Crawley comprised Council housing though of course Thatcher destroyed that long term social resource by selling them off for political gain and preventing new build in the sector.

The RTB legislation should be repealed at the earliest opportunity.

One of our local housing associations has just announced that it is having to halve the number of properties it had planned to build over the next three years owing to rocketing construction costs. The provision of construction funding for housing associations and councils is needed urgently.

Grantanow

Of course a variety of homes is desirable but Labour are not talking about Council houses and I doubt a building programme for them will be in the Manifesto. Our former MP (a Tory, unfortunately) was very clear that so-called affordable homes are out of reach of many people in this rural area and they are driven into the low quality private rented sector.

Council houses are being built in Wales, which is obviously a Labour administration, so not specifying does not mean it won’t or can’t happen.
I’m not in favour of a specific specification that council housing must be built being in the manifesto, but I am in favour of a commitment to increased funding for local authorities to find the best housing solutions for their areas. It’s really important for there to be affordable choices for renters. Security of tenure is not generally an issue for Housing Association tenants, and more regulation would solve it for renters of private accommodation. I’m not personally in favour of a ‘home for life’ for council houses except in some circumstances for the tenant and spouse, but I think it needs to be very clear from the beginning that is the case.
My council has a policy of buying back former council houses when they are for sale, and I think that is one of the solutions in rural areas because most villages originally had a council housing stock.

AskAlice

Another policy which might help would be one that ringfenced any money from the Right to Buy scheme so that it is used to build more social housing. This should have happened back in the days when Right to Buy was first brough in. Or am I being naive/stupid?

Not naive or stupid, but absolutely correct, imo. RTB was nothing but a money making racket for central government. Social housing should have been replaced on a one for one basis. The fact that it wasn't has led to today's crisis in the housing market.

Germanshepherdsmum

The RTB legislation should be repealed at the earliest opportunity.

One of our local housing associations has just announced that it is having to halve the number of properties it had planned to build over the next three years owing to rocketing construction costs. The provision of construction funding for housing associations and councils is needed urgently.

I agree the RTB legislation should be repealed.

Of course local authorities can repurchase Council houses as Casdon says but most are so short of money that it's an unlikely option at the market price and wouldn't meet the demand.

Indeed. They need more money.

Germanshepherdsmum

Indeed. They need more money.

Well, they're not going to get that from the current government, are they?

And, the way things look at the moment, I don't think they're going to get it from the next government, either.

We shall have to wait and see Maizie.

That is my point MaizieD. Labour is unwilling to say it will increase the grant to Councils for house building because it fears being labelled a high spender of taxpayers' money. Hence their talking up 'affordable' homes which are private sector builds and unaffordable for the many who need social housing.

I don’t know where you got your information from Grantanow.
‘Rayner says Labour will deliver “biggest boost to affordable housing for a generation” Labour's Deputy Leader Angela Rayner said the next Labour Government will deliver the biggest boost to affordable housing for a generation – with social and council housing at the heart of Labour's secure homes plan.’
From the Labour Party website.

Does 'biggest boost' = lots and lots more money, Casdon?

MaizieD

Does 'biggest boost' = lots and lots more money, Casdon?

What I hope it means is that they will set a target for a mixed range of solutions, publicise, and monitor to make sure it actually happens MaizieD.

People often mention that the LP will be spending "taxpayers' money". Isn't that why we pay tax? To provide the various services that are needed and in one form or another will be used by everyone.

Being a baby boomer I have lived through decades when govt loans were being paid back. I can't say that it made any difference to my standard of living. So I think that if we have a new Labour govt (I live in hope) that they should spend their way out of the long period of austerity that we are now in.

Well said, Dinahmo

I find this 'taxpayers money' nonsense deeply ironic since most of it was issued by the government in the first place...

I do think that it would be better to call it 'public money'.

Blossoming

I would really like to believe all the current Labour Party advertisements, but I can’t. I’m from a working class family and was born in a very deprived area. The allocation of a decent sized council house near a good primary school when I was very young gave me and my siblings a shove up the ladder. I have voted Labour all my life but I really can’t trust them anymore.

Same here and got to grammar school which was fantastic and the what did Labour do? Did away with most grammar schools!

Grammar schools offered a fantastic opportunity for fairly bright kids to learn languages as well as many other subjects. Most of the kids at my school, including myself came from council houses or tied cottages and had parents who either worked at unskilled jobs or on the land.

When you read memoirs of famous people many say grammar schools were the making of them.

It was madness to close them.

Did you know that comprehensives teach languages, too?

There were good reasons for getting rid of grammar schools and comprehensives can do just as well.

A bit of up to date research. Aug 2023

www.durham.ac.uk/departments/academic/education/news/grammar-school-system-does-not-boost-grades-and-could-be-detrimental-to-some--/

Dividing children by their IQ scores at age eleven was ridiculous. We now know a lot more about brain development and should have stopped that nonsense in all authorities by now.

MaizieD this research paper looks a bit thin in substance?
I know of situations where high achieving students were to an extent bullied for working too hard at comprehensive schools as it wasn’t cool. One student has just transferred to a high achieving sixth form college - they do still exist - and has had to adjust to higher expectations from other students and teachers.
For bright students who strive to get into Oxbridge, there is a requirement to work very hard at A level and I wonder if it’s a fair playing field if students are handicapped by not swimming in the same pond? Just a thought 💭