one vision housing

[silver fox]

Surely 1 big problem here, is that when the council allowed people to buy their homes, they didn't invest the money & build more houses.
There was more council houses in Southport in the 1970's than there are now, & yet the population of southport has increased. I feel so sorry for any body starting off now, it seems almost imposible to get you foot on the 1st rung.

Just one slight correction, the government of the day wouldn't allow councils to build houses to replace those sold, the idea being the elimination of social housing and all house building to be in the hands of the private sector.

Not sure which government we had at the time but the name THATCHER rings a bell, I remember my Dad raging about this policy because as he so very rightly said, in the not too distant future getting a house to let at a fair rent will be impossible for those on low incomes.

Just shows that my Dad was a damn sight smarter than even I thought at the time.

[bambi275]

^ Erm, yep


Meant in reply to Carla but siverfox got in there before me

[ex more]

Just one slight correction, the government of the day wouldn't allow councils to build houses to replace those sold, the idea being the elimination of social housing and all house building to be in the hands of the private sector.

Not sure which government we had at the time but the name THATCHER rings a bell, I remember my Dad raging about this policy because as he so very rightly said, in the not too distant future getting a house to let at a fair rent will be impossible for those on low incomes.

Just shows that my Dad was a damn sight smarter than even I thought at the time.

Twa's Labour who did not build,they complained about the selling of council houses but when they came in to power they did not build.

[silver fox]

[/B]

I'm sure this was only allowed once, as I said earlier future generations would have to fend for themselves

I did say it was a fair while back plus I was never involved in that situation.

[silver fox]

Twa's Labour who did not build,they complained about the selling of council houses but when they came in to power they did not build.

Sorry, please check, there has been virtually no new social housing from councils or government until the urban regeneration funded and pushed by the previous government, a scheme that was promptly stopped by the present government.

Right at the outset of the "right to buy" scheme the main complaint from councils, was that they were not permitted to rebuild.

No matter how you interpret various government policies it was undoubtedly the Thatcher government which initiated the scheme, how did it go now "we are going to create a property owning democracy" sounds familiar.

Of course the Housing Associations do now undertake building of social housing.

[Topsy42]

Back to my original query. I have bid on two properties, one says Im 99th in queue and the other says pending. Wat does this mean? Is it a good sign or is it coz theres so many bidding they dont know what number I am in list?

[ex more]

Sorry, please check, there has been virtually no new social housing from councils or government until the urban regeneration funded and pushed by the previous government, a scheme that was promptly stopped by the present government.

Right at the outset of the "right to buy" scheme the main complaint from councils, was that they were not permitted to rebuild.

No matter how you interpret various government policies it was undoubtedly the Thatcher government which initiated the scheme, how did it go now "we are going to create a property owning democracy" sounds familiar.

Of course the Housing Associations do now undertake building of social housing.

But the labour government did NOTHING about reversing the policy

[ex more]

Back to my original query. I have bid on two properties, one says Im 99th in queue and the other says pending. Wat does this mean? Is it a good sign or is it coz theres so many bidding they dont know what number I am in list?

Why don't you ask Tunnel Vision they are the ones who can answer your query??

[silver fox]

But the labour government did NOTHING about reversing the policy

At the risk of sounding pompous and boring a potted history of local authority housing sales.

In the late 1960s a sales scheme was started in the Conservative controlled Greater London Council area, the instigator being a certain Mr Horace Cutler, who was extremely anti the whole idea of local authorities providing housing of any description, very much a private, free market man, who also had close contacts with a certain Margaret Thacher.

The Labour government stopped the scheme when elected in the early/mid 70s. In 1977 Tories returned to power and Cutler, by now leader of London council restarted the scheme and of course still close to Thatcher.

Next move, the Housing Act of 1980 put the right to buy into law and of course would require a further Act of Parliament to repeal. Along with this Thatcher disbarred councils from rebuilding by forcing them to use the income from sales to pay down deficits, debts and loans, with the caveat that any future building programme must be fully funded without borrowing, easy to make councils obey when they found that central government funding would be reviewed for those who did not comply.

Yes Labour opposed this up until the election of 1992 were it was perceived to be a vote loser. On winning the election of 1997 Labour now had a quandary after withdrawing opposition to the scheme could they now bring forward an Act of Parliament to repeal the right to buy when this was not in their manifesto, instead they reduced the discount terms available, increased the period of tenancy from 3 to 5 years before right to buy was allowed.

Plus they gave local authorities the right to opt out if they had a shortage of social housing, while Labour fell short of stopping the scheme they certainly produced a dramatic fall during the 1990s in the number of houses sold.

Then of course came the Housing Associations who were not subject to the same restrictions as Local Authorities and could embark on house building schemes, plus the Urban regeneration plans which aimed to clear large areas within towns and cities of substandard housing, to be replaced with new build property.

Next our current government who instantly blocked all this development to the point of leaving many Local Authorities as the proud owners of streets of derelict houses which they could no longer afford to develop, now possibly Labour should have done more, but they did a hell of a lot better than our caring, sharing, socially responsible Tories.

The same Tories whose saving plans appear to be costing us a lot of money.

[ex more]

You may find yourself back in southport before you know it.
How will the children manage to get to their school from Litherland?

[seivad]

I've just deleted several posts from this thread. It's been said many times, but worth repeating once again. What happens on Facebook, should stay on Facebook.

[sallycinnamon]

I've just deleted several posts from this thread. It's been said many times, but worth repeating once again. What happens on Facebook, should stay on Facebook.

My thoughts exactly. I know you didn't delete the posts for my benefit, but I'm still glad you did.

[sandgrounder24]

I've just deleted several posts from this thread. It's been said many times, but worth repeating once again. What happens on Facebook, should stay on Facebook.

To be fair Seivad, the issue being discussed (especially in my post) was very much a part of Q local and should not be brushed under the carpet to suit those who would rather it was left unsaid.

[sallycinnamon]

To be fair Seivad, the issue being discussed (especially in my post) was very much a part of Q local and should not be brushed under the carpet to suit those who would rather it was left unsaid.

I didn't see it, so if I'm included in that, let me know what it is was. If it didn't include me, then don't worry lol. Obviously PM me or Fb rather than put it back up again.

[seivad]

To be fair Seivad, the issue being discussed (especially in my post) was very much a part of Q local and should not be brushed under the carpet to suit those who would rather it was left unsaid.

I deleted them all, without prejudice, in the interests of harmony.

[sandgrounder24]

I deleted them all, without prejudice, in the interests of harmony.

That's fair enough, although you know as I well as I do that won't be the end of it!

[sallycinnamon]

To be honest I think it's now four times, four separate incidents, where posters on here (who I don't know) have tried to allude to knowing my name, where I live or similar and referring back to FB. Twice i found, through forwarded PMs that other posters had passed on my details to these members.

I don't know what kick people get from this, or whether they just don't realised the potential damage that can be done. I'd like to think it's a reflection of their naivety/stupidity rather than the thought that they would really be that vindictive and risk someone's safety by passing on personal details to someone bearing a grudge. After all, we've had paedophiles on here, people posting from prison and various mentally unstable characters. You can't assume because someone can type a few words on a chat forum, that they are someone you would welcome into your home.

[seivad]

That's fair enough, although you know as I well as I do that won't be the end of it!

I know!! We can but try

[seivad]

Sorry ladies........ Closing time!