|
UK should restrict residential property ownerships to British citizens only.
Previously London properties were snapped up by billionaire foreigners and now plenty of cheaper properties in North East are being snapped up by millionaire foreigners.
|
UK should restrict residential property ownerships to British citizens only.
Previously London properties were snapped up by billionaire foreigners and now plenty of cheaper properties in North East are being snapped up by millionaire foreigners.
It should be possible to deal with the 'billionaire' problem without affecting those individuals with a right to reside in the UK that is short of full citizenship. Forcing them to rent would have the perverse effect of increasing demand for rentals.
|
|
|
|
Another I can think of off the top of my head is the allowing of outsiders to buy second (or more) homes, often in touristy/seaside areas like Cornwall, which significantly reduces the availabe stock (including when used as BTL or holiday lets [not helped as most of the money then leaves the county]) drives up prices for locals, pricing many, not just first time buyers out of the market because the local jobs are poorly paid and mainly seasonal.
Lack of housing for locals in tourist hot spots due to second homes has been gradually worsening for many years. The fact that it's possible to commute to Leeds, Bradford, Sheffield or Manchester from Pennine villages is another.
The lack of housing at affordable cost for FTB's in large swathes of the country due to deposit and/or income multiples is similar but not identical. The pressure also extends to rents. A three bed in Northamptonshire's dormitory villages approaches £1000/month. The maximum payable in Universal Credit is approx. £800. The Benefit Cap takes no account of that and will bite ordinary sized families.
What happened to Social Housing? Over the years since 2008 governments could have borrowed at very low rates, easily covered by rents, and built many thousands of homes.
|
|
Since whenhas it been a duty of government to build and rent out homes?
|
Since whenhas it been a duty of government to build and rent out homes?
Since always - there should always be social house available to people.
|
|
|
Since whenhas it been a duty of government to build and rent out homes?
It is surely a duty of government to facilitate a supply of decent and affordable housing. Allowing Councils or other Social Landlords to provide is one. Proper rent controls is another.
Having a Welfare system that provides a subsistence income and then deliberately paying less than that as well as ignoring real market rents is merely the cherry on the top.
|
Since whenhas it been a duty of government to build and rent out homes?
It is surely a duty of government to facilitate a supply of decent and affordable housing. Allowing Councils or other Social Landlords to provide is one. Proper rent controls is another.
Oh dear. That's exactly the mantra of the socialist- communist manifesto. Presumably you also think that governments should produce our food, build cars and provide every other 'means of production'? That went out of fashion nearly 50 years ago, and with good reason.
Also, rent controls just restrict 'cheap' supply to certain individuals whilst increasing them to everyone else (who make up the vast majority of renters). As has been shown time and again, increased intervention in this regard just keep the poor as such, because it pays them to.
Having a Welfare system that provides a subsistence income and then deliberately paying less than that as well as ignoring real market rents is merely the cherry on the top.
You don't pay people to 'exist'. Welfare should ONLY ever be to help a person/family through a temporary period of hard times and not to permanently prop their income up. It just encourages employers to suppress wages at the bottom and, like the above, to discourage those on low incomes from bettering themselves.
Maybe you need a holiday? :-)
|
You don't pay people to 'exist'. Welfare should ONLY ever be to help a person/family through a temporary period of hard times and not to permanently prop their income up. It just encourages employers to suppress wages at the bottom and, like the above, to discourage those on low incomes from bettering themselves.
I'd agree with you about employers/wages although how you break the cycle is a conundrum.
How does helping people through temporary hard times help when the problem is lifelong?
|
You don't pay people to 'exist'. Welfare should ONLY ever be to help a person/family through a temporary period of hard times and not to permanently prop their income up. It just encourages employers to suppress wages at the bottom and, like the above, to discourage those on low incomes from bettering themselves.
I'd agree with you about employers/wages although how you break the cycle is a conundrum.
How does helping people through temporary hard times help when the problem is lifelong?
Only a tiny number of people are in that position, and yet millions are welfare dependent because the system is designed to keep them from bettering themselves, including their health.
Many people are on benefits for a large part of their life because either:
a) they make bad life choices in variety of ways;
b) poorly paid jobs are topped up by the state, thus encouraging employers not to pay better to keep staff. Minimum wage systems do not work because they encourage wage differentials and push up real inflation;
c) mass immigration (especially illegal immigration) has been proven to lower wages (relative to everyone else's and the cost of living*), particularly of the lower paid and thus the cycle only gets worse, with more people sucked into the benefit trap.
* Real inflation is has been far higher in Western countries than the headline CPI/RPI figues always indicate.
This is because both (especially CPI) including a 'basket' of goods based on the most popular (by amount spent on them), and thus are skewed towards high value items that the well-off mainly buy, such as new cars, high spec mobile phones, computer and home AV equipment, etc, wherer tech goods have until 2020 dropped significantly in price due to innovations.
Unfortunately, most people on average and lower incomes cannot afford many of these luxuries (e.g. they own a small TV rather than an 80in mega flatscreen or a £70 mobile phone rather than a £1k iPhone, etc), and thus things like food, housing and travel form a much higher percentage of they monthly outlay.
Added to the problems caused by mass immigration and rich people buying second homes/BTL, plus far less investment in poorer areas because they are run badly (high crime, councils concentrating on woke left wing policies, etc) means that many people living there (or elsewhere in poorer neighbourhoods) cannot afford to move elsewhere where the jobs and nicer housing are.
|
|
|
|
You don't pay people to 'exist'. Welfare should ONLY ever be to help a person/family through a temporary period of hard times and not to permanently prop their income up. It just encourages employers to suppress wages at the bottom and, like the above, to discourage those on low incomes from bettering themselves.
But if you don't allow any rent controls then rents continue to go up...you don't want any social housing ...people can't afford to rent a house on a low income...who would you help? Or would you not and just let them become homeless?
|
You don't pay people to 'exist'. Welfare should ONLY ever be to help a person/family through a temporary period of hard times and not to permanently prop their income up. It just encourages employers to suppress wages at the bottom and, like the above, to discourage those on low incomes from bettering themselves.
But if you don't allow any rent controls then rents continue to go up...you don't want any social housing ...people can't afford to rent a house on a low income...who would you help? Or would you not and just let them become homeless?
I suggest that you read up on rent controls first before pontificating. Wherever they've been tried, they never work. All they do is encourage people to stay poor, subsidised by those just outside the qualifying level, thus drawing more in eventually.
But that's socialism for you. Everyone except those in charge are all equally poor. All that's happening now is that it's being combined with corporatism so we just have elite million and billionairres and the Establishent elite in politics/civil services/media.
Note also how all these people have their own set of 'rules' (or lack thereof) during the pandemic. Notice also how so many of these rich elites are buying up whole swathes of housing and land over the last year? All for our benefit? I think not.
|
You don't pay people to 'exist'. Welfare should ONLY ever be to help a person/family through a temporary period of hard times and not to permanently prop their income up. It just encourages employers to suppress wages at the bottom and, like the above, to discourage those on low incomes from bettering themselves.
But if you don't allow any rent controls then rents continue to go up...you don't want any social housing ...people can't afford to rent a house on a low income...who would you help? Or would you not and just let them become homeless?
I suggest that you read up on rent controls first before pontificating. Wherever they've been tried, they never work. All they do is encourage people to stay poor, subsidised by those just outside the qualifying level, thus drawing more in eventually.
But that's socialism for you. Everyone except those in charge are all equally poor. All that's happening now is that it's being combined with corporatism so we just have elite million and billionairres and the Establishent elite in politics/civil services/media.
Note also how all these people have their own set of 'rules' (or lack thereof) during the pandemic. Notice also how so many of these rich elites are buying up whole swathes of housing and land over the last year? All for our benefit? I think not.
You didn't answer the question!
|
You don't pay people to 'exist'. Welfare should ONLY ever be to help a person/family through a temporary period of hard times and not to permanently prop their income up. It just encourages employers to suppress wages at the bottom and, like the above, to discourage those on low incomes from bettering themselves.
But if you don't allow any rent controls then rents continue to go up...you don't want any social housing ...people can't afford to rent a house on a low income...who would you help? Or would you not and just let them become homeless?
I suggest that you read up on rent controls first before pontificating. Wherever they've been tried, they never work. All they do is encourage people to stay poor, subsidised by those just outside the qualifying level, thus drawing more in eventually.
But that's socialism for you. Everyone except those in charge are all equally poor. All that's happening now is that it's being combined with corporatism so we just have elite million and billionairres and the Establishent elite in politics/civil services/media.
Note also how all these people have their own set of 'rules' (or lack thereof) during the pandemic. Notice also how so many of these rich elites are buying up whole swathes of housing and land over the last year? All for our benefit? I think not.
You didn't answer the question!
Maybe you should rad all my comments first, then you might relaise that you already have your answer.
|
Maybe you should rad all my comments first, then you might relaise that you already have your answer.
You only answered in terms of your own opinions on socialism and 'elites' although I think the way in which land is bought/sold/developed is a matter of huge concer.
I'd also add that you didn't answer my earlier question challenging you the view that Welfare should be strictly short term (though I agree it shouldn't be subsidising poverty wages).
|
You don't pay people to 'exist'. Welfare should ONLY ever be to help a person/family through a temporary period of hard times and not to permanently prop their income up. It just encourages employers to suppress wages at the bottom and, like the above, to discourage those on low incomes from bettering themselves.
But if you don't allow any rent controls then rents continue to go up...you don't want any social housing ...people can't afford to rent a house on a low income...who would you help? Or would you not and just let them become homeless?
I suggest that you read up on rent controls first before pontificating. Wherever they've been tried, they never work. All they do is encourage people to stay poor, subsidised by those just outside the qualifying level, thus drawing more in eventually.
But that's socialism for you. Everyone except those in charge are all equally poor. All that's happening now is that it's being combined with corporatism so we just have elite million and billionairres and the Establishent elite in politics/civil services/media.
Note also how all these people have their own set of 'rules' (or lack thereof) during the pandemic. Notice also how so many of these rich elites are buying up whole swathes of housing and land over the last year? All for our benefit? I think not.
You didn't answer the question!
Maybe you should rad all my comments first, then you might relaise that you already have your answer.
You would make a great politician, Andy - lots of waffle with no ideas at all and can never answer a straight question without talking about something else and throwing out a few buzz words (socialism/establishment/MSM etc) and making out the other person does not understand or has not read what you have already written.
|
You don't pay people to 'exist'. Welfare should ONLY ever be to help a person/family through a temporary period of hard times and not to permanently prop their income up. It just encourages employers to suppress wages at the bottom and, like the above, to discourage those on low incomes from bettering themselves.
But if you don't allow any rent controls then rents continue to go up...you don't want any social housing ...people can't afford to rent a house on a low income...who would you help? Or would you not and just let them become homeless?
I suggest that you read up on rent controls first before pontificating. Wherever they've been tried, they never work. All they do is encourage people to stay poor, subsidised by those just outside the qualifying level, thus drawing more in eventually.
But that's socialism for you. Everyone except those in charge are all equally poor. All that's happening now is that it's being combined with corporatism so we just have elite million and billionairres and the Establishent elite in politics/civil services/media.
Note also how all these people have their own set of 'rules' (or lack thereof) during the pandemic. Notice also how so many of these rich elites are buying up whole swathes of housing and land over the last year? All for our benefit? I think not.
You didn't answer the question!
Maybe you should rad all my comments first, then you might relaise that you already have your answer.
You would make a great politician, Andy - lots of waffle with no ideas at all and can never answer a straight question without talking about something else and throwing out a few buzz words (socialism/establishment/MSM etc) and making out the other person does not understand or has not read what you have already written.
The words pot, kettle and black spring to mind. And BTW, 'Socialism' isn't a buzzword, it's ideology lead to teh edaths of over 100M people (and counting - China, NK and Venezuela to name a few) in the last 100 years, more than both world wars added together.
That you resort to straw-manning me shows that you have nothing useful to say or answers to any of my (or others') questions. Play the ball, not the man.
|
|
|
I suggest that you read up on rent controls first before pontificating. Wherever they've been tried, they never work. All they do is encourage people to stay poor, subsidised by those just outside the qualifying level, thus drawing more in eventually.
Where do you think rent controls have 'not worked'?
Admittedly the UK system prevailing until the Assured Shorthold became universal wasn't working but that was down to a failure to keep it up to date.
A number of US cities, NY and SF for example, have controls of one form or another as do EU countries.
|
I suggest that you read up on rent controls first before pontificating. Wherever they've been tried, they never work. All they do is encourage people to stay poor, subsidised by those just outside the qualifying level, thus drawing more in eventually.
Where do you think rent controls have 'not worked'?
Admittedly the UK system prevailing until the Assured Shorthold became universal wasn't working but that was down to a failure to keep it up to date.
A number of US cities, NY and SF for example, have controls of one form or another as do EU countries.
And what 'amazing' cities they are...
Just because some places have a policy, doesn't make it a good one. In many of those areas, despite rent controls, young people still cannot get affordable accomodation, and the city councils have no more money and are heavily in debt.
Presumably you would like them to follow the World Economic Forum's (and the UN's Agenda 21/30) policies of:
"You're own nothing and be happy", "live in the pod" and "eat the bugs".
Meanwhile, large numbers of people are fleeing California (especially San Francisco) and New York (for GOP controlled Florida and Texas) because they hate the way they are governed, especially during the past year (no guessing which party is in charge), with the CA governor being recalled (well over the 2M signatures required), and the NY governor being investigated after both 'improprietary' against women and (as PHE/NHS did here) dumping tens of thousands of untested OAPs in care homes when the evidence said this was a really bad policy.
|
Meanwhile, large numbers of people are fleeing California (especially San Francisco) and New York (for GOP controlled Florida and Texas) because they hate the way they are governed, especially during the past year (no guessing which party is in charge), with the CA governor being recalled (well over the 2M signatures required), and the NY governor being investigated after both 'improprietary' against women and (as PHE/NHS did here) dumping tens of thousands of untested OAPs in care homes when the evidence said this was a really bad policy.
A good example here as to when you start talking about something totally unrelated to the subject just add to your waffle quotient.
|
And what 'amazing' cities they are...
NY is OK as a tourist and SF/LA are on my list. Frankly one could say the same about London
Just because some places have a policy, doesn't make it a good one. In many of those areas, despite rent controls, young people still cannot get affordable accommodation, and the city councils have no more money and are heavily in debt.
Rent controls should be part of government's armoury to ensure the basic right to a home is established. Other tools including Social Housing and licensing of landlords are also available.
Presumably you would like them to follow the World Economic Forum's (and the UN's Agenda 21/30) policies of:
"You're own nothing and be happy", "live in the pod" and "eat the bugs".
Not got a Scooby what that's about. Can you provide a link to something demonstrating it and why it's relevant to affordable housing in the UK.
Meanwhile, large numbers of people are fleeing California (especially San Francisco) and New York (for GOP controlled Florida and Texas) because they hate the way they are governed, especially during the past year (no guessing which party is in charge), with the CA governor being recalled (well over the 2M signatures required), and the NY governor being investigated after both 'improprietary' against women and (as PHE/NHS did here) dumping tens of thousands of untested OAPs in care homes when the evidence said this was a really bad policy.
The stuff above has diddly to do with the UK housing market. Given that the GOP is in the image of a man who thinks 'Grab em by the Pussy' is OK either as an approach or linguistically you might want to keep out of 'Whatboutery' around allegations of misconduct with women.
Moving out of big cities when you can is par for the course; I live in Northants because it was nicer than places inside the M25. And before you even consider raising the Labour Mayorality in London I left long before the post was created.
Edited by Bromptonaut on 16/06/2021 at 09:31
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Since whenhas it been a duty of government to build and rent out homes?
Since 1919:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_house
|
Since whenhas it been a duty of government to build and rent out homes?
Since 1919:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_house
100 years? Wooo! And I don't see it enshrined 'in law' or part of some 'moral code' Brits all aspire to.
And what a great era to start at - the beginnings of the effects of communism. A great way to keep the little man in his place. Far better to put the money into better education for all and enact laws raising standards for housing so that people can do better.
Government should be a safety net when in hard/dangerous times, not to provide for people generally. For those who want that, I suggest you read up about the failures of every 'go' at communism and hardline socialism. Either that or move to the few communist countries left. I would say send us a postcard, but I suspect it wouldn't be allowed once you find out what the realities are in those nations.
Capitalism may be flawed, but it's the only system that doesn't end up with a failed society and much worse.
|
|
What is wrecking the housing market is very few affordable houses are being built to allow people renting to move on and mortgage an affordable property. Councils try to manipulate this in the planning office making the developer build X affordable homes and free playgrounds etc but too many £300k plus houses are being built. house builders also hang on to so called banks of land which again slows down building and increases demand and their profit
The sell off of council house in the "right to buy" at large discounts has left many councils with real problems in affordable houses and here again councils have "sold off" their whole stocks of property to management companies. With business moving out of towns and increasing numbers of shops lying empty perhaps these can be turned in accommodation
As to the whole picture of how we live well we ARE all controlled by government no matter what you want to call the politics
|
|
House price inflation fuelled by easy credit.
When someone approaches bank for borrowing against a house, the bank does not have to have the money in its chest.
If the house costs £100k, bank creates a digital entry of £100k in their account against the house as a collateral.
As long as the bank is confident that if the borrower defaults and bank can recover more than what they lent by repossessing (and selling) the house, the bank has nothing to lose.
There is a limit on how much money bank can create like this from thin air (fractional reserve system) but in reality it is like unlimited money from a money tree.
If our monetary policy followed gold standards, then house price would not have inflated like this.
While we do have a problem with over population and not enough houses, people can only buy because they can get easy credit from banks. Only a small number of people buy houses with cash.
|
|
|
What is wrecking the housing market is very few affordable houses are being built to allow people renting to move on and mortgage an affordable property.
That's a difficult one. Affordable means below the open market price. How do you keep those homes in a local market and stop the owners selling them on after n years?
It's been tried in the past using Planning Agreements enforceable/amendable as though they were restrictive covenants. I don't think it was successful.
|
|
"""That's a difficult one. Affordable means below the open market price. How do you keep those homes in a local market and stop the owners selling them on after n years? """
Affordable in my meaning is building houses in the lowest bracket say £100k to £300k If these were being built in sufficient numbers then people could afford to move out of rented and get their foot on the ownership ladder. There is a big shortage of houses going on the market particularly in the lower bracket and all Sunak's purchase tax relief has done is put money in the pockets of the rich. The price of land directly affects the profit margins of the builder and what they want to build. Post war large council estates were built at affordable rents all over the country and there is no sign of this policy returning.
|
"""That's a difficult one. Affordable means below the open market price. How do you keep those homes in a local market and stop the owners selling them on after n years? """
Affordable in my meaning is building houses in the lowest bracket say £100k to £300k If these were being built in sufficient numbers then people could afford to move out of rented and get their foot on the ownership ladder. There is a big shortage of houses going on the market particularly in the lower bracket and all Sunak's purchase tax relief has done is put money in the pockets of the rich. The price of land directly affects the profit margins of the builder and what they want to build. Post war large council estates were built at affordable rents all over the country and there is no sign of this policy returning.
According to a family member living in Newquay, the business he works for can not get staff because there is no accommodation available.
Average house prices are now £400,000, owners of B and B's are selling these to affluent Londoners as second homes, so fewer B and B's and hotels are all booked up with staycationers.
|
"""That's a difficult one. Affordable means below the open market price. How do you keep those homes in a local market and stop the owners selling them on after n years? """
Affordable in my meaning is building houses in the lowest bracket say £100k to £300k If these were being built in sufficient numbers then people could afford to move out of rented and get their foot on the ownership ladder. There is a big shortage of houses going on the market particularly in the lower bracket and all Sunak's purchase tax relief has done is put money in the pockets of the rich. The price of land directly affects the profit margins of the builder and what they want to build. Post war large council estates were built at affordable rents all over the country and there is no sign of this policy returning.
According to a family member living in Newquay, the business he works for can not get staff because there is no accommodation available.
Average house prices are now £400,000, owners of B and B's are selling these to affluent Londoners as second homes, so fewer B and B's and hotels are all booked up with staycationers.
Exactly (and the issue was covered in that 2-part BBC documentary I spoke of before). Locals cannot afford to live or work in these areas, which further excerbates the problem by making Cornwall even more dependent on seasonal tourism.
In a similar vein, a relatively modest-priced holiday village I've been going to over the last 15+ years has now demolished all the smaller, cheaper accommodation (which just needed a bit of fixing up [they were 20 years old]) with larger, very upmarket ones, and are now charging 2-3x the price per week. This had already begun before the pandemic started, but they actually have accelerated the programme during 2020.
This sort of thing is happening in many UK popular tourist areas, which means that they are now getting rapidly to be the plaything of the rich, but just between May and September.
|
|
What is wrecking the housing market is very few affordable houses are being built to allow people renting to move on and mortgage an affordable property.
That's a difficult one. Affordable means below the open market price. How do you keep those homes in a local market and stop the owners selling them on after n years?
It's been tried in the past using Planning Agreements enforceable/amendable as though they were restrictive covenants. I don't think it was successful.
'Affordable' doesn't mean what you and your fellow left-leaning travellers think it does. I don't mean 'right to buy' or using 'shared ownership' schemes, the former just makes a few richer and the latter means it stops social mobility because you can then only move to another property using the exact scheme, because you can't afford a full-rpice home. These sorts of systems distort the market.
I means an end to land banking, significant changes to stop outsiders buying up second (or third) homes for rent as holiday properties at sky-high prices whilst contributing very little (and often taking money out of) to the local economy.
It also means not importing several hundred thousand new people into this country each year, who then have to be housed, thus driving up costs further and meaning more agricultural land and countriside has to be dug up to accomodate them, further increasing our (expensive) dependence on food imports and reducing exports, as well as reducing jobs in local industries, especially farming.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rent control came in during WWI because private landlords had jacked up rents and were evicting families who could not pay because the husband was away fighting and earning a private's wages instead of the much better pay he had as a civilian. The result of rent control was the private landlords sold up when ever they could and no one invested in buy to rent. There was a great shortage of private rentals as a result. Getting a mortgage was difficult and banks were reluctant to lend to working class families. This meant a great pressure on councils to provide public housing and long waiting lists. My parents went onto the waiting list when they married in 1945 and got to the top of it in 1990s! By that time they had managed to get a flat through family connections but this was unusual. When I went to Australia in 1970 I couldn't believe how easy it was to get a private rental on a house or flat. Mind you it is no longer like that.
|
|
I may have missed it, but no-one seems to have mentioned hoarding. No-one needs more than two or three houses. If people and property 'companies' were forbidden to own more than five houses and forced to sell/auction their excess by the end of the year, the price of houses would drop like stone back to what I remember them to be fifty years ago when I bought my first house. In those days a fairly decent provincial town/city terraced house cost far fewer years of average income than it does now, and rent controls were in place until the Housing Act of 1980 created a fertile environment for a new generation of Rackmans.
In my town I have known a house sold to such a hoarder without them even bothering to view it. Sadly, there is a widespread view that such landlords provide a valuable service.....but they actually produce nothing and serve no-one but themselves (and I write as a buy-to-let landlord with a tiny portfolio of one small house which over the years has made far more money than it actually cost). Thanks to our laissez faire society, buy-to-let landlordism became probably the easiest and most brainless way in which one could 'make money'. The only training required was a few games of Monopoly and the mathematical competence of a twelve year old.
|
I may have missed it, but no-one seems to have mentioned hoarding. No-one needs more than two or three houses. If people and property 'companies' were forbidden to own more than five houses and forced to sell/auction their excess by the end of the year, the price of houses would drop like stone back to what I remember them to be fifty years ago when I bought my first house.
Try telling that one to a bunch of ordinary, somewhat younger folk who own their own houses with large mortgages. I suggest you keep your back to the wall while they tell you about the delights of being trapped in negative equity.
|
.... If people and property 'companies' were forbidden to own more than five houses and forced to sell/auction their excess by the end of the year, the price of houses would drop like stone back to what I remember them to be fifty years ago when I bought my first house.
Try telling that one to a bunch of ordinary, somewhat younger folk who own their own houses with large mortgages. I suggest you keep your back to the wall while they tell you about the delights of being trapped in negative equity.
Obv my suggestion is completely unacceptable in the short term, but without rent controls how else can rampant property inflation be halted when it is so simple for horders to cheaply borrow easily available money and roll over profits to both avoid tax and buy more property? Hardly surprising some housebuilder shares are 10x what they were after the crash of 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
If you were to look at the post I was responding to, it had the following sentence. "Over the years since 2008 governments could have borrowed at very low rates, easily covered by rents, and built many thousands of homes."
This is clearly referring to central government and I doubt central government has built a single social housing home in the last 100 years.
|
This is clearly referring to central government and I doubt central government has built a single social housing home in the last 100 years.
Local Government could also borrow or issue bonds. Alternatively Central Government can borrow and fund Social Housing provision by Councils, the Arms Length organisations that now manage Council Housing or via Housing Associations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
