S14 - Statement of Intent from the Home Department - Housing Watch

This discussion is closed.
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#41
Report 2 years ago
#41
(Original post by Tommy1boy)
I just think we could find the money elsewhere :P
We did look down the back of the proverbial sofa, trust me. That's why this is so late coming out.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#42
Report 2 years ago
#42
(Original post by Saracen's Fez)
We did look down the back of the proverbial sofa, trust me. That's why this is so late coming out.
Before the budget was the time to look down the back of the sofa, you know, so you could put these things in the budget.
0
Wellzi
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#43
Report 2 years ago
#43
Aye
0
username1450924
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#44
Report 2 years ago
#44
All I am saying is if this was not a rush job, the money would have been found elsewhere and it would have been in the budget.
1
username1524603
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#45
Report 2 years ago
#45
(Original post by Tommy1boy)
All I am saying is if this was not a rush job, the money would have been found elsewhere and it would have been in the budget.
I agree but your comment rests on the assumption the government is competent; the government is financially illiterate.
0
username1450924
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#46
Report 2 years ago
#46
(Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
I agree but your comment rests on the assumption the government is competent; the government is financially illiterate.
Well yes maybe I should have taken that in to account.
0
Lime-man
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#47
Report 2 years ago
#47
(Original post by PetrosAC)
I've honestly been trying to work out a way of raising the money otherwise but I couldn't.
Could have sold them all to housing associations for say, half what you paid, meaning that the cost is only £50bn and people still benefit from cheap rents and more housing stock. However, that would mean the revenues going to the housing associations rather than being used to pay off the interest repayments on the GILTS
0
Lime-man
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#48
Report 2 years ago
#48
(Original post by Quamquam123)
I recognise the need for housing but I simply do not think building as many houses as possible is the solution. Building on flood-prone land and building so many houses that two towns are joined up is just wrong. I'm afraid I am against this statement.
Net immigration is higher than 100,000 per year, are you suggesting that we have an infinite supply of housing?
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#49
Report 2 years ago
#49
(Original post by Lime-man)
Net immigration is higher than 100,000 per year, are you suggesting that we have an infinite supply of housing?
Housing is not on a 1 inhabitant per house basis

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
Quamquam123
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#50
Report 2 years ago
#50
(Original post by Lime-man)
Net immigration is higher than 100,000 per year, are you suggesting that we have an infinite supply of housing?
No, I'm just saying that I don't think constantly building houses is the solution to the problem.
0
Lime-man
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#51
Report 2 years ago
#51
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Housing is not on a 1 inhabitant per house basis

Posted from TSR Mobile
I wasn't suggesting it was, however, if we look at how many people are currently homeless, how many people are paying exhorbitant rents, how many people who are still living with their parents well into their twenties, then we look at 300,000+ people coming here from around the world, 100,000 council homes per year should be the absolute minimum and I welcome Rakas21's plans to have 1m by 2025.
0
Lime-man
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#52
Report 2 years ago
#52
(Original post by Quamquam123)
No, I'm just saying that I don't think constantly building houses is the solution to the problem.
It's either that, limit immigration or begin culling parts of the population (which I don't mind, as long as it's parts of the population north of Hertfordshire).
0
Quamquam123
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#53
Report 2 years ago
#53
(Original post by Lime-man)
It's either that, limit immigration or begin culling parts of the population (which I don't mind, as long as it's parts of the population north of Hertfordshire).
I think that we should limit immigration, not by too much, but enough to make sure the housing crisis does not spiral out of control. If we leave the EU, we would have to accept fewer immigrants.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#54
Report 2 years ago
#54
(Original post by Lime-man)
I wasn't suggesting it was, however, if we look at how many people are currently homeless, how many people are paying exhorbitant rents, how many people who are still living with their parents well into their twenties, then we look at 300,000+ people coming here from around the world, 100,000 council homes per year should be the absolute minimum and I welcome Rakas21's plans to have 1m by 2025.
It's probably worth noting that most of the homeless could already be housed with a more pro-active government that moved them elsewhere (their main barrier is a combination of lifestyle and lack of address outside London) but yeah, we need about 300,000 homes built per year and the private sector struggles to build more than about 200,000 given current planning constraints and NIMBY power.
0
Lime-man
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#55
Report 2 years ago
#55
(Original post by Quamquam123)
I think that we should limit immigration, not by too much, but enough to make sure the housing crisis does not spiral out of control. If we leave the EU, we would have to accept fewer immigrants.
Not actually true.

Even if we limit immigration to say 100,000 (a reasonable amount), with population growth, house prices inflating and wages not growing fast enough 100,000 homes a year is still the bare minimum.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#56
Report 2 years ago
#56
(Original post by Quamquam123)
I think that we should limit immigration, not by too much, but enough to make sure the housing crisis does not spiral out of control. If we leave the EU, we would have to accept fewer immigrants.
We would be able to accept fewer, but we probably wouldn't

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
toronto353
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#57
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#57
Since the last post in this debate was four days ago, I am closing the debate early. As not enough time remains for division, this item has been automatically withdrawn and so the measures within this SOI should be considered passed by the House.
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Are you chained to your phone?

Yes (108)
19.78%
Yes, but I'm trying to cut back (222)
40.66%
Nope, not that interesting (216)
39.56%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed