Crosswords1 min ago
Elederly To Blame For Housing Shortage?
100 Answers
http://
(Hope you get enough before the paywall limit. Couldn't find it free)
Apparently immigrants and the elderly are to blame for the housing shortage. And, adds the housing minister, the elderly are more to blame than the immigrants. That means me and AOG, for a start, and goodness knows how many other ABers.
What are we doing wrong? Is it like bed-blocking; die or be put in a secure home for us? I have four bedrooms but use only one; is that it? Do we buy second homes and leave one home empty?
What do you think?
(Hope you get enough before the paywall limit. Couldn't find it free)
Apparently immigrants and the elderly are to blame for the housing shortage. And, adds the housing minister, the elderly are more to blame than the immigrants. That means me and AOG, for a start, and goodness knows how many other ABers.
What are we doing wrong? Is it like bed-blocking; die or be put in a secure home for us? I have four bedrooms but use only one; is that it? Do we buy second homes and leave one home empty?
What do you think?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by FredPuli43. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
>So what the minister is really saying is that we've got too many people! Well, that's a shock. And nobody saw that coming.
Exactly. As I said earlier it would have been better if the minister had followed it up by saying something along the lines of:
"But even though these trends regarding longevity and immigration have been apparent for some time, successive governments- Tory, Labour, Coalition- have failed to do enough about it"
Exactly. As I said earlier it would have been better if the minister had followed it up by saying something along the lines of:
"But even though these trends regarding longevity and immigration have been apparent for some time, successive governments- Tory, Labour, Coalition- have failed to do enough about it"
i was under the impression that those who bought the council home were the tenants who were renting, as we would have been allowed to do, so how would it be possible for a council to sell those properties to anyone other than the sitting tenant. Once the tenant had bought under the right to buy scheme, you had to live in it for upwards of 5 years i believe> so how does anyone buy a whole raft of properties this way. I can't say i understand that at all.
missed off the bit about living in it for 5 years before selling it. Neighbours bought theirs years ago, then sold up and retired out of London.
They sold to a private individual who owns any number of homes, as i understand it, however the council tenant originally was allowed to sell after that set period of time. so what actually happens to the property afterwards is not down to the original tenant,
also if this is still problematic, why are the councils still selling off their portfolios. Ours as i said is London controlled, and they haven't said this should stop, in fact the Camden new journal regularly advertises for council properties to buy, you have to look at other local papers to see the same ads.
They sold to a private individual who owns any number of homes, as i understand it, however the council tenant originally was allowed to sell after that set period of time. so what actually happens to the property afterwards is not down to the original tenant,
also if this is still problematic, why are the councils still selling off their portfolios. Ours as i said is London controlled, and they haven't said this should stop, in fact the Camden new journal regularly advertises for council properties to buy, you have to look at other local papers to see the same ads.
Going back to the original article, the minister said that immigration had been uncontrolled, but about two thirds of the growth in population was due to people living longer. There are not sufficient brownfield sites to meet the need, and some are in places where people don't want to live. It is necessary to build on green sites. And there are about 260,000 unoccupied homes in this country.
It depends over how long a period you conduct your study to determine whether “…two thirds of the growth in population was due to people living longer”
If you look over a period of, say, fifty years or more it might be true. However, if you look at say, the last twenty years it most certainly is not. Leaving aside the fact that the census almost certainly understates the population considerably (and probably did so more in the latest survey than at any time previously and that the understatement is probably largely due to large numbers of immigrants failing to file a return) the UK population grew by 4m, or almost 8% between 2001 and 2011. During that same period the “White British” element of the population actually declined by 0.5m whereas other ethnicities rose by almost 5 million. Whilst it is true that some of those 5m may well be older people, it is highly unlikely that two thirds of the 4m increase is attributable to the fact that people are living longer. So methinks the minister is being a little selective with his facts. The principle cause of housing shortages in large parts of the UK is without doubt unfettered immigration for which there is no coherent policy.
Leaving that aside, it is difficult to understand the UK’s obsession with “social housing”. Among EU nations only Austria and the Netherlands have a higher proportion of social housing than the UK (which has about 20%). Denmark, Czech Republic, France, Finland and Sweden have between about 15% and 20%, but after that none have much more than 10% and six or seven countries have little or none at all. There are very few things that the State is more efficient at providing than the private sector and housing is certainly not one of them. The notion that the State should be responsible for building and maintaining huge numbers of dwellings and providing them at ridiculously subsidised rents is just plain lunacy.
It might be better of courseif, before social housing tenants bought their 42” plasma TV or the latest Jeep they were encouraged to pay a realistic rent for their property. Then older people may not have to be made to feel guilty for having a spare room.
If you look over a period of, say, fifty years or more it might be true. However, if you look at say, the last twenty years it most certainly is not. Leaving aside the fact that the census almost certainly understates the population considerably (and probably did so more in the latest survey than at any time previously and that the understatement is probably largely due to large numbers of immigrants failing to file a return) the UK population grew by 4m, or almost 8% between 2001 and 2011. During that same period the “White British” element of the population actually declined by 0.5m whereas other ethnicities rose by almost 5 million. Whilst it is true that some of those 5m may well be older people, it is highly unlikely that two thirds of the 4m increase is attributable to the fact that people are living longer. So methinks the minister is being a little selective with his facts. The principle cause of housing shortages in large parts of the UK is without doubt unfettered immigration for which there is no coherent policy.
Leaving that aside, it is difficult to understand the UK’s obsession with “social housing”. Among EU nations only Austria and the Netherlands have a higher proportion of social housing than the UK (which has about 20%). Denmark, Czech Republic, France, Finland and Sweden have between about 15% and 20%, but after that none have much more than 10% and six or seven countries have little or none at all. There are very few things that the State is more efficient at providing than the private sector and housing is certainly not one of them. The notion that the State should be responsible for building and maintaining huge numbers of dwellings and providing them at ridiculously subsidised rents is just plain lunacy.
It might be better of courseif, before social housing tenants bought their 42” plasma TV or the latest Jeep they were encouraged to pay a realistic rent for their property. Then older people may not have to be made to feel guilty for having a spare room.
fbg - we had newspapers too - but at night lit one of the newspapers to see where you were really going.
young people have never had it so good. I am only observing all the young people I know.
my own nieces and nephews - just went into one of them - his house - he is my godson - the house is breathtaking. All their orders, new kitchen and American freezer etc.
I am nervous of going a bit expensive re my wee kitchen. Oh well. Am glad to have to known the good old days - ice in the inside windows, one radio, 2 up and down house - 9 people living in it.
Da's big top coat on top of your bed. I had more clothes on getting into bed than I had when I was up.
Loved this particular jumper blue and yellow (horrendous) but soft wool - my head used to be freezing - I would go to bed with the jumper on my head and the sleeves wrapped round my chin. I done that for many years.
My friends really laugh at that but I really appreciate my home and my central heating etc.
I rambled there a bit. Conne
young people have never had it so good. I am only observing all the young people I know.
my own nieces and nephews - just went into one of them - his house - he is my godson - the house is breathtaking. All their orders, new kitchen and American freezer etc.
I am nervous of going a bit expensive re my wee kitchen. Oh well. Am glad to have to known the good old days - ice in the inside windows, one radio, 2 up and down house - 9 people living in it.
Da's big top coat on top of your bed. I had more clothes on getting into bed than I had when I was up.
Loved this particular jumper blue and yellow (horrendous) but soft wool - my head used to be freezing - I would go to bed with the jumper on my head and the sleeves wrapped round my chin. I done that for many years.
My friends really laugh at that but I really appreciate my home and my central heating etc.
I rambled there a bit. Conne
New Judge > Leaving aside the fact that the census almost certainly understates the population considerably (and probably did so more in the latest survey than at any time previously and that the understatement is probably largely due to large numbers of immigrants failing to file a return) <
lots of people who were born and bred here did not fill it in
lots of people who were born and bred here did not fill it in
“…lots of people who were born and bred here did not fill it in “
Quite true, DF, and that is why I suggested we leave that aside from the argument. However, if I could take a pound for every immigrant family (illegals included, of course) that failed to file a return but give one back for each family already here that did likewise, I reckon I’d make a few quid.
Of course I don’t have any figures to support my probability, Fred. Nobody does and thereby hangs the tale. However, if you want a few figures there are some available. It has been recently made known that there are some 63m National Insurance numbers in use. Add to that the 10 million or so children under working age and you get a figure somewhat unadjacent to the 63m souls who were said to be resident according to the 2011 census. Even accepting that 10% of the NI numbers are being used fraudulently (which is outrageous if it is true) there is still a discrepancy of about 4 million. There are certainly far more people here than official figures accept and the difference is probably (sorry to use that term again but needs must) somewhere between four and ten million (i.e. between four and ten cities the size of Birmingham).
No wonder there is a shortage of housing as there are at least 4m people here (who presumably need a home) who nobody knows about.
Quite true, DF, and that is why I suggested we leave that aside from the argument. However, if I could take a pound for every immigrant family (illegals included, of course) that failed to file a return but give one back for each family already here that did likewise, I reckon I’d make a few quid.
Of course I don’t have any figures to support my probability, Fred. Nobody does and thereby hangs the tale. However, if you want a few figures there are some available. It has been recently made known that there are some 63m National Insurance numbers in use. Add to that the 10 million or so children under working age and you get a figure somewhat unadjacent to the 63m souls who were said to be resident according to the 2011 census. Even accepting that 10% of the NI numbers are being used fraudulently (which is outrageous if it is true) there is still a discrepancy of about 4 million. There are certainly far more people here than official figures accept and the difference is probably (sorry to use that term again but needs must) somewhere between four and ten million (i.e. between four and ten cities the size of Birmingham).
No wonder there is a shortage of housing as there are at least 4m people here (who presumably need a home) who nobody knows about.
according to the interview i had with a Census officer, doing research before the census was rolled out it doesn't work, out of the mouths of it's staff,
and if anyone believed we have 60 million here suggest that add a few more millions to that, and the capital for what it's worth is and has taken the brunt of immigration, illegal or legal
and if anyone believed we have 60 million here suggest that add a few more millions to that, and the capital for what it's worth is and has taken the brunt of immigration, illegal or legal
Latest Posts
ChatterBank1 min ago
ChatterBank2 mins ago
Crosswords4 mins ago
Christmas In The Good Old Days
ChatterBank4 mins ago
News4 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.