Right To Buy HA legal challenge

[Cyclone]

Estimated at around a million for the UK for WW1, which would be about 2% of the population! Twice as many as WW2.

[harvey19]

A couple of points.

Because of deaths in the world wars less people needed housing(Cyclone quotes the percentages above).

Due to people dying at an earlier age people needed housing for a shorter period of time.

Reducing immigration would mean less people need housing.

[loraward]

A couple of points.

Because of deaths in the world wars less people needed housing

 

But there were 2 million fewer houses after the war and only 450,000 people were killed.

[harvey19]

But there were 2 million fewer houses after the war and only 450,000 people were killed.

 

I am trying to clarify a point that people killed in wars do not need to be housed therefore reducing the demand for housing.

Also they do not produce further generations that would need housing.

Edited May 29, 2015 by harvey19

[loraward]

I am trying to clarify a point that people killed in wars do not need to be housed therefore reducing the demand for housing.

 

Its just not a very good analogy because wars usually result in damage to property, and in WW2 more people lost their houses than their lives.

 

I don't disagree that cutting immigration will result in lower demand for housing.

[Bigthumb]

I agree, its also worth noting that housing associations build houses using government/tax payers money.

 

Ministers today (24 July, 2013) announced a multi-million pound boost to build thousands of new affordable homes across the country.

 

Sixty-nine different housing associations and developers will each receive a share of £220 million to deliver almost 14,000 new affordable homes outside London.

 

I suppose it also depends on what we want from housing associations. This certainly isn't black & white.

A housing charity buys a couple of acres of land and builds 100 town houses on it. The cost would be around £5 million. But as a charity the housing association can obtain grants, donations and VAT rebates. The housing stock even around here would have a value of at least £10,000,000.

 

Letting out 100 town house for 3 years at £400/month/house would bring in £,1440,000. So at the end of 3 years the association has rather a large assett on its hands. Forgetting rebates and grants. Selling 100 houses at 70% of market value (£70K each) would bring in more than enough revenue to build another 100 houses to replace the ones sold. That is the difference between charitable building and Wimpey housing.

[Cyclone]

I am trying to clarify a point that people killed in wars do not need to be housed therefore reducing the demand for housing.

Also they do not produce further generations that would need housing.

 

If more houses are bombed than people are killed, then the overall demand for housing has gone up.

 

---------- Post added 29-05-2015 at 10:02 ----------

 

 

I don't disagree that cutting immigration will result in lower demand for housing.

 

It will stop the demand increasing anymore.

It won't reduce demand though.

 

And of course lowered immigration is not zero immigration, so it will mean that the rate demand is increasing decreases, but demand will still be rising.

[harvey19]

If more houses are bombed than people are killed, then the overall demand for housing has gone up.

 

---------- Post added 29-05-2015 at 10:02 ----------

 

 

It will stop the demand increasing anymore.

It won't reduce demand though.

 

And of course lowered immigration is not zero immigration, so it will mean that the rate demand is increasing decreases, but demand will still be rising.

 

Replacing bombed houses is just returning to the initial number.

People not returning home means a need of less homes.

 

Less immigration means less people plus their future families requiring homes.

 

In my initial post I stated that an increase in the population and reduced house building was the cause of the problem.

[Cyclone]

The fact is that 500k people died, but 2 million houses disappeared. The immediate effect of that is to reduce supply by more than demand, thus the situation was made worse.

 

Less immigration means less growth in population. Not less population.

[harvey19]

The fact is that 500k people died, but 2 million houses disappeared. The immediate effect of that is to reduce supply by more than demand, thus the situation was made worse.

 

Less immigration means less growth in population. Not less population.

 

After returning the housing stock to the pre war level there were still less people requiring housing due to them being killed in the war and subsequently not producing families.

 

I think we are talking at cross purposes but mean the same thing.

Less immigration as you say means less growth in the population, I am wording it as less population(overall). Which is why I stated the problem was partly caused by an increase in the population.