I don't know what happens in England these days but in Scotland any new build development over a certain number of units have to put 16% aside foe social housing. I'd do away with that and make 50% of all new builds set aside for social housing. It's easily enforced I should think. Instead of capping housing benefit, which the Tories have done. Cap the rents that landlords can charge based on the market value of the property. This means slum landlords can't charge extortionate rents that the benefits system pays most of and the poorest in our society take the hit on. Pretty simple really.
I favour schemes that have minimal governance and bureaucracy. The rules on social housing in the UK vary. There are also various options for grant funding to assist buyers. These tend to help smooth a planning application through, but I'm not sure how it is controlled after that. They tend to be more aimed at supporting the housing market than improving social housing. I'd favour Councils building and maintaining more social housing, but that would need changes to the right to buy scheme to keep them available. Second homes are also something I think could be looked at, as they tend to end up pricing out locals, particularly in rural areas. I think a rent cap could be costly to manage, as it won't really be as simple as basing it on the rateable value. I think more council housing would affect supply and demand to make higher private rents harder to fill, especially if it was linked to a stiffer regime on rented housing standards. Making housing benefits conditional on the property being certified as achieving a certain standard, which needs renewing regularly, and can be revoked if standards fall could be one way of controlling that and ensuring the benefit payment benefits the tenant over the landlord's profit.
Councils have what is called " Deemed consent". In effect that can give themselves planning permission wherever they like. There is absolutely no reason that they couldn't CPO land in villages. A couple of acres is sufficient for twenty houses. Paying double value to earners would compensate, say £20k per acre. It costs about £150k to build a three bed so for around £5k p.a. Interest councils could build small estates for rent and about £400 a month would cover it. These houses would be low energy as built to current insulation standards. It seems win/win. Of course the NIMBYS would kick off, but I say feck em.
There are quite a few problems with that, including the Council's having that sort of money, appropriate land being available, and planning rules not being quite as you describe. Locally, the Council work in partnership with builders to redevelop existing areas of poor housing to replace them with modern housing, and include social housing and grant supported purchases. It works to an extent, but the better ones can still end up in private hands rather than be available, and it has a knock on effect on house prices in the area.
I vote Labour because Tories are lower than vermin. Anyone who voted Tory at the last election is a stupid ****, and should be made to wear a **** Hat and **** Shoes whenever they go out in public, so the rest of us can pelt them with dogshit. What’s hard to understand about any of that?
You need to explain how planning isn't like that. I was vice chair of a Rural Areas Plannng Committee for some years. Councils would be allowed to borrow were it not for government restrictions. Appropriate land doesn't need to be available CPO rules allow it to be bought regardless. Councils working with builders leads to scams and bribery. I've seen it happen.
For a start, they can't just give themselves planning permission wherever they like. It still needs to comply with current laws and local plans and policies, and is subject to consultation and challenge, the same as any other application. CPO's are also subject to consultation and challenge, and need to demonstrate that they meet the appropriate criteria. Council's are currently allowed to borrow, but it needs to be done in a sensible way, and they need to demonstrate the ability to pay it back. Currently, most Authorities are borrowing simply to stay afloat.
None of these things are insurmountable fir a government that had the welfare of the population at heart. In my village semi detached houses are for rent at £1350 a month. For someone on the minimum wage that is more than their take home pay. Any obstacles to such a radical housing plan could get addressed by legislation changes. Don't you know that now we are not in the EU we can do anything we want?
It's good to see that you acknowledge the reality of what I posted in response to your claims. As for changes needed, that's what people are discussing.
What was the alternative: Comrade 'Jew hating' Corbyn who offered up the most incredulous manifesto ever? Diane Abacus and her 'Magic Mung Beans'? Barry Gardiner and his ties to China? Labour were a laughing stock back then and continue to be so. A shambolic mess of utter buffoons.