Why can't the government divert HS2 money to a social house building programme ??? | Discuss

Welcome to the Property Forum where we can share our knowledge & experiences together to become better at what we do.

 Forum Terms & Conditions


Page not looking right? Please CLICK HERE to RELOAD

Enlarge/Change font size here

A A A

Please consider registering
guest

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —





 

— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_Related Related Topics sp_TopicIcon
Why can't the government divert HS2 money to a social house building programme ???
06/01/2017
10:18 am
KimmyC
Guest
Guests

I wanted to share this letter from the Yorkshire Post with you all:

From: Dr Glyn Powell, Bakersfield Drive, Kellington.

WITH rapidly rising numbers of homelessness, Britain faces a catastrophic housing crisis. This Government is currently responsible for a ridiculously low level of new houses, with almost all being built for purchase.

What is needed is houses built by local councils for rent. Without action in this direction, the nation will face housing exploitation that will make the horrors of the 1950s and 60s Rachmanism pale into insignificance.

Due to people being unable to buy a house, many are compelled to rent in the private sector where most rents are extortionate. Furthermore, tenancy agreements are harsh and the condition of many rented properties leaves much to be desired.

There is an obvious need to redress these imbalances in the private rented sector by the introduction of fair rent tenancy agreements. However, I would be surprised if a Tory government introduced such legislation.

Instead of wasting billions on projects like HS2, this Government should divert the money to pay for a massive social house building programme.

When we finally leave the EU, there will be less pressure to house migrants from eastern Europe. Indeed, the policy of any decent government should always be to house indigenous homeless Britons before any EU migrants.

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk.....-1-8313167

Whilst I don't necessarily agree that tenancy agreements are harsh or that we need fair rent agreements, he makes a good point about HS2 don't you think?.....................

08/01/2017
12:21 pm
David Price
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 1641
Member Since:
12/10/2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Landlords should use the government specified tenancy agreement - all 50 pages - then there would be no room for any criticism https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/model-agreement-for-a-shorthold-assured-tenancy.

Saying private rents are extortionate is a sweeping generalisation, where is the justification for such a statement?  In view of Section 24, "we aint seen nothing yet", rents will dramatically increase over the next four years.Cry

And leave HS2 alone, businessmen need a journey that is half an hour shorter even if it does break the government bank and devalue property on the route.Smile

If money is to be spent on railways then it would be better to reinstate some (not all) of the Beeching closures and sometime build new modest infrastructure to facilitate journeys.  London to Brighton via Uckfield springs to mind as does the old north Dartmoor route.

09/01/2017
2:08 am
PaulBarrett
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2891
Member Since:
12/10/2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Yep rail is the new roads!!

The problem is rail cannot be operated for a profit

But what it can do as part of strategic transport infrastructure is to ensure a near universal service to the UK for movement if people and goods.

There are now many parts of the country which used to be served by rail that were done away with by Beeching

At the time everyone was was enamoured with the car

Anyone could have seen that the car was a roadway to hell.

Only rail can provide for the efficient movement of people and goods.

For that to happen we need NATIONALiSATION!!

The branch lines and old routes need to he reopened and the public needs to accept that an effective railway will need subsidy by the taxpayer.

This is what Germany and France do.

Indeed so effective and efficient is the the German state railway that they are operating some of our railways

So it it OK for for another country's nationalised rail industry to run our raikways , but not for our Govt to run our railways

The only reason the railways lost out in the Beeching cuts is they were forced to provide a universal service which the new transport firms did not have to do..

Consequently they were able to undercut the railways..

The railways should be nationalised and massively expanded to become the predominate way mist people travel

Fares need to be substantially reduced with the taxpayer making up the shortfall

An effective railway is vital for the good of the nation.

This requires state subsidy.

With cheaper fares there would not need to be the same concentration of people with the subsequent increased housing costs.

The UK needs to dilute it's population and workplaces and facilitate that by a cheap, for the traveller, and effective rail infrastructure like they have in Germany and France.

Also one comprehensive and easy to understand ticketing system.

Introduce a workman's ticket like there used to be in the 30's

Encourage or force the feckless off benefits and into work with subsidised fares.

Cancel HS2 and just upgrade existing services etc.

Very few average workers will be able to afford HS2 tickets.

It will just be a businessman's luxury express.

This we don't need

We need mass cheap and affordable railways.

I would far rather my taxes were spent on subsidising the railways than the billions paid in welfare to keep the feckless on their sofas keeping up Jeremy Kykes viewing figures!!

So yes bring back the railways ore Beeching and revitalise dead areas of the UK.

09/01/2017
10:43 am
orchardproperties
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 6
Member Since:
19/09/2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Would make more sense than spending billions just to save 6 minutes on a train journey.

09/01/2017
10:43 am
Paul Routledge
Admin
Forum Posts: 3415
Member Since:
20/05/2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Because without it, it would make politicians traveling from the north to Westminster late for lunch Cool

09/01/2017
6:42 pm
David Price
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 1641
Member Since:
12/10/2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Paul Routledge said
Because without it, it would make politicians travelling from the north to Westminster late for lunch Cool

You missed out the word 'subsidised' Paul.

Forum Timezone: Europe/London

Most Users Ever Online: 755

Currently Online: Phil Wheeler
63 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

PaulBarrett: 2891

Mary Latham: 2190

LyndonBaker: 1805

David Price: 1641

Patricia A: 986

DATA CONTROL: 967

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 2532

Members: 6288

Moderators: 6

Admins: 1

Forum Stats:

Groups: 1

Forums: 3

Topics: 4447

Posts: 30925

Newest Members:

misty321, bertiefixit, foxxy, asland, alastair, 01foxh

Moderators: SamiiB: 440, News @ Tenant Referencing: 1569, laura: 15, Chloe: 107, lucybarr: 0, jaswhite: 20

Administrators: Paul Routledge: 3415

/* ]]> */