Anyone watch George Clarke's Council House Scandal?

[cardamoncoffee]

And what are your thoughts? I would love to see more affordable social housing but not sure that 'homes for life' are the solution. The man in the programme who ended up becoming homeless because his eldest 2 dc moved out (I assume bedroom tax made the too large house unaffordable?) shows that homes for life do not work in the sense that houses are not being overturned in the way that would be needed.

The Austrian council housing looked amazing but I wonder if social housing operates there on the principle that it does in the UK, ie on a priority of needs? Again the Dawson Heights estate in Dulwich looks great, does anyone live there? Again I wonder if most homes are privately owned?

Also to add I do wonder if George Clarke would be recommending the abolition of RTB if his mother had not bought hers.

I've not seen the show. But I think that social housing should be "what you need, for as long as you need".

A single man does not need a 3 bed house. He needs a home, yes, but it is inappropriate to over occupy just because you've been there x amount of years.

I moved on from my starter home so another young couple could step and make their memories there. I'm now in a 4 bed home. When the time comes, I will look for something which suits dh and I as a couple with no dependents.

I own my home, but I think it's only fair to pass on the opportunities to those coming up behind you.

I don't like the idea of two people rattling around in a 4/5 bed house (whether they own it or not) for the rest of their days. It's greed.

longer thread in telly addicts.

Oh thanks Helena, I did a search before starting the thread but obviously missed it. Will head over now.

I thought he was over simplifying the issue, and making completely unfair comparisons with the situation after the war, when thousands of council houses were built.
He didn’t mention that
a) land was massively cheaper then, b) some of those council houses were jerry built prefabs or cheap high rises with poor insulation and damp problems and
c) the population growth in London and the SE means that there is much greater housing pressure on a shrinking supply of available land.
I dare say a council in the 1950’s could easily afford to slap up a few housing estates - but now it’s prohibitively expensive.

I agree Babdoc, its apples and pears. Come over and join the telly addicts thread please

My councils idea was to house a married couple with 7 children in a 3 bed house saying the dining room can be a bedroom. Fine BUT the living room and kitchen were so small there was no space for a dining table! They apparently don’t have any spare proper four bedders. Five children were under 7 when they moved in. One child on health grounds had to have his own room so that leaves 6 (including an eight year old boy sharing with girls) in a double and single bedroom. The family themselves paid to knock the kitchen into the old coal hole to squeeze a small table in so the youngest can eat at a table. No judgemental comments please - he works full time and they aren’t eligible for any benefits except child benefit even though his income isn’t great. They can afford council rents but never private rental. So lucky George and his family having a four bedder for 4 kids. I’m sure our council reckoned it was fine as the oldest girl would probably leave home within 5 years (or not) Problem solved! The oldest boy will NEVER live independently but soon the youngest boy on age grounds will have to be separated from the girls too. The council won’t extend the house even though others in the same street, bought from the council, have.

My parents are "rattling around" in a large four bed house Bernadette they own it ,it's an ideal family home loads of space ,two bathrooms,large Garden ,it's in a very nice village in the Northwest of England ,the problem is that even be f they did try and sell it ,it's worth so much most ordinary familys couldn't afford to buy it apparently the whole road is full of pensioners , as the homes that were originally built for family's have out priced families.

A single man does not need a 3 bed house. He needs a home, yes, but it is inappropriate to over occupy just because you've been there x amount of years.

I agree but, the trouble is in previous town planning, streets are never a mix of 1,2,3,4 bed houses, flats, bungalows. So when people need to move, they end up moving out of their community at a time when they need the security of that community. Also memories are tied up in property. If you've lived somewhere for 40 years, and your neighbours are round you, it a wrench to have to move half way across town. When you start to get dementia, you need familiarity.

But broadly I agree, properties should suit need. Social housing should be treated like any other benefit, issued according to need, and adapted when the time comes.

Build stuff people want to downsize into. WHere are all the maisonettes of the 50’s and 60’s?
Back gardens that suit small families and pensioners. You can have / keep a pet, you have your own front door.
Build things people want to downsize into and a large number will. You also have that issue now of boomerang (adult) kids coming back so some hold onto them for that.

I DO genuinely believe if the council were able to build new homes (not developers with this crappy 20% affordable malarky on huge sprawling estates) but proper council homes, that it would go a long way to solving the housing crisis. There’s no way housing benefit should be going to private pockets, not with the instability of renting either.

I'm sorry but nobody needs to have seven children. You have to face up to the consequences of your decisions at some point.

I was reading up about social housing in Austria , which like UK works on a needs-be priority basis according to income and other social factors. Unlike the UK there is an ongoing commitment to ensure that around 25% of housing will remain 'public'. There are concerns however that even at 25% this will not adequately house those that need it in the future.

I work with families in crisis and although housing isn't my remit per se I come across it a lot. I will say that there needs to be more of a push for personal responsibilization; so many people believe it is their right to live the way they want and it is the state's duty to facilitate it. Family size is one key issue: having a 2 bed house and going on to have 5 dc (therefore overcrowding) and feeling extremely hard done by that they will not be given a 4 bed home for the next few years. Families then blame the state for their dc's poor mental health, deprivation, squalor etc etc. Academically we were always contrasted with the Scandanavian model, where personal responsibility levels are high and this is believed to lead to less social problems in the long run.

Most of you in this stream should stick to the jam making. You clearly have no understanding of the situation that affects so many people who can not afford to buy a home or even rent on the open market. They are the kind of people who are probably your cleaners and au pairs and others who look after you as you rattle around in your too big homes.

For the record, the price of land is only so much more expensive then it used to be because developers force it up by bribing those who own land without planning permission, they receive a premium far above what the land is worth because the developer knows that they will make even more once they have persuaded a few useless councillors to agree the grant the permission that makes the land so valuable. Also for the record, council housing is not a benefit it is a housing option. Council tenants pay rent.

Also for the record, no one needs to have any children, its personal choice and those that make it should be aware that, even if they have one , they probably take more out of the system in terms of the childs education and health care than a single man looking for a home as an alternative to living on the street ever will. So stop being so self satisfied and take a look at the real world and a look in the mirror before you start saying whats right and wrong for anyone else.

I firmly believe that as part of sex education there should be information about the extra costs involved with children, including housing. The issue is that too many people think they should be handed housing to reflect whatever sized family they feel like having. There is an article in the Manchester Evening News tonight about a woman with three children in a two bed, who whilst waiting for a bigger property now has five children in the two bed. It is not pleasant for people to hear but it is so, so selfish and irresponsible to keep having children that you cannot afford, particularly when you can’t adequately house the children you already have.

Sorry but I do agree. I work, have two children, often wonder if we should of had another child but we only have a 3 bed house (owned).
But can't afford another bigger house or the expenses that come with more children as on food, clothing etc.

I am from a council house. Gps, parents, 2 sets of aunties and uncles and 2 children (8 adults and 2 children) living in an un plastered, (pointing fell out so you could see outside and you had to mush newspaper up to seal the holes) single skin council house with no bathroom and an outside toilet in Northern England (part of the slum clearance area in the 60s. That is the house we got given

I watched a bit of it and I don't think he quite grasped the difference between Austria and the uk.

It actually annoyed me just the bit I saw.

Normally like George Clark but I think it did come over as quite sanctimonious.

Can't comment on the bit I didn't see but my blood pressure was through the roof on showing the Austrian family in their council flat.

2 bed 1 boxroom council house

chdh I am not a home owner and it is very unlikely that I ever will be. I rent at below market rate and if I'm ever evicted could not afford an equivalent home, and I certainly don't have a cleaner. I also lived in a council estate as a child after my DM fled my father. I am not talking from lofty heights, but what I said still stands.

I really can't understand why you don't think everyone should have the right to a decent well maintained affordable home I don't have kids , I still have to pay through ,my taxes for schools, NHS chidrens services, other peoples child benefit. I don't resent it , my blood doesn't boil, so why does yours at the thought that someone should have a decent home . I don't believe anyone should live in houses of the condition that you describe but for far too many people that's the reality. That's the whole point of the programme . And why would you feel annoyed about the Austrian people in their council flat . Are you envious or just small minded ?

Can we talk about an aspect of social housing that never gets discussed. The sexism. In 1991 (back in the mists of time before i met DH when i was 18 and still living with my parents) i went with a friend to the local council office who needed to find a flat. She was single. I still remember what was said to her all these years later. "Im sorry but there arent many available at the moment if you had a baby things would be different but we cant help you at the moment.

I met DH in 1992 and we moved into a small bedsit and lived there for two years and 3 months before we moved to where we are now.....

Single men WERE more likely to be housed than single women or couples (all this is without children) It was assumed that women would meet a man and move in with him. (this obvs meant a higher risk of abuse.

The final straw was when my best friends ex beat her yet again She finally gave him the boot and this violent druggie was rehoused within THREE DAYS. While women were being told Sorry we cant help unless you have a child.

We had an interview for a flat and we attended and towards the end of the interview i asked how likely it was we would get allocated a flat She said it could be a while. I brought up my friends ex and she said it was sooner for him because he was "vulnerable" Yep so vulnerable that he beat up a subsequent partner so badly she lost their baby. She had moved in with him because she had no other choice.

Anyway we did get offered a flat which is still the same one bedroom flat we are in now 25 years later.

Why? Because im childfree by choice and we have always been low income.

So we are still where we are because i havent reproduced. Im not moaning about it Just stating a fact.

I will point out though that if more lower income couples made the same choice as us there would be even less one bedroom places becoming available.

Oh and id forgotten this When she left him (although she did go back) they sent her to a refuge in another town.

She needed to be rehoused near her family which was closer Though i know sending to another town is normal for protection it was in the opposite direction so right up the other end of the country from her family

Regardless of whether or not you think it is an 'irresponsible decision' to have more children than you can comfortably personally provide for, the kids didn't make that decision. So while you vilify their parents, they're still overcrowded, have health issues, can't study or sleep properly.

The purpose of social housing should be to have a decent baseline standard for everyone.

(And of course the housing situation in the UK is a result of multiple, complex factors played out over 2 generations, not poor people having too many kids, whatever the daily mail wants you to believe).

He grew up in a 4 bed council house, that his mum now owns, takes the piss really that he is now saying that right to buy should be suspended after his own family have benefited from the scheme.