Why do people look down on council houses

[Easystuff]

Just that really why do others look down on council/social houses. I don't understand. There's no special treatment. It's not unusual, it's been about for many years. It's now pretty hard to get social housing. There are thousands of family waiting lists, being made homeless. Through no fault of their own. It's pretty awful out there.

You’re using words that you don’t understand. It’s not bigotry to form an opinion after years of personal experience.

The fact is that nowadays in the U.K. there are a huge number of social housing tenants who are the very worst of humanity, and that this is why they have ended up being paid by the state to live in homes that they could never afford for themselves, from which they blight the lives of all decent families with the misfortune to live near them.

I don’t think it’s a surprise that the overwhelming Majority of social housing tenants receive housing benefit to help pay for the rent.

by definition you need to be low income to be able to get social housing. Sure you can join the register as long as you don’t earn over 50 or 60 k, but you aren’t getting a property any time in the next decade if ever. You will be way at the bottom of the list.

so if a family is low income , then it’s no surprise they also need benefits to help pay the rent.

I don’t have a problem With that, but do think it’s better to be honest and not pretend otherwise.

@Janieforever absolutely it shows how clueless some people are that they can't join the dots and draw the same conclusion as you. I'm shocked that anybody can't work that out!

You sound very bitter

People who were brought up “dirt poor” are often the most bitter. I know a few

It is a surprise because presumbly - especially having been given this huge help of being allocated a heavily subsidised house, therefore largely or in some cases entirely removing the largest expense that most households have to pay - one would expect people to use this as a platform to improve their situation over time, and therefore at least be able to cover the highly-reduced level of rent themselves (disabled tenants excepted - but the proportion of them doesn't account for 75-80% of social housing tenants having some of all of their rent paid for them by taxpayers). Especially given that the tenures given mean that people who improve their circumstances aren't required to vacate and move on. Given so few properties are left voluntarily and most tenancies are very long term so there is a low churn rate (hence people newly in need sitting on waiting lists for many years), these stats seem to imply that most people allocated these houses are not doing much over the subsequent years with that huge state-funded bonus to improve their earnings, start covering their own costs and start paying more tax so that they become net contributors to the tax system. That's why it's surprising.

If the tenures were only 2-3 years to help people in unfortunate circumstances get back on their feet and they took those opportunities and then moved on and the property was reallocated to someone else newly in need then a high proportion of rents being paid by the taxpayer would not be so surprising.

These days it seems it is something people would like if they can't afford to buy due to the astronomical cost of private rents. There was the stigma of rough estates and young mums when I was growing up and I was teased for living in a council house at school by more affluent classmates. There seems less stigma now.

Not really. I’ve made sure that neither I nor my children will end up next to the sort of people who think it’s acceptable to sit in their garden, drunk, on a sofa in the morning, I just won’t accept the idiotic narrative that these people are the salt of the earth.

Yes but as I said earlier why should people be moved on. The answer is to build more social housing. You can’t have swathes of social housing where people know they’re only going to be there for a short time. People like to put down roots

Who has said they’re the salt if the earth? Who sits drinking in the morning? I really do think your assumptions are outdated. Things have moved on

Because they are snobs.

Yes but as I said earlier why should people be moved on. The answer is to build more social housing. You can’t have swathes of social housing where people know they’re only going to be there for a short time. People like to put down roots

There are lots of things we'd all like in an ideal world. My comments have been about the situation as it is, where there is a limited supply of social housing, and I think in that situation it is only right it should be allocated to those most in need and reviewed regularly to ensure that is the case still. Nobody has a right to "put down roots" in a state funded house when they can afford a private rental, at the expense of another family that can't afford a private rental being homeless.

There are lots of things we'd all like, but if we can't pay for them then we can't have them. And that's also the case for the UK as a country unfortunately, as people are beginning to realise now and will have hammered home over the next few years as the natural conclusion of our policies all come home to roost.

It’s not assumptions to mention things that I’ve had to put up with.

There’s a very good reason that lottery winners don’t up sticks and move to a council estate, and if you give it some thought you might understand why.

But they're not subsidised. And they're not particularly low rents these days. A social housing rent where I live is around £350 a week.

As the housing is scarce nowadays, it tends to be allocated to a higher proportion of people who are less likely to be able to earn high wages: ex offenders, people with disabilities, single parents, people suffering trauma after fleeing violence or other situations...

That and the relatively high rents in newer tenancies mean it's increasingly normal for tenants to need some housing benefits, though of course they'd need far more if they moved into housing owned by people making a profit out of taxpayers' money.

The law says they can put down roots. The tenancies are assured. Why don’t you run for local government then as an MP, get in the Commons and lobby for it all to be changed. We could do with more stuck up bastards to pick on those less fortunate

If the tenures were only 2-3 years to help people in unfortunate circumstances get back on their feet and they took those opportunities and then moved on

Back on their feet to take on a private rent or mortgage? What if they can't do either?

Exactly ^

I think you’ve moved into the realms of lunacy now. A lottery winner wouldn’t qualify would they. I think you’ve got some sort of chip on your shoulder about growing up in a council house

But they're not subsidised. And they're not particularly low rents these days. A social housing rent where I live is around £350 a week.

If they are being let out at below what you would pay for a private rental the same size then they are subsidised via whichever route, per my previous posts.

As the housing is scarce nowadays, it tends to be allocated to a higher proportion of people who are less likely to be able to earn high wages: ex offenders, people with disabilities, single parents, people suffering trauma after fleeing violence or other situations...

This is a very depressing view of humanity, that you don't believe people who are single parents or disabled or have been through trauma etc can ever improve their situation. Many of us are living proof that is not the case. Of course some people will always need support e.g. the very severely disabled, but that does not account for 75-80% of already reduced-rate social housing rents being subsidised further through housing benefit/ UC per the statistics that were posted earlier in the thread, particularly with the long tenures so many tenants have been in situ for years or even decades and had plenty of time to improve their situation.

That and the relatively high rents in newer tenancies mean it's increasingly normal for tenants to need some housing benefits, though of course they'd need far more if they moved into housing owned by people making a profit out of taxpayers' money.

I think you're trying to make some kind of political point here which is not what I'm talking about at all: I'm talking about the economics.

Then when they are reassessed they'd still be shown to be in need of the social housing and have their tenancy renewed for another 2-3 years.

How lovely, insulting people who disagree with you because they think public assets should be allocated to those most in need of them.

I have no interest in politics, thank you, and didn't ask for career advice from you. Being an MP wouldn't be viable for me even if I wished to do it because it'd involve a large pay cut and longer working hours, while also having to deal with abusive people who make spiteful, personal attacks on anybody who disagrees with them, so I think I'll continue in my current role. But thank you for the "helpful" suggestion.

This thread has established Britain's housing situation is completely broken

People in social housing are either lazy, wealthy, hardworking, broke, or law abiding criminals.

Landlords are nothing but scumbags, having their low interest/cheap mortgages paid for with massive profits for them.

Let's not forget the elderly in their massive houses, selfishly living in them despite a family of 10 being more deserving.

Is there a solution?

Can I ask where do you live where an average council property rent is 1400 a month?

the average in the uk is currently 106 a month. Central London higher but no where near your levels?