Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

to think that the Goverment's plans for Social Housing are disastrous

256 replies

donkeyderby · 19/10/2010 14:59

Are beloved Govt are talking about charging 80 - 90% of market rents for social housing.

I'm not in favour of ridiculously low rents for council tenants, but won't this simply place thousands more people in the Housing Benefit trap of not being able to afford to work?

Uncontrolled property prices have contributed significantly to our society of haves and have nots and private rental prices must be keeping so many people chained to Housing Benefit. The average price for a 3 bedroom property in our area is around the £1000 per month mark. How can that be affordable to someone on a low wage? Ditto £900 PCM.

How will this work apart from going back to some Victorian era of cramming families into one bedroom?

Gin anyone?

OP posts:
threetimespink · 19/10/2010 17:47

In many local authorities the ENTIRE income from the Council Tax is spent on one and only item - housing

Check your local authority budget...

threetimespink · 19/10/2010 17:49

www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article20561.html

Housing Benefit Illustrates Britains Disgraceful Wasteful, Benefits Culture

threetimespink · 19/10/2010 17:50

www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/

Total Spending by Function
< -yr Values in £ billion
(Click year for details) +yr >
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Total Spending 576 631 661 681 0

Pensions 100 110 117 123 0

Health Care 102 110 120 122 0

Education 76 80 86 84 0

Defence 38 42 44 46 0

Welfare 88 94 105 109 0

threetimespink · 19/10/2010 17:56

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/5663014/Family-claims-147000-a-year-in-housing-benefit-for-seven-bedroom-home.html

Family claims £147,000 a year in housing benefit for seven bedroom home

threetimespink · 19/10/2010 17:57

Housing benefit bill rises to nearly £20 billion

www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/recession/6924122/Housing-benefit-bill-rises-to-nearly-20-billion.html

TethHearseEnd · 19/10/2010 18:00

Are you ok, threetimespink?

You seem like you could do with a nice sit down.

Hullygully · 19/10/2010 18:01

See that word Telegraph that just jumps put at you...

threetimespink · 19/10/2010 18:05

and go through the line she shall, by God

time for a nice cuppa

TethHearseEnd · 19/10/2010 19:10

I think that's probably a good idea.

spookerv1xen · 19/10/2010 19:21

YANBU

can no one in power see the glaringly FUCKING OBVIOUS - it isnt that HA / council rents are cheap, its that PRIVATE RENTING IS TOTALLY FUCKING EXTORTIONATE! its THAT that needs to come down to the levels of social housing rent.

if my rent goes up to that amount i am fucked, absolutely fucked.

Angry
spookerv1xen · 19/10/2010 19:22

sorry for all the angriness and swearing. Blush

minipie · 19/10/2010 19:24

Hully: " "forced" - they'll sell up en masse."

Oh I agree many landlords would sell up if rents were capped/long leases brought in. But is that necessarily a bad thing? If they sell up then that means more properties coming onto the market for people to buy - which in turn will mean prices drop.

That has two knock effects (1) more people currently renting would be able to buy, so fewer renters competing for the (fewer) rental properties (2) the price of buying a house would be smaller so it would be possible for landlords to charge a lower rent and still turn a profit.

What do you think? Am I crazy to think this is a (possibly better) alternative to govt-owned social housing?

threetimespink · 19/10/2010 19:25

Now,

Did you know that cutting the housing benefit just by 30% would provide for absolutely FREE (zero fees) higher and further education for everyone in this country?

threetimespink · 19/10/2010 19:29

Did you know that 30% less for housing does not mean 30% less houses?

It simply means 30% less money in the pockets of the landlords, and

lower house prices and

lower bank profits and lower bankers bonuses?

threetimespink · 19/10/2010 19:32

No, if you are Labour, you wouldn't know that

Because

"New Labour was the most short sighted, self serving, incompetent, useless, and ineffective government that Britain has ever known. Make no mistake, Labour?s economic policies were a national security liability."

Quote from
webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:xnCEXbDTLY0J:conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2010/10/liam-fox-lambasts-labour-for-the-inheritance-it-has-bequeathed-him-at-the-mod.html+the+most+self-serving,+incompetent+government+liam+fox&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

maristella · 19/10/2010 19:35

me too v1xen :(

SHIT SHIT SHIT SHIT SHIT SHIT

how on earth did anyone expect bloody cameron to creat a 'fair' Britain?
he has always enjoyed an unfair advantage Angry

threetimespink · 19/10/2010 19:36

In laymen language a "national security liability" is simply a TREASON at best and economic terrorism at worst

TethHearseEnd · 19/10/2010 19:38

Did you put amphetamines in your tea, three?

One spoonful or two?

threetimespink · 19/10/2010 19:45

Tropical forest organic cold-processed honey

1 spoonfull

more than one may cause hallucinations such as blair and browne in the form of afghani "red tulips"

threetimespink · 19/10/2010 19:46

brown

LynLiesNomoreZombieFest · 19/10/2010 19:49

If a family living in social housing is earning a good wage, why should they have subsidised rent.

If a family is living in social housing and they have a poor wage, then they would get housing benefit to cover the increase.

If the family is living in social housing and they are on benefits, they would get housing benefit.

I do know quite a few people living in council houses that have decent incomes and have a lot of spare income, as they don't pay much in rent. I presume this is the problem that is being addressed.

On the subject of making buy to let landlords take HB claimants, all that needs to be done is change the rule that states if a tenant makes a fraudulent claim the landlord has to reimburse the benefits agency.

petelly · 19/10/2010 19:53

A colleague at work lives in a council flat in central London. She was rehomed for genuine reasons when things were a lot more difficult for her.

However, at the moment she is on 40k plus and also has a working partner. She wants to buy a house but is sitting tight and saving money by paying rent that is far lower than market rates. IF implemented correctly, why shouldn't people whose circumstances improve pay closer to market rates? I don't see why my taxes should subsidise my colleague (however lovely she is!) saving for her house.

Not everyone in a council flat is on a low income.

Mumcentreplus · 19/10/2010 19:57

As usual rules implemented based on the few that affect the many...short-sighted indeed..

mintyfresh · 19/10/2010 20:04

The way I see it, the g'ment is just looking at BTL as a way of soaking up pressure on social housing - I might well be wrong but this is what I saw in the plans!

I also read that over 250,000 tenants in council housing are underhoused and waiting for suitable accommodation - they are only planning to build 150,000 affordable homes.

They are definitely NOT solving the housing crisis!

limonejelly · 19/10/2010 20:04

So petally - the council housing has enabled her to run her life around and as soon as she can buy she will freeing up the place for someone else. Isnt that a success story and not a cautionary tale?