to think that just because I can't afford to live in the most expensive part of town....

[CogitoErgoSometimes]

... I have not been 'socially cleansed' and do not live in a ghetto? Proposal today to sell off expensive social housing and replace with a higher quantity of newly-built, cheaper social housing article here seems to make a lot of sense. Why the emotive language?

I don't know if we're talking price, or 'quality' (which will be harder to define), or what. But I think if there's a measure, and they're deliberately saying they want to make these houses less good than most, that just seems daft. Why not aim to make them about the average standard? Then at least they'd have a better change of selling them on later, if that's the plan.

YANBU. I have never understood why moving council tenants/those on benefits and unable to pay their own rent to cheaper areas = social cleansing in the eyes of some leftists, yet when those in work lose their jobs or have a pay cut and are forced to move (and not entitled to benefits) that is just tough shit on them and their kids. If you have been given something by the state, either social housing or benefits, then beggars can't be choosers.

Everyone would like to live in Central London but we all have to cut our cloth accordingly.

Ah, Council house tenants are beggers now then.

LRD Personally I would HATE to live in Central London. My idea of Hell actually.

What a huge assuption Orwellian, I would hate to live in central london.
And thanks for calling me a begger. I live in social housing and I am on benefits after I left h for domestic abuse. Please think befoe you post.

colouring, you don't mean me.

I would hate to live in central London too!

I love in a quiet area of my town, not the most expensive but certainly not the cheapest area either. I am in social housing too.

Broadly speaking I can see the rationale behind this. Nobody will be evicted but a house sold once empty could provide enough to potentially house two or thre other families, that HAS to be a good thing surely.

Ah yes, I meant Orwellian,. Hey Orwellian are you listening, you can have Central London, I'd hate it.

*before.

I am not a beggar either Orwellian, thunk before you post such tripe.

I'd take 'average' to be a bog-standard house with enough space for what's need by 3/4/5 people but no extra-special features like super-high ceilings, a sweeping staircase with gallery, walk-in closets, ensuite bathrooms for all bedrooms, 100ft garden, playroom, double garage etc. An 'average' house for a couple with two children would have two double bedrooms, a box room and a bathroom upstairs, a hall, living room, dining room (maybe) and a kitchen downstairs, a 30ft back garden laid to lawn, off-road parking and a patch of grass at the front. Nothing special.

I thought that all new built estates had to contain a certain percentage of social housing nowadays?

Yes they do, the ratio is sometimes as much as 1 in 4 properties built, but these can be the bungalows/flats on the estate, so not always family houses.

I can see exactly what Orwellian means (even though I wouldn't be keen to live in central London!)

I can't afford to live in the nicest, most upmarket, 'best' schools etc area of my city. I don't feel that I have been 'socially cleansed' !! I just think 'This is what we can afford on DH and my incomes'. And there are many parts of the country where we wouldn't be able to afford to live in a home big enough for a family at all (including the area where I was raised actually)

The plan makes a lot of sense; it's about distributing resources more equitably so that a greater number of people can benefit from them. It seems supremely selfish to believe that a smaller number of people should benefit from living in more expensive social housing, when there could be more people benefiting from more economical, perfectly adequate, housing

Shall we mention here those who bought their houses in these areas often at a massive discount. How many of them would be here saying "beggars can't be choosers" despite having benefitted massively from the system. W

Yes, not everyone who lives in social housing is unemployed, but I bet it's ahigher proportion than in the general population.
I don't like this idea. Surely it's a good thing to have social housing spread fairly evenly in all areas.

Slightly, that sounds like heaven to me, I have 3 dc and a 3 bed house. we have a living room and a kitchen no off road parking, and a 10 by 6 ft garden.
Not that I am complaining. I am thank full that we have a house.

slightly, that sounds special to me.

I guess it just shows how subjective perceptions are.

Off-road parking and a garden would be highly sought-after in lots of areas.

LRD, yes, so a lot of average houses and a lot of below average pretty much means most!

Anyway, it's not really relevant. But there is no need for new social housing to be built to be better than average. They just need to be average.

Btw, it's worth saying if we're talking about an 'average' house, as opposed to flats, we've already excluded an awful lot of housing.

outraged - sorry, I don't follow what you're saying at all.

The article says this housing should be worse than most. Not average.

I don't thnk Orwellian was being offensive. I just read that comment as her saying that if you can't buy something at full price for yourself, then you simply won't have as much freedom of choice as someone who can.

Everyone has a right to decent housing, it doesn't have to be a ghetto. I have lived in sink estates and believe me when I tell you it is not nice. The housing is substandard and lacks social cohesion, as a result there are problems.

Where I live now it's a small cul-de-sac with a proactive smal community - all social housing tenants, we have a neighbourhood watch, a regular community police presence and local shop/post office. It promotes social cohesion and as long as you have that you can pretty much manage anything else. It doesn't have to be in the most expensive part of town either.

Virtually everyone here works, we might not earn much but it's enough to cover bills etc. those of us who don't work are the wys and ears of the community and we spot trouble a mile off and nip it in the bud. We support each other and between us the lady up the road with the alcoholic daughter, we don't judge, we support. I am lucky.

No, it doesn't. It says that social housing shouldn't be better than most people can afford. I read that to mean better than most people can afford without state assistance of any sort. But as a significant number of people do live in social housing, then it doesn't really mean this new housing should be worse than average. It means that it shouldn't be better than most people who house themselves completely independantly can afford. Which sounds fine to me.

The housing shouldn't be better than most people can afford privately.

I bloody sick of these why should people who dont work be able to live in abetter part of town than us a working family ever will be able

It seems yet again the only people who can live in primrose hill and thise who are on welfare and those who are stinking rich

It always amazes me those who put in least expect the most

Flog one house for a lot of money, replace it with more than one house in a more affordable part of town = more people having access to social housing. If we have to have socially provided housing then this is a no brainer really - it's called getting the most for your money. Social housing should provide a roof over the tennants head - there should be no obligation to location.

As things currently stand it is those in the middle that are excluded from these sort of homes. Too rich to qualify for social housing yet too poor to buy these houses outright, they are excluded by the current system.

As for living in London, count me out - if I never set foot in the dump again, it will be too soon.