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?

social housing was built in chelsea, primrose hill, islington etc (in london) because that is where the working classes always lived. each borough started as a village and became full parts of london over the last 50-100 years. people of all social groups lived in each borough. many people living in social housing in ken + chel used to work in the embassies, or in the rich people's houses. some of these families have lived in the area for 100 years. why should they be pushed out to give their homes to the poshos who have enough housing already? they may not have chosen to live in an area but were born there.

where will the rich people get their slaves/servants from if everyone is sent to dartford or swindon?

why should communities not be a bit mixed, not thinking about the antisocial elements, rather the ordinary people?

social housing is better built, in general, than ordinary private housing because standards have to be met. architectural firms bidding for housing work want to build something that is a credit to them, they do not build substandard housing, they aim to build beautiful homes that they can boast about and use to win awards and earn more work.

i think it would be socially divisive to chase the 'lower orders' out of town to unknown locations. it sounds a bit like the highland clearances of the 18th century.

Now, Plaistow, you know pensioners will be exempted from this and all Tory plans - so everyone else takes huge hits, including the disabled, but we keep universal benefits for pensioners, raise pensions and exempt them HB cuts, etc and from what everyone else is getting in the neck.

We don't all have a right to live somewhere that our families have lived for 100 years unless our families bought the property and never sold it.

I was born and grew up in Kensington, it wasn't a particularly expensive area back then and there is still plenty of council accommodation. But my family moved away when I was a teenager, and at the time seriously struggled to sell the house because of the way the market was at the time. Now it's worth millions. Do you think the current owner should let me move back in for free because I was born there and my Mum lived there for a significant amount of time before that? Or does the right to live somewhere you grew up only apply to social tennants?

I was born and brought up in the leafy south east. I've never been able to afford to live there since age 18.
Is someone going to provide me with a house there please?
No, thought not..
Honestly the sense of entitlement from some people beggars belief

I don't think the argument that the wealthier people will need their slaves/low-wage workers to live locally is really relevant in London. They wouldn't have to move out to Dartford or Swindon, there are lots of cheaper areas in London where low-wage workers live which are commutable as the public transport is good. Plenty of my friends live in the East London boroughs and come into work in the centre, it only takes 50 mins door to door.

east london will not count as a low cost area. people will be moved right out of town.
there is no sense of entitlement just the fact that all kinds of people should live in all the london boroughs. surely it is not right that only the richest people should live in some boroughs?
if people choose to leave an area that is their choice, the wholesale removal of a section of society from an area shouldn't be accepted.

It seems to be proposed for all councils not just London.

We bought in a less desirable area - big cost for us is transport.

Land here is cheap and there is a fair bit of social housing already - but it costs more to live here - to get out of here for work, for educational trips, sport stuff for the DC, get to dentists, hospitals etc and takes longer which means more childcare would be needed for work bringing more costs.

Outraged. Often with the tenants living in social housing, the only way they are able to work is to call on the services of family for childminding etc. Again, some disabled people only manage independent living because they have family/support network nearby. These are services that richer people may be able to afford. So, sometimes, staying in a particular area benefits everybody.

I couldn't afford to live where I was brought up either and in fact very few families can - and that was not London.

Loads of people missing the point here. This is not about anyone feeling entitled, it's about a possible plan to sell off housing in expensive areas once it becomes vacant. Not turf anyone out.....the money could then be used elsewhere to build more than one house.

So all talk of "entitled" is being posted by those too thick to have understood the news article.

Read it before jumping in with yet size 9s those people doing this. Looking at YOU janey among others.

Yes, I am an owner occupier and had to call on family for childcare when I wanted to go back to work too. I woud have earned less than I paid in childcare otherwise.

It's really not as different as some people seem to think for owners.

Some owners may be able to afford childcare, some may not, especially as their mortgage and what they are to pay out for house maintence can be more expensive than just having to pay rent.

Some tennants may need to have family support around them, but some may not.

If rules aren't going to be put in place for me as an owner to have my family around me if I need it, then why should they be put in place for tennants to have their family around?

It's things like that that create the divide. Tennants shouldn't be worse off than owners, but they shouldn't be better off either.

I was responding to the entitled posts colouring. Are you too thick to understand that? (coining your delightful terminology )

I cannot afford to buy or rent where I was bought up either....in the south east but not an expensive area of it.

But I am here in social housing with a disabled son and family support around me. Family HAVE been able to buy locally but I can't. Tell me again why I should move those of you who think living in the South east on benefits makes me "entitled".

Away from family support when the UK is facing cuts in support services.

Just to make you feel better.

Really?

You still missed the whole point of the thread though. This scheme is a good idea, nobody will be evicted, a property in an expensive area will be sold once empty making enough money to build several more houses. It's a win win situation.

If people are in social housing I assume they are poorer and less able to absorb additional costs such as transport and childcare costs. It's hard enough for us.

Though I can see people who own who are struggling already resentful about how much help others gets so yes a divide could be worsened.

I think you may find Outraged it's called social housing for a reason. The safeguards are put in place for people for a reason. There would have been a point whereby (and there still is) people doing nmw jobs can only do them because they are enabled by their support network. In the same way that you are enabled by your support network. That's being treated fairly.
Oh, and as an owner, what the fuck gives you the right to say tenants shouldn't be better off than owners. What you mean is social housing tenants. They're not all on benefits you know.

| get no one is going to be evicted - doesn't mean the next lot of people needing social housing are in any better position to absorbed the negatives of living in the cheaper housing.

The upside would be more people could be helped - the downside maybe not helped as much as in the past as they have to deal with less desirable locations are their associated problems.

and not are .

if people are moved to poorer areas where there is no work, how are they meant to improve their lot in life? how will they afford travel into town to work? or are they just supposed to stay in their poor people's enclave out of sight of the rich and beautiful.

on paper it might sound okay, in reality removing people from the centre of town is not.

Not sure where thread is going, but I am against the proposal & I don't think the language is over-emotive.
People who qualify for social housing tend to have more social problems (not talking individuals, but trends).
To concentrate the social problems in fewer areas is terrible idea.
Also means poorer environment for those in council housing, poorer access to the best schools & jobs, bad bad bad bad.

And if anyone really thinks that this would lead to better funding for more social housing to be built, and therefore for more housing supply to become available to all, you're having a laugh. It's never going to actually happen like that.

No I haven't missed the point of the thread colouring - I think the policy is an excellent idea. I also think no one has a god given right to live in a particular location. The two things aren't mututally exclusive.

Outrage- I totally agree with your point about 'one rule for social housing tenants and another for private owners' . Many private earners face exactly the same difficulties with childcare costs, disabled children, elderly relatives who need care etc. God knows what id do if my elderly parents get sick or frail, because we could never afford to live near them in the south east

Here we go again! Didn't we do a similar thread just last week? This is just another one perpetuating the myth that HB claimants and those living in social housing live a superior life style.

These stupid Tory think-tank ideas nearly always come out on a Monday will be fodder for the Daily Fail's forums all week and a u-turn the following Friday.

I'll get me goat

Council House envy threads are ain't pretty.

There seems to be rather a lot on MN ATM.

Ignore random are

'Tennants shouldn't be worse off than owners, but they shouldn't be better off either. '

They already are! They do not have the asset that is a home.

And why is it so important to you that others not be 'better off' than you?