Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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

246 replies

CogitoErgoSometimes · 20/08/2012 08:19

... 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?

OP posts:
janey68 · 20/08/2012 16:07

It's unfortunate that a badly worded post did imply that social housing is free. Of course it isnt. BUT the rents are heavily subsidised. And while the rationale is, of course, that it's intended for people who cannot afford market rates, the fact is that there are loads of people living on exactly the same low incomes, or in key worker jobs, who don't have social housing and are therefore forced into private renting or trying to raise a mortgage miles from where they work. These are often the very people who are having to limit their family to one child, or make other tough life decisions.

I think what most people are trying to say on here is that just because social housing is for people who are low waged, or in key worker jobs, it doesnt mean that similar people aren't having to manage without social housing. The difficulties that exist for many council tenants- low wages, pay freezes, travel and childcare costs, disabled children etc exist for others too.
This proposal is aimed at making things more equitable, distributing a finite resource to benefit more people

HoopDePoop · 20/08/2012 16:09

Confused yes and I agree that council housing should be good quality, and that it is false economy to build poor quality housing. This isn't a binary argument, much as you'd like to make it so. It's a discussion.

I think there should be simple and basic good quality well maintained council accommodation in every area. That clarify my position? I don't however think that eg the MNer who wanted a bigger house without considering moving was being reasonable.I think council housing is amazing but by its nature, it's not going to be perfect.

HoopDePoop · 20/08/2012 16:12

Usual - do you accept that in capitalist society, people who have more money live in better houses? Do you accept that housing is like most stuff - cars, holidays, clothes in that we'd all like a super and amazing one but aspire to the best we can get? That's why council housing should only be basic.

Birdsgottafly · 20/08/2012 16:15

When i owned my own home, the advantage was the quality of the work in it, including the way that piping was concealed and good plastering etc.

My HA house wouldn't pass a recent inspection to have solar panels fitted because of the electrics. My FIL had partly sorted them out for me, as they were dangerous (he is accredited to do this).

When i have needed major repairs done (that building insurance would have covered) i have been messed around, took days of work for noone to turn up etc, this is a down side of living in HA property.

Private renters are sometimes worse off than HA tenants, but home owning is an investment.

HoopDePoop · 20/08/2012 16:15

NHS is different because everyone uses it, it's world class in quality, at least tilthe Tories sell it off. Council housing fulfils a need, in a more basic way. I've never read an argument that would persuade me that it should be as high quality as housing which is fully paid for by the individual.

lljkk · 20/08/2012 16:16

Let's reverse this: what are the supposed benefits?
More housing? But only available to people already in higher income brackets.

More social housing in theory (I don't believe this part for a moment, the money will get siphoned off to other things I'm sure), but in areas with fewer amenities (less access to well-paid jobs & public transport, so transport costs for already vulnerable & disadvantaged individuals will usually increase, and therefore so will their other demands on The State).

Um... um. Come on, tell me what else is so great about this plan.
Why should we all be saying "Fantastic idea!" How will broader society benefit?

Cuts reasons to slag council house dwellers off, maybe?

Birdsgottafly · 20/08/2012 16:19

That's why council housing should only be basic.

There is a big mis-management of building works and those who are awarded the contracts get away with providing a shoddy and sometimes dangerous service.

Budgets could be better spent. Council and HA property doesn't hav eto be basic to be cost effective, that is the point, there isn't a profit to be made.

usualsuspect · 20/08/2012 16:20

Council house envy, no more no less.

It makes me sick. I'm outta this thread.

LilyBolero · 20/08/2012 16:22

I think there is a fundamental problem with the current brand of capitalism as employed by the UK, which is that firstly, the massive disparity in pay means that society is fractured, with the haves and the have-nots massively different. Secondly, the sense of entitlement that exists, both at the hugely-publicised-by-the-Tories-lower-end of the income scale (ie I am entitled to a house, to be paid for by others), but also, less publicised, at the high end (I deserve this huge salary and bonuses because I am better).

And both are wrong. It should not be the case that someone who works as a nurse, or some other essential job should be paid a small amount, whilst someone who works in the city earns an unfathomable amount more.

But it is impossible to regulate, without stepping away from the capitalist culture. The whole premise of capitalism is 'trickle-down-economics' - ie the wealth creators create wealth, which then trickles down to benefit everyone. But it isn't trickling down, it's stashed in bank vaults and offshore accounts. The rich are MUCH MUCH richer than they were 10 years ago, the rest of us are poorer.

And the whole issue of tax evasion/avoidance comes into that too. Do you really think all the cuts to welfare would be necessary (or university tuition fees etc) if all the super-rich paid a flat-rate of tax? A LOT of the UK's deficit problems would not exist if tax was paid as it should be, without exploiting loop-holes in the system. But they are too difficult to capture, so it is the middle-earners and low-earners who are squeezed again and again.

Which is why it was SO wrong to reduce the top rate of tax in the last budget. That is the only group of people who are already better off, and they are the only people the Treasury is prepared to help. (They will spout about raising the threshold for the basic rate of tax, but once you have incorporated all the other measures, eg cuts in WFTC etc everybody is worse off anyway).

lljkk · 20/08/2012 16:22

720,000 empty properties already in the UK, 2011 figures.
That includes about 74,000 in London alone.
The figure excludes uninhabitable properties, flats above shops, holiday homes & some other categories of awkwardness, btw.

That's 4-9x as many homes as this daft proposal thinks it could create.

Xayide · 20/08/2012 16:23

It does feel like a lot of people on this thread bought their house a while ago and aren't aware of the sometime huge compromised people who bought in last 5-6 years have had to make and how much they have still had to spend.

We had to hugely compromise on location to get a just big enough house - with much fewer facilities than someone earlier describe as 'average'.

Having done this I am hugely unsympathetic to a council housed person having to 'suffer' similar choices.

I know they pay rent and I do think they should have good housing but what I view as good is vastly inferior to these posters because I'm aware of the inflated market rates.

I know some people in social housing who've had to wait ridiculous long for needed work to be done. I also know us and other home owners have had to put off essential work till we've saved the money or found a way to borrow it and then it can still be substandard work. I am sympathetic to both situations.

Ideally the entire housing system should be sorted out but no one is really going to more than tinker at the edges.

Mrbojangles1 · 20/08/2012 16:35

Also just a point not sure how you can call a street socialy mixed if the only people that live their are super rich and people who dont work

MrsBethel · 20/08/2012 16:43

YANBU.

I'd also make wealthy council tenants pay a fair rent in order to fund more homes for the needy.

eg Bob Crow, who obviously feels his need for subsidised housing is greater than the thousands of low income families on the waiting lists.

"The militant head of the Rail, Maritime and Transport union (RMT) is believed to pay half the market rate for his taxpayer-subsidised house despite being paid £145,000 a year."
www.metro.co.uk/news/859870-bob-crow-gets-taxpayers-help-with-rent-despite-earning-145k-a-year

janey68 · 20/08/2012 16:47

Xayide- I agree, the entire housing situation needs addressing. Its a complex problem and these threads are frustrating when people just 'envy' when anyone proffers anything other than a dogmatic black and white view.

Fwiw I think the whole concept of what is 'desirable' is not black and white anyway. We have range of ex university friends who live in a whole spectrum of situations, from really sound social housing in pleasant communities, to good sized privately owned in cheap areas of the UK, to overpriced privately rented shoeboxes in the south. We also have a high earning friend who has bought a small flat in an expensive area of London . I like the flat, but wouldn't like the hours he puts in at work....
Who's to say which of our friends has the most 'desirable' living arrangment? It's a pointless argument.

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos · 20/08/2012 16:48

The thing with that though MrsBethel is that council tennants don't like to believe that they are beng subsidised, and in theory, we are all equally entitled to social housing accommodation. Obviously we aren't all going to get it, but the basic principle of the thing is that every citizen of this country is deserving of it.

mrsscoob · 20/08/2012 17:40

I know lets start selling of some of the MPs tax payer funded housing. I'm sure that would raise loads of revenue :D

limitedperiodonly · 20/08/2012 18:18

outraged What do you find so confusing?

I want key workers to live in subsidised housing near me to keep the public services I rely on going.

That's all.

If that means they get to live somewhere they haven't paid full whack for then I'll live with it because it helps me.

I accept that essentially I'm being selfish in that I wouldn't feel so strongly about anyone who wasn't a key worker. But no more selfish than someone who says nothing can be done when what that really means

I first heard about planning gain getting on for 30 years ago when some clued-in local authorities realised that if they didn't place restrictions on developers neighbourhoods would be ruined.

Because developers don't care about long term planning for things such as health, education, roads etc and the other things populations need. They just want to make as much money as quickly as possible.

It was difficult under the Conservative govt then and they're busy making it just as difficult again and great for their friends in the construction industry.

There is a development down the end of my road earmarked for NHS staff. They're one and two bedroom flats. 60:40 shared ownership and whoever is lucky enough to get them will end up with a tidy investment.

Like you said, I've got my house. Why should I care about anyone else?

But if Eric Pickles gets his way there won't be many more of those developments and I will ultimately lose.

The Conservatives used to call it the Politics of Envy. It hasn't gone away just because the ones we envy are public sector workers now and not just company directors.

limitedperiodonly · 20/08/2012 18:22

But no more selfish than someone who says nothing can be done when what that really means

Taht doesn't make sense. I meant to add: 'is that they don't like the idea that someone else is getting something they can't'.

I'm not necessarily aiming that at you but there are others on this thread who definitely are thinking like that.

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos · 20/08/2012 18:27

I agree with you about key worker housing. But I think it's a different subject to social housing in general, and key workers aren't often on NMW which is what other posted have suggested as being a problem with this proposal because of higher transport costs.

I don't think it's about anyone being happy that they can't get something that someone else can. It's not that simple.

limitedperiodonly · 20/08/2012 18:54

outraged I think we more or less agree.

There are people who aren't on the minimum wage but are on very modest incomes, especially when you consider they might want one or two children and a garden, or even a share of one and a bit of family time without a long and expensive commute.

A lot of them I'd consider to be key workers, and more deserving of help than GPs, consultants, senior teaching staff etc.

But there's no point arguing, unless you really want to Grin.

I do think you're more generous about people's motives than me, though. Smile.

Not a passive aggressive Smile, btw

EdgarOlymPic · 20/08/2012 20:26

in my area (outer South East) the rate of empty homes is 1.91% and only 99 have been empty for more than 6 months.

the reasons by ljkks link- identified were

  1. disrepair
  2. agricultural tie/ other planning problem
  3. urban degeneration (large areas of empty homes)

in my area i'd say very little of this was going on, as the high rents and house values mean homes are only left empty for a good reason. (eg legal dispute)

I really don't think going after empty homes is the answer in my area: new housing stock is.

creighton · 20/08/2012 21:58

when talking about selling high value social housing and replacing it with housing in other areas, the think tank is talking about kensington and chelsea, westminster, hammersmith and fulham, camden, islington. the think tank does not care about anywhere else. the most offence taken at paupers/non workers/social housing tenants living above their station is about these areas of london. all housing in these areas is 'above average' value so when any of it becomes vacant it should be, according to the think tank, be sold off. this will lead to a situation, in these boroughs, of there being precious little social housing so removing the lower orders from these boroughs.

if the funds from the sale of these properties are used to build new housing, it will be in different boroughs as there would be no point in selling it in the first place if the boroughs built again within the borough. i don't believe there is any law that says council x cannot build in council y territory, just habit until now has stopped this.

the problem with this idea is that it will remove the natural mix of residents from an area. property sold off will be bought by overseas investors (greek, french, spanish, whoever) to protect their cash. they won't necessarily live in them. they will be empty homes acting solely as assets for people with homes elsewhere. central london is solid gold as far as property is concerned.

lljkk · 20/08/2012 22:02

Ah, I didn't realise the think tank was so narrow in geography. that makes sense, though.

We are in rural Norfolk & have council housing around the corner that belongs to GLC, or whatever body succeeded the GLC. Elderly Londoners still get moved up here regularly.

janey68 · 20/08/2012 22:11

Its talking about all councils not just a few London ones

creighton · 20/08/2012 22:15

they may talk about all councils but the real money is to be made in central london

Swipe left for the next trending thread