to think people are being deliberately perverse about Council/HA..

[fideline]

....housing?

1. Social (council or HA) rents are not subsidized.

2)Social (council or HA) tenancies are not a form of welfare benefit.

It's not that hard to grasp is it?

Fideline - God yes I would.

In fact I would support the development of an institutional private rented sector like they have in Germany where rent increases, standards and length of contract/ stability can be controlled much more easily - providing more affordable and stable rents for everyone.

I think where the issue really comes in is the allocation procedure, and the fact that we as a nation (and Government) have not addressed the issue of changing (or not) the reason we have social housing.

Initially, when it was originally brought in as a policy it was about ensuring people had access to homes, whoever you were. These were homes for people, and homes for life. It was about the universal provision of one of life's basic needs - whoever you were and however much you earn.

Changes over time to allocation and demand now mean that it isn't open to everyone. People are prioritised - they are prioritised and how much they 'need' it based on their ability to secure housing through other routes - namely the private market.

This allocation according to need makes it much more akin to a 'benefit' aimed at those who are unable to afford the basics in life.

Personally I think this is what needs to be addressed here......

I feel we need to face the fact that circumstances mean that the Council's are no longer in a position to provide housing for everyone, and are more interested in ensuring those who can't provide it for themselves are taken care of. Does this mean the introduction of market rents? Hell no. But I think it means a stricter and more transient allocation system, where changes in circumstances mean changes in housing situation.

But I know that this is a very controversial and unsupported view by many people. Hence why I think we should actually be concentrating on what I mention above about the institutionalisation of the private rented sector.

There is apparently something deeply immoral and scroungy about non-profit housing Floppy. That's the problem It is very wrong and scroungy not to be enriching other people like a good capitalist whilst housing your family.

Dino has explained that this is not admirable and that we should keep quiet about our scroungy instincts.

Obvious when you think about it

Floppy - that's just not true.

All housing association homes are built with the assistance of a government grant, and all receipts once costs are covered are used to build more social homes.

This was explained excellently up thread - but you can also find out more by checking out the Homes and Community Agency website - specifically the pages about the funding of the affordable homes programme.

Purple capital funding arrangements to build new housing is not remotely the same as general taxation subsidising social rents.

Fideline - I can see that's what some of the posters seem to say when they talk about it.

But then I think these are the poster who see 'benefits' as a scroungy thing, when people aren't being good capitalists and working to increase someones profits!!

People forget that the largest section of the so called 'benefits bill' goes to pensioners - people who are not physically fit or able to work on the whole. And many who have spent years working.

Do they really think these people are scroungers?

The media do a good job of portraying benefits as scroungy when they are anything but!!

YANBU

boils my piss and it was disgusting some of the comments on the bob crow thread, like that was the place for it ffs

what makes me laugh is that I bet most of the people bleating on about how they are subisidised etc and a "benefit" would not live in one to save their lives

Fideline - you misunderstand.

I wasn't saying that HA arrangements equate to subsidy.

Just that the inference that HA is the same as private LL and operated with no government money is in fact a falsehood.

What they are in fact, is a Government Investment - and seen as such. Which means that over time the Government gets back a RETURN on their investment. The exact opposite of a subsidy.

Like I've said before, I don't think the funding is actually the problem and the reason for people's assumptions. It's the allocation system.

You're making a fool of yourself, Fideline, calling me a "vile human being" because I think that council resources should be prioritised to help the poor and disabled, rather than to help council tenants who got their cheap housing originally because they were poor, but have since become well off. My posts have been reasonable throughout, in great contrast to yours.
I think that private rents are too high and that private tenants need greater security of tenure, as happens in some other countries. I also think that councils should be raising what money they can in order to prioritise the poor and needy. Even if that means charging market rate rents. We don't live in an ideal world where councils have plenty of money to spend in all areas, and it is important that they prioritise in order to help those who need it most.
Giantpurple is talking sense on this.

What makes you vile, Dino is the way you launched a personal attack on me last night, calling me a self-righteous scrounger, because you had, quite wrongly, assumed I was a council tenant.

When what I was actually doing was speaking in support of social housing and tenants rights.

"The media do a good job of portraying benefits as scroungy when they are anything but!!"

That's why misapprehensions need to be challenged.

I see purple and yes I can see your point about allocation.

There is no question of people scrounging when they are offered council housing because they can't afford private housing. That is what council housing is for. But there is in my view a real issue when those people get good jobs, become high earners, and stay in low rent council housing. They're not breaking the law or anything, but personally I wouldn't make a song and a dance about how righteous they are. It is however a matter for government as to how this situation is dealt with in the future. NB I am far from being a housing snob as has been suggested upthread. have lived in a house which was previously council built and owned (as I mentioned upthread I bought it from its right to buy owners who made an enormous profit on the sale). It was a really lovely house, very well built and easy to maintain, in a small development of council houses. I would have been delighted to have been able to live there permanently.

No dino I think your making a fool of yourself. What you are suggesting would involve some method of regular means testing of all council house tenants. How much do you think that would cost? How much would the council have to pay in court fees fighting the inevitable court battles when people fight to stay in their homes?

And again you are saying private rents are too high and social ones too low - you can't have it both ways.

I'm beginning to think that some people think subsidising = not getting as much profit as humanly possible. It doesn't

But Dino...if council tenants are charged market place rents then the HB would go sky high because many more would need to claim it. Nobody would be any better off.

"boils my piss angry and it was disgusting some of the comments on the bob crow thread, like that was the place for it ffs"

Quite agree Bal

"I'm beginning to think that some people think subsidising = not getting as much profit as humanly possible. It doesn't"

YY hopping

Ok have started a separate thread re. tenancy reform, as the need for change in the private sector seems to be something we agree on;

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/2024171-To-think-pre-1989-tenancy-rights-should-be-restored

you're making a fool of yourself, Fideline, calling me a "vile human being" because I think that council resources should be prioritised to help the poor and disabled, rather than to help council tenants who got their cheap housing originally because they were poor, but have since become well off.

BUT Dino the majority of social housing is no longer provided by local councils its PROVIDED BY PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS-so please explain how on earth are council resources for the disabled and poor being compromised in favor of SH tenants ?

Floppy she's even pretending to misunderstand why I called her vile.

You won't get an intelligent response from her. She probably eats nothing but DM articles.

Actually, Fideline, as I've already said, I'm as anti-Tory as they come, and wouldn't touch the Daily Mail. I'm probably one of the most enthusiastic anti-Tory posters on Mumsnet.
But I do try to think things through based on merits and evidence.
I'm going to leave this thread now, as I have very little respect for posters like you and have given you every chance to behave like a grown up. Abuse away - it's water off a duck's back as far as I'm concerned, and I doubt that you're impressing many of the readers of this thread.

Jolly good.

You do realise people can scroll up and see for themselves who was being childish and offensive?

Yes, I'm counting on it. Goodbye now.

I just lost a massive amount of respect for a poster I previously held in high regard.

Didn't read the bob crow thread but is be amazed if anyone could come up w a coherent defence of him staying in his council house - he was bang out of order IMO. Can you even begin to imagine the furore on here if it was reported that a banker still lived in a council house?

As purple people eater said, the reality is that council
Houses are prioritised on the basis of NEED these days, and therefore changing circumstances should be taken into account. The concept of "house of life" is not relevant to the modern age IMO (either for home owners, renters or council tenants) and rules should be updated to reflect that.