OMG!! The Council House Giveaway!!

[HeeHiles]

It's IDS again!!

So, if you live in a council house and come off benefits for a year the Tories will GIVE you your council house. Now even though I could benefit from this I still think it's a crazy idea......we need more CH not give them away!!

All for a few votes?? It's that damn Dame Porter all over again!

Anyone think this is a good idea?

And in a market where demand exceeds supply, that leads to inflated rents.

Demand doesn't exceed supply - there are plenty of dead estates around with empty homes, plenty of large homes with one person rattling around in it.

Demand is fuelled by subsidised interest rates because that's got us into the spiral of the need to move into affluent cities where incomes are higher and supply then becomes lower.

Decent wages would mean this pressure is eased off. That will never happen as long as we subsidise low wages with tax credits.

The normalisation of having two working incomes per home has meant prices doubling and trebling in relation to real value. Effectively as an individual you're buying a bedroom, not a whole home.

Tory policies are designed to keep the poor well away from the rich, in a ghetto like system, fuelled also by the school catchment system.

Rents go up in relation to house prices and there's no way round that other than to have a policy of house price reduction or at least stability. Of course that will never happen.

Surely this is a mad idea. Is it April 1st. How will people afford to maintain them. They won't. So lots of houses will then be in a poor state. But then council houses will be less desirable. Hmmm I wonder.

Yes I know the market is skewed, but free market ideologues seem to gloss over that.

The whole point is it's not a free market. One of the biggest con tricks in modern politics (worldwide) is the right wing hoodwinking everyone into thinking there's a "free market". Not here there isn't. Not in the US there isn't. How can a regulated market be free ? It's an oxymoron (or is that IDS ).

The Tories don't want a free market. If there was a free market houses could be built anywhere by anyone - guess what that would do to the cost of housing ?

Instead we have a series of policies designed to increase the cost of housing.

One rarely noted point (and ask why that is ?) is that there are many ways to skew the market. One is to reduce the supply. The other is to increase the demand. Which was falling in the 80s and 90s as the birth rate slowed, and the population looked on course to shrink. Now governments can't really affect birth rates (unless you look to Mussolinis "battle for births"). But they can affect population. I leave it to the reader to ponder that implication.

RTB is to be abolished here in Scotland from 2017

Scotland's got the answers. Labour needs to take a leaf out of the SNP's book, several perhaps.

What's happening in the UK isn't (in Principle, not in numbers or level of tragedy of course before I get flamed) far off the Clearances, with social cleansing reducing a whole group of people to a life of servitude and poverty. The pattern is the same, the wealthy in their mansions, waving money around and keeping it all to themselves while the middle class resent those who are unemployed through no fault of their own in a desperate attempt to keep up with their bemansioned friends.

Right to Buy is also applicable to housing associations, under the Right to Acquire scheme.

Shedding it's also possible that private Leaseholders would swoop down on an estate promising 'liberty' from the council in order to gain the leases. They would ensure that leaseholders would be conned into thinking private ownership would be a good option and we know what would happen then. They would sit back and watch while the poor couldn't afford their repair bills and kick them out.

Councils are also desperate for cash and selling everything they possibly can, including libraries so I wouldn't put it past them to pass estate management wholesale on to private companies (as opposed to HA's which they are at present). It might be (not sure about this one) but if leaseholders are determined by a voting system (I know private leasehold flats are) HAs could easily be kicked out.

Obviously Eric Pickles and IDS have been spending a lot of time together plotting.

Right to Acquire is a much less generous scheme than RTB, though Donna. Tiny discounts.

Bloody stupid idea from a bloody stupid man. I only hope enough people see this stupid, spiteful, election bribe for what it is and he shoots himself well and truly in the foot.

But they can affect population. I leave it to the reader to ponder that implication.

Lurkinghusband that's already happening as families are made to feel guilty for having children they can't 'afford'. Our population is being topped up by immigration.

You only have to look at the 'economising' threads where parents are finding ways to feed their family on £1.50 for a week and being made to feel guilty when they can't because it might mean claiming a benefit.

unfortunately I believe most people in council homes would jump on this if it was offered

I don't blame them, in the current climate of eroding tenancies, scrounger-bashing etc.

Lower income and groups and renters (generally) are not getting a fair deal.

Grumpyoldblonde

Bloody stupid idea from a bloody stupid man. I only hope enough people see this stupid, spiteful, election bribe for what it is and he shoots himself well and truly in the foot.

But it was a proposal, a suggestion ... if it seems the plebs voters like it, it'll be expanded. If it's not so populist popular, it'll be quietly lost.

With the speed of "news" nowdays (has 50 Shades actually been released yet ?) it could be sunk without trace in ... 4 hours ?

90% of people who do read "the news" only ever live life above the fold. You could put whatever you wanted below it, and they'd never know.

Lurking Husband you appear to be agreeing with me.

Hi All (first post after being a frequent reader)

So part of this is a clever plan, me thinks. But, it is flawed and like all previous attempts to improve the CH sector it is designed to deliver results that have not been shared/admitted by government.

Come out with an appealing offer of a free house, to remove people from other benefit streams; clever but terribly wrong in many ways.

So if you do this and you need state benefits in the future they will simply say, sorry you don't qualify you're a home owner; sell your (free) house, this providing you cash to rent privately/start a business/not dependent on state.

As you have sold your (free) house to a private owner; whom in theory should maintain it to a reasonable standard and rent it out most likely, thus providing the private accommodation to the newly designed private tenant.

Ultimately floored plan, not thought through. Will cost the tax pay hugely long term. The only people to benefit are the private vultures whom come to the aid of the vendor of the (free) house.

Government statistics look good = less people in the benefits pool, but heaps more pressure (longer term) on communities that are already in crisis....another Tory Story.

Welcome, and , ayespiepie!

Arrgh, ayespiepie ayespypie. Your name is too clever for me!

We private rent. What's to stop us spliting up, me getting a council house, reconciling with my husband and him moving in with me, this coming off benefits then getting given the house???
Sure seems better than paying extortionate rents for the rest of our lives as we can't afford a deposit for a mortgage, so basically the squeezed middle who work hard to keep a house over thier heads get no reward but all it takes to get a house is do nothing an claim benefits???
Seems completely ridiculous and not thought through at all

Given the amount of noise this suggestion has generated, I'm curious as to what they're trying to hide in it ....

What's to stop us spliting up, me getting a council house,...

Years on a waiting list for one thing.

But maybe the idea is to end social housing as much as it is to buy votes and they aren't to concerned about who benefits?

"But maybe the idea is to end social housing as much as it is to buy votes and they aren't to concerned about who benefits?"

^^This.

Years on a waiting list for one thing

Exactly, by the time a person has gone through the system which can take ten years or more there will be no social houses left!

It is a ridiculous suggestion! How can it even be considered, this is a time where many parts of the country have critically low levels of social housing. I live in Wokingham district where the average wait time according to shelter is now over 10 years, basically you have no chance unless you are unintentionally made homeless and can prove that 100% it is not your fault and even then if you do something as silly as move out when your tenancy ends and before the bailiffs arrive, you will be classed as intentionally making yourself homeless!

The country needs to look at building affordable and social housing. Even the prices in many traditionally poor areas are now out of reach for many of the younger generations. Not everyone can move away from the south east either, if you have a full time job, you should be able to support yourself in a home without subsidy from the government. I have no idea how this can be done though as if they raise minimum wage to a liveable wage for the south east many people will lose jobs s the small companies won't be able to afford to pay them and if you decrease rents/house prices then many private landlords will have to sell and not everyone can buy.

I live in an ex council house. The previous owner bought it for £43k. 8 yeas later they sold it to me for £240k. She retired to Spain.

I'm not sure what my point is but the government didn't gain £200k in that transaction

Terrible idea. Most parts of the country need more social housing.

Giving houses away is likely to have a negative effect down the line because it'll reduce the amount of social housing available, and the private sector rentals tend to be pricier and less secure.

I object to rtb for the same reason, although at least with that the council gets money that could be used towards replacing the lost houses. I'm skeptical about whether that can be cost effective in expensive areas though. Better to keep the council houses in the first place imo.