to think its a disgrace that Cameron is going to stop lifetime council tenancies

[sparklesandglitterxx]

and think that that is NOT the solution to the housing crisis?

the solution as far as i can see it is, lots and lots more council houses need to be built, regulation in private renting needs to be improved, and GENUINELY affordable houses to buy for those on low wages that wish to or are able to buy

fed up of seeing the great things about Britain being chipped away. Why punish renters? The whole Tory attitude towards council housing being a last resort for the destitute disgusts me. council housing needs to be brought back to what it was originally meant for...which is a decent secure home for anyone who wants one. i live on a council estate which is a mix of council, HA and bought. People stay here, they build lives here, generally it is a lovely community. i have never been happier or more settled anywhere i have lived, I have done well in my life and been able to have a big family. my children are happy and thriving at school and have lots of friends. My point is if these changes go through, they will end up DESTROYING communities like ours and so many others. The Tories just seem to want everyone either paying their landlord mates every penny they earn or pushing up house prices by buying. But not everyone wants to buy, and more importantly not everyone CAN buy, (I have friends on good money who are still priced out the market) and hardly anyone would actually CHOOSE to be in insecure, expensive private rented !! I also think that if more people are in secure housing, it will help peoples mental health (hence cutting costs in mental health services), it will improve childrens chances in life, as they wont have to keep moving schools and away from friends etc, it will encourage people to better themselves, it will cut the HB bill, and also with people spending less on their rent they will have more to spend in the economy, thus boosting it!

I also suspect it wont end here....while it will be for new tenants only to start with, i would imagine it will end up being everyone in council / HA

People here want social housing because the insecurity in the private rental sector. Why the difference? Why should some have security and not others?

the private rental market is what pushed us to buy. We had young DCs moving to London and didn't want rent raises to force us to move.

I refer back to my NHS analogy.

Every winter, many hospitals have crises in which not enough beds are available, because patients who are well enough to leave cannot do so, because arrangements for e.g. support at home, move to a cottage hospital, care home or nursing home are not in place.

There are two ways in which this could be resolved. We can demand tat more hospitals are built, with more beds. Or we can make sure that the 'non-hospital' locations that these patients could move on to are available and fit for purpose.

It seems to me it is very similar for council housing. We can either demand that many more council houses are built, for more people to live in in a 'house for life' scenario (even though this does have an effect on e.g. the match between the house and their specific needs, and their mobility to take jobs elsewhere in the country as those arise), or we can make sure that the 'next step on' - private rented housing - is available and fit for purpose.

Again, as I said earlier, it depends on the way in which we view council housing. Do we regard it as 'something that everyone has a right for the state to provide for them' - like education - or 'something that the state provides for those in the greatest need, at the time of their greatest need' - like the NHS?

Sorry, cross post with redsky. I do genuinely think that improving the private rented sector and its reguklation, including the provision of longer and more secure tenancies, is a better way forward. 'For life' vs '6 months' is too stark a difference - could both move towards 5 years? IME for people in my generation even in owned housing, moving every 5 years is pretty normal given current employment patterns.

we could also look at people relocating to areas where there is not such a demand for social housing i know its extremely simplistic but it seems daft that houses are standing empty in some parts of the country yet in the south people who want or need social housing will never be able to get it because of the massive waiting lists.

we could also look at people relocating to areas where there is not such a demand for social housing i know its extremely simplistic but it seems daft that houses are standing empty in some parts of the country yet in the south people who want or need social housing will never be able to get it because of the massive waiting lists.

there's a reason why there is low demand for housing: no jobs.

It's terrible policy to move people to places with no jobs. In fact, our current you should get a house in your neighbourhood at any cost policy drives these bad policies. We support people in places where there are no jobs. That makes no sense. We should either encourage them to move to the jobs, or encourage jobs to move to them.

There are loads of jobs near me low paying jobs granted but still jobs we still need people to do the low paid jobs in the north just as they do in the south i,m not saying force people to move but people could consider it if you are going to be in a low paid job in the south in crappy private rented why not but in a low paid job in the north in a secure tenancy do you honestely think nobody works in the north ?

you are going to be in a low paid job in the south in crappy private rented why not but in a low paid job in the north in a secure tenancy do you honestely think nobody works in the north ?

I don't know. if there are jobs and cheap housing, people aren't going for some reason. I don't know what it is.

"I don't know. if there are jobs and cheap housing, people aren't going for some reason. I don't know what it is."

Family and friends, for starters.

(And it's warmer down here)

and the beleif that the only life worth living [ on mumsnet at least] is in london or the south ,despite the lack of housing and the extortionate rents etc .

There is of course a massive ideological divide which underpins this. It's been touched on briefly, but is key to the problem, and it's best summed up by the "council" (used 300 times so far in this thread).

What is the role of government in peoples lives ? Why should "the council" be involved in property development and management (with public money) when there are privately funded companies that already do this ? Bearing in mind that whatever people on this thread believe, the reality is we have a government whose answer to that question is "as little as possible (for as much as we can get)".

P.J. O'Rourke wrote a fascinating (and don't-read-it-on-the-bus-funny) book "Parliament of Whores" in which he asks the same question, noting that some people seem to expect "the government " do "do something about everything".

There is of course a massive ideological divide which underpins this.

Exactly.

Yes, people in council houses are paying rent but if that rent is below the open market private rental value of the property then council housing is subsidised! If councils charged the market rate and those not in receipt of housing benefit paid this then there would be more money in the councils' coffers to improve schools, upgrade roads, clean streets etc.

@oldraver Far too many people have familes that move out and then a couple sit in a house with more bedrooms that they need...I thinks its a disgrace.

Is this kind of situation not dealt with, up to a point, by the bedroom tax "under-occupancy charge"?

Yes, people in council houses are paying rent but if that rent is below the open market private rental value of the property then council housing is subsidised! If councils charged the market rate and those not in receipt of housing benefit paid this then there would be more money in the councils' coffers to improve schools, upgrade roads, clean streets etc.

No it's not! That is not the definition of a subsidy! And as has been said numerous times before, the market rents are the problem. They are in no way on par with the UK average wage, certainly in the South at least.
The other way of looking at things is if we stopped giving massive discounts for people to buy their council and HA homes and stopped paying housing benefit to private landlords and instead invested in more council housing we would then end up with a far lower HB bill and more money to spend in the ways you've suggested above.

If a council is charging rents lower than they could get then they are subsidised. It is not just about covering costs, it is also about opportunity cost. Shouldn't council's maximise the use of their assets? If we were talking about commercial premises you would think it ridiculous for the council to just cover costs while eg. Starbucks reels in a larger profit.

I know we are not talking about commercial premises and I think it is appropriate for social housing to be at a lower cost but by not maximising the return they are subsidising it. Once someone is beyond the bracket where that support is needed should this continue?

Yes, make housing so plentiful that the bottom falls out of the market for opportunistic landlords - and create a situation where 'market rent' is at or below existing council rents rather than hoik up everyone's rents into the stratosphere. That way people in private and council/HA rentals benefit.

As for the daft ideas about making council rents higher then increasing Housing Ben - after what they tried to do to millions of people on the breadline with tax credits, what kind of idiot would trust the tories of the future not to suddenly pull the plug and leave people homeless?

You tackle this by giving people in private rentals MORE security and lower rents - not by attacking people who are already struggling, in social housing. But who trust tories to have the will to tackle landlords? I bet half the cabinet has fat property portfolios.

And smug 'home owners' - the bank owns your house not you. The bank owns it til you have paid the final payment. I think a lot of people who previously never got mortgages got them in the 1950s onwards and they seem to forget a mortgage is a poor person's way of buying a house. Previously, you laid out the cash. And so you are not really a home owner at all til the thing is entirely paid for. As the people who bought the council house next door to me found out when they stopped paying the mortgage.

out of interest where do people think this rent money goes if increasing it is such a grand idea? Council rents are ring fenced, they can't be diverted elsewhere and there is already a surplus. Who do you think is going to get this extra rent when they put it up to market rates?

To be fair, Dave will only be in his council home for 5 years at a time, and I don't think he will get to stay come the next election...

I don't think council rents should go up as there is a need for this support. But if this need no longer exists then I don't think it is unreasonable to remove the support so the resources (either money from increased rent or the home itself) could be released for those who do need it. If there is a surplus then couldn't this be used to build further homes?

Yes, people in council houses are paying rent but if that rent is below the open market private rental value of the property then council housing is subsidised! If councils charged the market rate and those not in receipt of housing benefit paid this then there would be more money in the councils' coffers to improve schools, upgrade roads, clean streets etc.

No it's not! That is not the definition of a subsidy! And as has been said numerous times before, the market rents are the problem. They are in no way on par with the UK average wage, certainly in the South at least.
The other way of looking at things is if we stopped giving massive discounts for people to buy their council and HA homes and stopped paying housing benefit to private landlords and instead invested in more council housing we would then end up with a far lower HB bill and more money to spend in the ways you've suggested above.

This is a strange way of looking at the definition of a subsidy. Whether something is in line with average salaries has absolutely nothing to do with it, it's merely a symptom of some other distortion.

I don't really object to social housing being below market value, by the way.

You tackle this by giving people in private rentals MORE security and lower rents

Which can only be done if you - wait for it ! - build more houses.

out of interest where do people think this rent money goes if increasing it is such a grand idea? Council rents are ring fenced, they can't be diverted elsewhere and there is already a surplus. Who do you think is going to get this extra rent when they put it up to market rates?

If rents were reconsidered, it seems very likely that this policy would be as well.

joffreybaratheon for pm!

loving your work on this thread