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

Its not council/HA tenants fault that private landlords can charge what they like, causing private tenants to suffer appallingly high rents. Its the fault of a government that many voted for.

Imagine a system where social housing tenants were being means tested regularly, it would be chaos, appeals going through the roof. & I'd be afraid of who was given responsibillity for the testing and I don't mean the government. Theres nothing worse than working class people who in turn look down on or envy other working class people and gain a perverse satisfaction in wanting them to not do so well.

I live in HA accommodation whose business is it if I have a lifetime tenancy anyway? I waited years to be rehoused it wasn't handed to me on a plate and if 1 of my children inherits when I die - so?

If its not benefits claimants its social housing tenants being scorned the attitude in UK makes me sick nowadays we're being encouraged to become a nation of backbiting superspies begrudging anyone we think may have it "better than us", whilst leaving those who create shit housing policies and give private landlords a licence to print money, to get on with making things worse.

As said many voted for this "hardship government" so put up and shut up, better still form a protest about hugely extortionate rents for substandard properties

Anyone who buys a concert ticket at the list price assumes the risks and rewards associated with price fluctuations. In some cases the list-price payers will be subsidising concert-goers who are able to pick up tickets for less than list; in other cases they'll be subsidised by those who pay more.

Crucially, concerts are private rather than state assets and everyone is free to opt in or out as they choose.

Concert tickets also have a time-value that causes their prices to behave strangely.

Your analogy is extremely flawed.

Its not council/HA tenants fault that private landlords can charge what they like,

No, they can't. This is simply not true.

Council tenancies are not one of the great things about Britain.
it is certainly true that some parts of the country have a lot of people wanting to be housed (and plenty have empty homes but no work such as parts of the NE where I was from).

There is quite a lot of public support for these measures. The turning point was that railman on £100k with a working wife or partner who was in social housing.

Its not council/HA tenants fault that private landlords can charge what they like, causing private tenants to suffer appallingly high rents. Its the fault of a government that many voted for.

That's obviously untrue, they can only offer it at market rates, however much I despise BTL they don't just pluck a number out of the air, and as I have posted previously the political point scoring is juvinile because the housing crisis didn't suddenly materialise in 2010, nor is it some 'evil Tory ' conspiracy.

I don't see why it is seen as a race to the bottom in wanting, say a 5 year tenancy that is reviewed to see if personal situations have improved to either pay 'market rent' or free up the resource for others in need, there seems to be a lot of "I've got mine so sod you" thinking going on.

I agree, Landlords can only charge market rent and not an inflated number. Problem is that a shortage of affordable housing has driven that market rent up.

I am in a HA house in the south east. It's a 2 bedroom house with a garden. Market rent for my house locally would be around £800+. I pay less than £500 or rather HB does as I am currently unable to work due to the needs of DS.

I can only think that at least £500 in rent is less than £800+. In other words I cost the taxpayer less here. This may be a false economy though.

I think of relatives in Europe who always rent as that's what's usual. Tenancies are much more secure and deposits are known to pay for a deep clean at the end of the tenancy. However many people rent for years in the same property.

Plus wages are much higher and renting is less expensive when compared with the U.K. Even fairly low paid workers can afford to rent somewhere to live. We have a long way to go yet here.

Yes you are being unreasonable. Cameron is absolutely right. There should be NO lifetime tenancies.

Did the people in the workhouses get lifetime tenancies?

Slightly off rail, but I seem to remember Jersey don't do lifetime tenancies wrt social housing and juggle housing according to need. This could be out of date, though.

For example, if you are a family of four and need accommodation for that amount of people, you get suitable accommodation. Fast forward to the future where both children have left home and only parents are left or one parent is widowed and a different family of 4 needs suitable accommodation. The new family are moved into that 3/4 bedroomed house and the couple or single person is provided with accommodation suitable for 1 or 2 people.

The property is utilised in the best way and the suitable housing is provided for the most amount of people.

If people don't trust that change in circumstances would be reviewed fairly, do they also think the assessment that deemed them eligible for social housing in the first place was unfair? You can't really say "my eligibility for social housing was correctly assessed", but if the same assessment maintained they were not eligible any more, that would be flawed.

Someone occupying social housing who is as well able to pay for housing as those not deemed not eligible for social housing are blocking those who need it.

Right to buy is just taking social housing away from people in need of it.

Yup, propaganda really does work.
It all started when houses and flats became "property" rather than homes. So, essentially, a privilege rather than a right.
Its weird on Mumsnet, because it seems very London centric, so having a council place is a source of understandable envy from the poor sods who have to rent privately. Where I live, most people my age have either had a mortgage for 10+ years, or live in a council house. (The latter being seen as quite inferior).
I had to be homeless with my child to get housed in temp accommodation for a year, before this very modest 2 bed council house that I am very grateful to have. All his friends live in lovely owned houses, and frankly I felt like a total failure because I couldn't keep a roof over our heads. This is not something I will ever feel good about.
It makes me laugh how someone always trots out the legend of the person on 100k a year who lives in a council house. And yet no one in real life has EVER met such a person.
I do assure you though, I ever win the lotto, I will put gold pillars either side of the front door and park the lamborghini by the communal garages...
I absolutely do not feel like I got mine and everyone else can fuck off. I am involved in campaigning on many local issues to do with housing and other things that benefit the community.

Pang
I totally agree .

It makes me laugh how someone always trots out the legend of the person on 100k a year who lives in a council house. And yet no one in real life has EVER met such a person.

Here you go: www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/bob-crow-i-have-no-moral-duty-to-move-out-of-council-house-despite-receiving-six-figure-salary-as-8964238.html

And also:

"The Government estimates that higher income social tenants benefit, on average, over £3,500 per household from reduced rent and represent approximately 9% of all social tenants in England.

This includes over 40,000 social rented tenants with household incomes in excess of £50,000 per year; and a further 300,000 with incomes over £30,000 per annum."

(Source: news.sky.com/story/1513430/crackdown-on-rich-council-house-tenants)

I appreciate that Bob Crow is an outlier, but (quoting Pang) someone occupying social housing who is as well able to pay for housing as those not deemed not eligible for social housing, are blocking those who need it.

And again, from the English Housing Survey:

"Social housing is intended to be affordable for those on low incomes and in general social renters had lower incomes than those in other tenures. Around a third (31%) of social renters had a household income of less than £200 a week. Over half (55%) had an income of less than £300 per week compared with 15% of owners and 28% of private renters. There was little difference between the income profiles for local authority and housing association tenants.

4.17 A small proportion (8%) of all social renters had a gross household income in excess of £700 a week with these tenants being equally likely to be in a localauthority or a housing association, Annex Tables 4.2 and 2.2."

(Source: www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/335257/Chapter_4_Demographic_and_attitudinal_characteristics_of_social_renters.pdf)

What about the Olympic tickets example? In that, the tax payer was the ultimate funder as the government was underwriting whatever costs couldn't be recouped from ticket sales and sponsors.

The olympic ticket disaster you mean? First of all, I will be the first to say the olympics are a public purse scam. I hope we take zero lessons about how to spend public money from the olympics.

Also, back to the pricing, seats were empty because people didn't use their cheap tickets, and there was no way to sell them. I wanted tickets and simply couldn't get them in anyway even though seats were empty.

I agree that there is inherent unfairness in the system because there's not enough social housing - I posted on that earlier in this thread. I'm not arguing against change, just against the use of the word "subsidised" when the market is failing to meet society's needs.

but that makes no sense. Why argue against for the correct usage of the word, because the market is failing? Subsidies are not always bad. They can be very good and necessary. Just because the market is failing people doesn't mean it's not a subsidy. It just means the market is failing people.

But let's also be clear that it's not the market that's the problem. it's the fact that the government is neither building houses nor giving the private sector enough incentive to build houses. We are in a situation where demand is at an all time high (save post -war and -disaster exceptions), but building is at an all time low. that's not what the market would predict.

8% of (possible) renters of social housing earning upwards of 700 gross a week? So about 30 k a year then? And only 8 %?
So, not millionaires then.
I would need to be earning 35k a year (as the sole earner) to get a mortgage to buy an (oh the irony) EX council house in my area.
I, like a lot of sane people, consider secure housing to be just that. Secure housing so that people can then get on with their lives, rather than a last resort of the destitute. We need more secure low cost housing, not to drag working, healthy successful people out of their homes because they an "afford" to go live somewhere more expensive.

A large housing estate is being built near me, by one of the UK Major homebuilders. 5 of the houses have been earmarked housing association. And they are not cheap rent particularly either. Just 5 houses.
More needs to be done at a government level to address the housing crisis.
Attacking tenants security is not the way forward.

More needs to be done at a government level to address the housing crisis.

it's our fault. We allow the government to be so ineffective. Every major party had essentially no radical plan to address the problem. I think the Lib Dems had the most ambitious building targets and they didn't get anywhere near government.

Right, and those "40,000 social rented tenants with household incomes in excess of £50,000 per year" (source above)? Presumably Ms £50k would say to me, "Oh, but I'd need to move out of the area!" Yes, you would, love. Like the rest of us, you'd need to make choices within your means.

Of course every council and HA tenant believes they're entitled to remain in "their" property - inevitably those that earn £20k per year think the threshold should be £30k, and so on. The current system just provides no incentive for people to reduce their reliance on the state, and that needs to change.

"The current system just provides no incentive for people to reduce their reliance on the state, and that needs to change."

Living in a council house is not "relying on the state"

The council charges the occupants rent, you are aware if that yes?

For every tenant in council housing, if they are on housing benefit then the money - our taxes - is coming back to us.

If they are working then their rent money is coming back into the public purse.

If people are on housing benefit in private rented accommodation then our tax money is being spent lining the pockets if landlords. If that how you want your taxes spent? I don't! It's much better spent on council properties.

Living in a council house is not "relying on the state"

The council charges the occupants rent, you are aware if that yes?

These buildings are state assets, for which the council charges a sum that is less than it could otherwise charge to generate profits, which would come back to the public purse. All fine if people using it are in need of that help, not fine if they're simply availing themselves of it because governments to date have allowed that. If hypothetical Ms £50k wants to stay in that state asset, she should be paying an amount that reflects that.

Essential if you don't let mrs 50k rent her council house she will be it. Therefore that " state asset" is lost forever.

These buildings are state assets, for which the council charges a sum that is less than it could otherwise charge to generate profits, which would come back to the public purse.

I am always amazed at the resistance of calling a spade a spade in these cases. Avoiding words like "subsidies" and "state help" etc etc. Why not admit the truth?

but the other truth is that HB and social housing in all half of the dysfunction, and I would say it is the lesser of the two evils. It doesn't matter how virtuous, frugal or responsible anyone is: you aren't buying in zones 1-3 on ordinary wages. Ever. You could live in a box in the park naked and not eat for years and still not save up enough on low wages. It's impossible now. That's why social housing and HB aren't for the poor; it's for a huge segment of society. We aren't talking about the bottom 5% here. We are talking about 30% or higher of people mostly in work who can't afford rent.

Red - to my mind it is a subsidy, but so much of this thread is a debate about what is or isn't a subsidy, that I felt it was better to avoid that word.

Essential if you don't let mrs 50k rent her council house she will be it. Therefore that " state asset" is lost forever.

Seven - presume you mean "buy". I don't agree with RTB as is, but that's probably a separate argument conversation. But, yes, Mrs £50k has the means to buy, even in bloody London.

As a guide to how much has changed, I bought a brand new two bedroom flat in 1996 for £42k on a nurses salary.

I couldn't afford to buy the same flat on a nurses salary today....they go for around £180k.

They were renting for £500 (coukd just about have done this on a nurses salary) a month then and are now £1100 a month, and not doable.

We need more social housing....it's a disgrace that the average worker can no longer afford a roof over their head without the help of HB

And yes it was in the expensive south east