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

"leaning" "turfing disabled, elderly and frail people out of familiar surroundings (which may well affect their health) and uprooting children from their school and friends." That is such a generalisation. There are plenty living in council housing who are young, able bodied but have just fallen in bad times thus need the help to get out of it. These people, who seem to make up a large proportion of those in council housing, should feel pressure to look for a job, save and find their own homes then releasing the council properties to those more in need then they are. To just offer this for life means so many people take it for granted and feel no pressure or desire to move on or aspire to change their life. This isn't what we should be encouraging. Apart from the elderly, ill or disabled, no one should be in "need" forever, especially when they have had a real helping hand to get back on track.

Council houses are not subsidised!

If as a landlord (or seller of any product or service) I decide to price my property (or product) below the highest possible price, that is simply a decision about price, not a subsidy.

Do you say Lidl or Sports Direct are subsidising their customers? Or selling shoes / groceries at a cheaper price?

Council housing is a different economic model from private rented, but it can still be run in a way that makes a profit for the tax payer, especially if you take housing benefit into the picture (if it's paid for council rents it stays in the public purse).

The real subsidy is housing benefit lining the pockets of private landlords. Now that is a subsidy as real money is awarded. It represents a massive movement of tax - our money - into private profit.

Well that's all lovely.

But back in the real world, how do you propose the Government/HAs build more affordable homes in Central London (without them being "subsidised"), when there is no space?

Not allowed to move people out, because they're settled/grew up there/need support of family who are nearby/need to be near work/it's ghettoisation of other areas/social cleansing of London.

So how should they do it there?

"There are plenty living in council housing who are young, able bodied but have just fallen in bad times thus need the help to get out of it."

I did not say council housing was generally full of the elderly, disabled or frail. But it does include many in those categories (in terms of actual numbers, I am making no claim about percentage).

If you have a policy that council housing is temporary then it will likely include evicting people in those circumstances.

The bedroom tax is already resulting in disabled people being evicted from houses which have had £££££ spent being specially adapted to their needs, and ending up struggling in homes which are not suited to their needs, which can mean they lose mobility, independence and suffer pain and indignity.

As to children, of course many council homes have families. Why on earth as parents (I assume) are you supporting a policy which would see thousands of children uprooted from their schools and friends, and parents from their support networks? That doesn't help society.

Council houses are not subsidised!

Yes they are, because they are at below-market rates.

If as a landlord (or seller of any product or service) I decide to price my property (or product) below the highest possible price, that is simply a decision about price, not a subsidy.

It's an irrational decision and not one you see very often in the real world.

Do you say Lidl or Sports Direct are subsidising their customers? Or selling shoes / groceries at a cheaper price?

They're undercutting the competition with an eye towards increasing profit.

Council housing is a different economic model from private rented, but it can still be run in a way that makes a profit for the tax payer, especially if you take housing benefit into the picture (if it's paid for council rents it stays in the public purse).

If it's not maximising profit it's a subsidy.

The real subsidy is housing benefit lining the pockets of private landlords. Now that is a subsidy as real money is awarded. It represents a massive movement of tax - our money - into private profit.

It's an indirect subsidy because it is paid for the benefit of the tenant.

Leaning it also doesn't help children to have parents with no aspiration themselves who install no ambition in their children or are not inspirational as role models either. That's just as damaging. Kids adapt, plenty change schools/locations and do fine.

I saw so many families on C4 "How to get a council house" who were in the group I'm describing above, who once they were in the council houses had no reason whatsoever not to get out there, find a job, save and move up (but didn't) and were so disgustingly picky and high & mighty about which house they were willing to accept, hence my perhaps harsh views.

I think the disabled/ ill families should definitely be set apart from others though and be able to rely on council homes for life if required, completely different situation.

If council housing was profitable everyone would do it.

We would have huge investment funds in social housing property, like you get investment funds in private/office property now, where you buy shares in the fund and get dividends from profits.

It's like care homes for the elderly - everyone getting out of it now as it is too difficult to make it pay.

In the past they were a good investment.

Council houses are not subsidised!

Yes they are, because they are at below-market rates.

Give up Apple, it's not getting through! There's none so blind, etc.

The people who are saying over and over again that it's not subsidised, despite having had it explained that it is, remind me of the Scottish Nationalists before the IndyRef.

Aye, Aye.

Aha, so I see that a different meaning of the word 'subsidised' is being used here. On the one hand, you have a group of people who pay money in order to rent a state-owned asset, and therefore make money for the state. This means that they are being subsidised. On the other hand, you have a group of people who cost the state £12 billion a year in return for providing substandard accommodation, with said £12 billion netting the state absolutely nothing in return - the state doesn't own anything for the £12 billion yearly payout, gains no assets, nothing. And yet they are not being subsidised. I see.

I will try one last time.

They are BOTH being subsidised.

I did not say "people in social housing are the only people in the world who are subsidised". Nor did anybody else, IIRC.

If a man and woman had another small property, maybe it was the woman's flat and they kept it when they first moved in together, and they then let their adult DC live in it either rent free or at a low rent, they are subsidising the housing cost of their adult child.

Surely, you can comprehend that?

It's exactly the same with social housing.

well it really depends on where you are in the country for council houses to be below markedt rents again we dont all live in london!

If as a landlord (or seller of any product or service) I decide to price my property (or product) below the highest possible price, that is simply a decision about price, not a subsidy.

yes it is! It's not a business decision, as your completely unrelated example of Lidl suggests. Lidl prices their products lower to make more money. That's it. It's entirely a business decision. And their prices are available to everyone. Everyone has access to their low prices.

SH are priced lower specifically so that people who could not otherwise afford them can have them.

A better analogy would be that Lidl prices their goods even lower for the poor. In that case the poor would be subsidised by, ultimately, the higher paying customers.

I am absolutely astonished that people can't see this. It's either a genuine lack of understanding, or an unwillingness to understand just so you can go through life saying you aren't being subsidised.

Hoiking up social housing rents just means more money in the pockets of landlords if people then need Hosuign Ben topped up. And less money in the public purse

So of course it is right to say it is a subsidy but essentially.... it is the poorer members of society subsidising the property and money-rich.

it is the poorer members of society subsidising the property and money-rich.

the poor don't have the money to do that. it is the tax payer doing the subsidy.

one way to lower the bill is to not insist that people be housed in the central London, where people play way below market rate, or collect huge amounts of HB.

"I saw so many families on C4 "How to get a council house" ... hence my perhaps harsh views."

Very scientific basis for your views then

Another way to do it is to free up the social housing in Central London* that inhabits people who could afford to pay the market rate rent, or who could buy their own place, and redistribute it to the most needy and vulnerable in society.

But people don't seem to want others to have the same helping hand they themselves have benefitted from.

*because there isn't the same shortage in other areas, so it's less scarce.

Another way to do it is to free up the social housing in Central London that inhabits people who could afford to pay the market rate rent, or who could buy their own place, and redistribute it to the most needy and vulnerable in society.*

Except for the tenure issue, I don't see how that makes a difference (granted, the tenure issue is huge).

We either subsidise in or out of council housing. it's all costing the tax payer.

Ah, a communist! So housing is going to be redistributed, with the poorest and most needy to be given priority? I take it you'll be first in line to hand over your own house then. What do you mean, that's different? If you're a home-owner, you're benefiting from tax breaks that cost the country around £12 billion (that magic figure again) a year, more so if you bought under right to buy etc so come on, cough up and stop sponging.

"The people who are saying over and over again that it's not subsidised, despite having had it explained that it is, remind me of the Scottish Nationalists before the IndyRef."

Maybe, just maybe that's because you didn't take the time to understand their arguments either.

The Scots have been royally screwed by staying in the UK and they know it. Promises have been reneged on almost instantly, media manipulation (eg the bogus signatures article) have unravelled before their eyes.

What do you think the landslide vote for the SNP was about?

But that's a whole other can of worms kettle of fish!

I would certainly support abolition of housing benefit although it is going anyway as it will be included in universal credit.

Most people don't want to live in a council house to be honest. It's some wonderful prize to be won. It's what you get if you didn't pursue that good career or your husband left you penniless or you cannot get much of a job as you messed around at school.

Most people would rather buy their own house if they can.

I certainly agree that many of us in London moved hundreds of miles away from all "support networks" to get a job and now work very hard to subsidise those who cannot move away from mother and cannot be bothered to travel to a job.

I agree HB should be abolished.

Anywayv the role out of uc is going to take 100 years at current rate.

youmustbekidding What tax breaks are you wittering on about?

Lego, we'll need to agree to disagree on that one. I did listen to their arguments, they made as much sense as the "council houses aren't subsidised" argument does.

Scotland would be fucked right now if it had voted for independence, given that the whole economy was going to be backed by oil.

Meant no fear as in if private rent a landlord could say I want to sell and the tenant needs to move and find a new property

I don't think it's fair a council tenant can live somewhere guaranteed for their life so maybe 50/60 years and not have to move to a smaller property when only them / children moved out so empty bedrooms when there are 1000's of families needing a home

Guarantee a roof over their head yes / but not the same property they've lived in for years if it's too big