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

Agree with you blonde

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.
Deo I am very grateful for my HA house, I didn't mess around at school. I have a decent degree and was on my way to becoming a psychologist before I became sick/ disabled. My dh did not leave me penniless, neither did he mess around at school etc . He has a masters and a decent job. However one income is not enough to buy an adapted property suitable for my needs.
I can't decide if you are just extremely ignorant or just a truly horrible person.

And, you are the exception, however and most people do not prize a social housing, HA. council house. They would rather buy their own house. I am not wrong about that and I am sorry you are sick. Could you not do some work which you can do from home via a computer screen?

it's the security that people like.

And
Just to let you know that you can get a disabled facilities grant if low income home owner on low income .if that Wd be help .often via occupational therapist via council
.
I have just helped a lady get 30 k for adaptations .
So you don't spefically need a ha -but if yrs is already adapted then this info may not be needed .

Only had time to read the first couple of pages, but this thread is truly depressing, I can't believe how harsh, cold and downright right wing a lot of mumsnetters are these days, it's changed so much here. This government really has 'divide and rule' down to a fine art. Instead of turning our ire against those who have council housing, people should be up in arms with the government for their lack of private rent legislation. Many people need longer term tenancies and security, but what do this government do about it? Nothing as far as I've seen!! Not sure why people are turning against each other when we are all just trying to do the best we can in the circumstances we are given.

The right is loving and kind, not harsh and cold. The way to help people has always been a mixture of carrot and stick. The left instead let them languish in poverty.

FFS! Council housing is NOT subsidised. It is fair rent. If market rent is significantly higher for the same standard property, it is purely because of thieving landlords, looking to make easy money, gouging tenants who have no option but to try to pay ridiculous amounts for an indisputably essential commodity. That is what "market rent" is.

And as for the right using the carrot and the stick, who the fuck do people think they are to decide that someone (who may be far more hardworking, talented and intelligent than they are) needs a bloody stick just because they are poorer, especially when they are poorer because of eg housing costs, social security cuts and low wages? The mind boggles.

I'm just glad I'm rich enough not to have to worry about this, but I am furious on behalf of people who have to suffer because of this sheer bollocks.

I think it is a disgrace that some people think that other tax payers have to fund their housing for their lifetime. I am fine with it for those who are disabled etc but for people who can work, it should not be a lifetime 'right'. Benefits are there as a temporary safety net only, one for which a few times in my life I have been very grateful.

Joy to the World eh

How can people say council houses are not subsidised? Of course they fucking are - that's why people want one. Secure tenancy and kept "safe". I've had insulation, new boiler/central heating, double glazing and doors in less than 12 months. Chances of me funding that myself = zero.

There are frequently threads from people in panic over a bust boiler. When you're in social housing you make a phone call and it's fixed.

Don't let facts get in the way of a good froth eh!?

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. If you don't want to call it a subsidy, what term would you prefer?

Grace dont let facts get in the way of YOUR froth.

www.kilburntimes.co.uk/news/willesden_pensioner_forced_to_live_with_no_hot_water_and_heating_for_seven_months_contracts_pneumonia_1_1389701

I think it is a disgrace that some people think that other tax payers have to fund their housing for their lifetime."

You have misunderstood what council housing is.

If someone stays in council housing how do you think it costs the tax payer money?

If that person is on housing benefit, it costs the tax payer less money as it's cheaper than private rental.

If that person is earning enough to not need housing benefit then they're paying rent, which is going back to the tax payer.

In fact if you're worrird sbout tax payers money then what you want is people to stay in council properties for life so they can pay back into the system over their working life.

Helena - then that's a problem within kilburn's management of their properties. As I say, I'm a council tenant and maintenance come within 60 minutes of me phoning.

Grace if you google "housing association no heating no hot water" You will find many instances like that one. Its endemic right across the industry.

The longest length of time i found was four years.

It is disgraceful that some people own more than one house when there are so many people living in substandard, even dangerous, housing.

I am waiting for the day when holiday homes are made to pay double or even triple the council tax. The problem of rural housing is that so many like to have a little place near the beach, who don't contribute to the surrounding community one bit except for perhaps a few weeks a year; and so many local you g people having to live with parents or move away altogether.

In fact if you're worrird sbout tax payers money then what you want is people to stay in council properties for life so they can pay back into the system over their working life.

I know you probably think you've made a really intelligent point with this, but this only shows how little you understand about the economy.

However, developing this ridiculous trail of thought a bit more, what would be even better for taxpayers would be if the tenant paid MARKET RENT as soon as their income reached a level which made them able to. Then they could pay back what they've taken out quicker, enabling more investment in new property by the council/HA for those less fortunate and more in need.

I think London and the SE massively skews what people think about council housing. As I have said, where I live it's a bit crap to live in social housing-most families own.
And as for this argument that the council could, if it wanted, rent out it's housing stock at market rent..well, again, probably not here.
There are lots of small terrace houses here owned by the council. They rent for around 150 pounds a month less than if they were rented privately BUT when you sign for one, you get the basics (central heating, double glazing) but no carpets anywhere, no cooker, no fridge. Mine had barely any kitchen cupboards.
You have to get the house together yourself (and there is no help with this).
So, a private landlord, actually, would not be able to rent out one of these houses in that state. Council housing is a totally different thing to private rental.
And it is fair rent. I pay just under one quarter of our net household income on rent. In private rented I paid almost half of my net income in rent. Or rather, the council paid the difference. So if the council decided to rent out my house for market rent they would end up paying for it anyway, as spending half your income on rent is not sustainable for most people.

Of course council houses are subsidised in a lot of cases. The council could be charging a higher rent and thus generating more profit for other facilities provided by the council. As long as council houses are cheaper than the equivalent house to rent privately they're subsidised. It's simple maths.

You do realise that tenants are also taxpayers, right ayeamorok?
I have said this before , but I think it needs saying again. Housing, homes, are not a privilege. Having a pretty basic roof over your head, and paying a reasonable amount to have this, is not some amazing gift bestowed upon the "needy" by the "taxpayer" . We don't need to tug our forelocks in gratitude.
Making housing, and communities, less stable and more transient is not what benefits society, or the economy.

They are a priviledge when there are not enough to go round and tens of thousands of people want one. what else would you call them. A punishment. No wonder this country has become more right wing. Less people are falling for the tired old socialist arguments.

If someone stays in council housing how do you think it costs the tax payer money?

According to the 2012 Guardian article I linked to up-thread, the average council rent is (was) £300 less than they could get if they let at market rates. So each council property is (was) costing the taxpayer £300 a month in subsidy. The government is now charging higher-earners a market rate though, so the average subsidy may now be less.

If that person is on housing benefit, it costs the tax payer less money as it's cheaper than private rental

If this argument were correct, then the rent and housing benefit should be cut to zero, and the tax-payer would save a fortune.

Let's say the market rent would be £1000 a month but the actual rent charged (and the actual level of housing benefit) is £700. If the tenant is charged £1000 and housing benefit is changed to £1000, or alternatively both to £0, neither the government nor the tenant is any better or worse off. It doesn't matter if the state is paying itself £700, or £1000, or £0. There is no net profit or loss, as the money is going around in a circle. But if both rent and housing benefit are set at £1000 it is then clear exactly how much subsidy that tenant is getting, which is a good thing. When the tenant gets a job, and the increase in income means housing benefit is cut, the taxpayer would be able to reduce housing benefit to claw back some of the subsidy, which they wouldn't be able to do if the rent/housing benefit were £0. If the rent were £700, they wouldn't be able to claw back the hidden £300 subsidy, because it isn't in the figures that feed into any calculation. That's why transparency (=economic truthfulness) is important, and hidden subsidies are bad.

Still a lot of noshing off going on here I see. Bravo

SH rent money doesn't go to any other services why do people keep thinking that, it's weird it goes into maintenance of the houses and there is usually a surplus at the end of the year.

When the council are forced to charge yanno 'taxpayers' more money 'pay to stay' the money is not going into services, it's not going to the taxpayer or anywhere else. It's going straight to central government to do with as they please.

I am enjoying the RAAAR it could earn more so its subsidised and then drifts back into free house territory though. It's very entertaining. Make your fucking mind up.

Propaganda works it's well scary.

Theoretician a vast number of people who get HB are working.( I think around 60% of working, private rent paying people get some hb) They get a top up of HB to enable them to afford private rents. HB is not just for the jobless. It exists because rents are too high for the means of ordinary people.