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

"Most people could afford to buy if house prices weren't inflated."

You reckon?!
I'm not sure the maths stacks up on that one.

More than a fifth of UK workers earn less than the living wage

Also if you're so worried about housing benefit driving up prices for eveyone (not sure this one is true either, but for argument's sake) then why on eastrh wouldn't you support the provision of more council housing, to take the pressure off the market?

Council housing even if they did build more won't keep up with the growth in population. I don't know what the answers are. This country is in a dire state. IMHO. It's everyone for themselves or so it seems. People are voting in the government that suits them. At the moment it's Tory. Because it's the best of two or three or four evils.

"Council housing even if they did build more won't keep up with the growth in population."

That argument makes no sense, is that the best you've got?!

You're basically saying that because there is a great demand for it we shouldn't do it?

I still am none the wiser as to how anyone could object to a new program of council housing.

You're right to say there would likely be more demand that a new council housing program could provide, at least at the beginning, but surely that's an argument to get on with it asap, instead of not doing it at all?

I still am none the wiser as to how anyone could object to a new program of council housing.

Having all the poor people live in a pile of cardboard under a bridge would make you feel soooo much richer without all the palavar of having to earn more.

The 'living wage' is just another can kicking excersise, a contributing factor in this and house prices are free movement within the EU, we need to start joining a lot of the dots.

www.theguardian.com/business/2015/dec/30/stalling-uk-wage-growth-set-to-revive-debate-over-migrant-workers?CMP=oth_b-aplnews_d-2

Owning a house should never be out of reach of anybody who works, we need more social and general housing, but

I am still none the wiser as to how anyone could object to a new program of socail housing

This could be reframed as to how could you object to reevaluating someone's circumstances when already in social housing, if the situation has changed they then free up that resource for others more in need?

Well, yes, if by 'reframed' you mean 'turned into a different question altogether'.

Ok so I was being very loose with the 'reframing', but a lot of the arguments against this policy are just trying to score political points whilst willfully ignoring contributing factors and just shouting 'build more socail housing' and not accepting that the management of socail housing also needs to be addressed.

But thanks for your contribution and just pick up on my terminology

"how could you object to reevaluating someone's circumstances when already in social housing, if the situation has changed they then free up that resource for others more in need?"

Very easily.

I object strongly to this for five reasons:

1. As a tax payer I want my money spent efficiently. If someone can carry on living in a council house and paying rent back into the system, that's money coming back into the public purse. Equally if the state has to pay a large amount of Housing Benefit for peopel to live in private rented, that's money lost to the taxpayer that could have come back into the system if they were in council housing.

1. Community is important and valuable. Having strong communities saves the taxpayer money in countless ways - e.g. saving the state money on social care and health care bills, nursery provision, employment benefit, the list is endless

1. Council housing was always meant to be for everyone in society who wanted it, not just for those desperately in need. If people are moved on as soon as they are no longer vulnerable then this is a quick way to create ghettos, which won't benefit anybody, and will have a knock-on effect into wider society.

1. It's a massive disincentive to improve your lot if you lose your home, community ties, children's school place, local friends and family as a result.

1. Tackling the problem by uprooting people rather than looking for creative solutions which benefit society is a massive lost opportunity. A modern program of council housing could be run as at a profit, and the wider social benefits would be enormous.

The problem is a short supply of homes. There's a really simple solution that benefits everyone in society - build more council homes.

I'm still yet to hear a decent reason why not?

*that should say unemployment benefits (e.g. JSA)

1. if you wanted tax payer money spent efficiently you would support reevaluation of social housing tenancies by moving out or paying market rent, anything else is just a 'fuck you I got mine' attitude.

1. Not only are you not understanding the 21st centurary but you are insinuating that only socail housing is a hub of community

1. A combination of 1 and 2 and ignores net migration and government coffers.

1. Is making an extreme example that those who have been reevaluated and are no longer viable as being made to move to some god forsaken wasteland, ignoring your previous points this is the 21st centurary and derogatory of not only net migration but the consensus of having to move for work

1. Creative solutions is a nice broad term that doesn't really mean anything in a globalised economy

We do need more social housing, along with that we need better management of said socail housing, you seem to be in favour of a 'fuck you I got mine' attitude.

1. "if you wanted tax payer money spent efficiently you would support reevaluation of social housing tenancies by moving out or paying market rent, anything else is just a 'fuck you I got mine' attitude."

Only if there is no plan to build new housing or deal with the housing crisis.

1. I'm not insinuating that social housing is the hub of community - where on earth did you get that from? You're reading in-between the lines and simply making up stuff!

But people (in all types of housing) do make communities where they live - not everyone, but the majority of people. The longer you live in a place the more likely you are to be part of a community.

Moving people away from support networks means more reliance on the state, how could it not? By the same token, younger generations being forced to move on means less support for older people.

As a direct result of Tory housing policy, thousands of families have been moved from places like London, where they had support networks, to places where they have none, and houses are cheap because jobs are scarce. That's going to cost society in the long run, not help.

1. Sorry I don't understand your point. I was saying if people can only stay in council properties if they are in desperate need then you create ghettos. What has that got to do with net migration or government coffers?

1. What are you on about? If people lose their homes, what do you think will happen? Are you imagining people get kicked out of council homes, and then move without upheaval to a nice place on the next road? In places like the expensive South East (where about a 3rd of the UK population lives IIRC) that just isn't going to be possible for most people. Many won't be able to afford to stay in the same area.

1. Creative solutions IMO covers any solution which attempts to deal with the root of the problem with thought and consideration for the bigger picture, and compassion for the people involved.

"We do need more social housing, along with that we need better management of said socail housing"

I agree, 100%.

"you seem to be in favour of a 'fuck you I got mine' attitude." Not at all. I believe in secure housing for all, and that if we're not working towards that then we are lacking in basic humanity IMO. We should not accept this, because it's another nail in the coffin to our society and communities.

People have always moved for work. My grandparents did in the 20s/30s - from the south of England to Scotland in one case.

To make out that we all lived in nice little friendly villages with extended families is wrong. Perhaps in the 17th C - then there was little choice, as soon as there was work in the cities people moved there ( 18C industrial revolution).

Very few people I know have stayed put all their life.

There were farming communities/ mining communities etc but they were there because there was work, and once the work dried up they had to move on, the jobs didn't come to the communities.

Govs have been trying to do this for decade, bribe companies to go to areas of low employment - the ample cheap housing in the north flags up that it doesn't work well .

"To make out that we all lived in nice little friendly villages with extended families is wrong"

I never said we did! Why when I mention community, do people assume I mean only communities on council estates or some nostalgic idealised version of community where neighbours all get on?

By communities I mean real, modern communities. Your family, friends, work-mates, if any of them live relatively near you, your DC's friends and their families, parents from school you know and any neighbours you talk to.

If people have to move away from their support networks, that will cost the state. How could it not?

Also, it's wrong to compare people making a positive move for a new job to families being kicked out of their homes against their wishes with the very real possibility of increasing poverty and harming their opportunities, it's not the same thing at all.

The proposed decrease in the benefits cap level is going to have a major effect also. If it goes ahead, it won't just be expensive inner London boroughs, but massive swathes of the South East which people will not be able to afford to live in - and don't forget 1 in 4 people on housing benefit are in work (I'd suspect more in the south east).

Does the picture below not strike you as a crazy situation? Where are people on low incomes supposed to live? How will the essential but low paid jobs in the South East be filled?

Instead of dealing with high house prices by penalising people, why not do something about the root of the problem - the house prices and lack of affordable housing (not to mention wages)?

I meant to include - link for article with picture above

Moving people away from support networks means more reliance on the state, how could it not? By the same token, younger generations being forced to move on means less support for older people.

You could have an economic system and social ethos that doesn't rely on the state.

Immigrants of various stripes (myself included) moved here and had to make connections without the help of the state (the conditions on my visa didn't allow me to collect benefits). I find this point a little odd because people claim destroying communities and moving people is a disaster, when it happens daily with immigrants moving here with very little from abroad, in many cases with a linguistic and cultural disadvantage.

But for that we need to rethink the role of government.

By communities I mean real, modern communities. Your family, friends, work-mates, if any of them live relatively near you, your DC's friends and their families

Well, yes, but once your DCs have left home, what? or are they not to leave home? are they not to move to find work? Say they do move to find work are we not allowed to move to them, instead we have to stay with the DPs of the other kids they were at school with because they are our modern community? Your workmates won't move either? Does everyone have to move to them? So their elderly DPs, DCs and their children must all move to their (your workmates) area to maintain the community? What about the community they leave??

Doesn't work.

You move, and keep in touch with friends if you choose to, and make new ones in the new community.

This idea of a little state subsidised Shangri-La where everyone lives in the next street to all those supportive relatives and friends. It's cloud cuckoo land I'm afraid. Modern life isn't like that. Communities change all the time. Many children move a long way from home because of jobs, meeting a partner and so on. Or even because they can't afford the housing where their parents live.

This idea of a little state subsidised Shangri-La where everyone lives in the next street to all those supportive relatives and friends. It's cloud cuckoo land I'm afraid. Modern life isn't like that. Communities change all the time. Many children move a long way from home because of jobs, meeting a partner and so on. Or even because they can't afford the housing where their parents live.

I agree with you, but herein lies a deep philosophical divide. It would simply never occur to me to think I could or should live in a city I couldn't afford, (even if it were my hometown) but I think we're fairly well alone in this view.

You're right. It is all in the mind. Some folk think they are entitled to live where they want or where they've always lived. People must face reality. They must live according to their means. And the jobs thing doesn't even hold weight. People don't take up jobs if they can't afford a house in that area. I've know people make that decision. Or they take the job and commute.

"People must face reality"

But it's an artificial reality. The main issue here is how expensive housing has become, and that's not an accident. It is like that because of decisions people who supposedly represent us have made.

If the people in power made different decisions, we wouldn't be in this position, so why on earth should anyone accept it? I am facing reality by demanding a change to a more sensible housing policy, one which favours people not profit.

It's not about me, personally living where I want to (I like where I live and own my property outright). It's about recognising that people matter, and that a healthy society benefits everyone - even in financial terms, if that's all you want to look at. The cuts the current government are making will cost us dearly in the future.

Did you look at the map I posted above? Do you really think a situation where about half of England is off limits to anyone in a family on a low wage, or people who can't work because of caring responsibilities, benefits society?

"Many children move a long way from home because of jobs, meeting a partner and so on. Or even because they can't afford the housing where their parents live."

Yes of course they do. I have ticked all of those boxes myself at one point or another. But I chose to leave, on my own terms. I wasn't kicked out.

Forcing people to move as house prices are high and wages are low - because of decisions taken by governments to help their friends in big business - is immoral. Things don't have to be like this, they are because people with power have decided that looking after each other is less of a priority than making profit for a few.

No one is objecting to people living within their means on a fair playing field. But the goal posts are constantly changing, and the odds are being stacked against us by people in power who want even our homes to be tradeable commodities. Not all countries do this, and it's not necessary or inevitable.

Forcing people to move as house prices are high and wages are low - because of decisions taken by governments to help their friends in big business - is immoral. Things don't have to be like this, they are because people with power have decided that looking after each other is less of a priority than making profit for a few.

the problem is house prices. I am from abroad and that's the only cost I see truly out of step with other places I have lived. And certainly it's bad policy that's created this housing mess.

But that mess isn't solved by housing benefit. Housing benefit has exacerbated so many problems. Supporting people near their families is certainly good temporarily. We don't want people in the north who suddenly lose their jobs to be forced to pack up and move to London.

But at some point, moving away from your relatives is the smart thing to do, and our system actively discourages that. after years of not finding jobs and watching all your friends and family lose theirs, it makes sense to encourage people to move elsewhere, or have a programme to move jobs to where there are none.

"the problem is house prices."

Agreed. So why not build more council housing?

People will be able to afford to live in them because the rent is fair, and pay their own rent without the need for housing benefit.
The rents in the private sector will come down too as a knock on effect.

Agreed. So why not build more council housing?

we should. I totally agree. But we should build more housing period, not just council housing. For that, nimbyism needs to be crushed, and planning restrictions removed.

People will be able to afford to live in them because the rent is fair, and pay their own rent without the need for housing benefit.

there is no such thing as fair rent. That's some fictitious concept that has no real meaning in economics. There is market rent and subsidised rent. I have lived in cities with low demand and high supply and rent was low. Is that fair to LLs? What we want is supply so high that rents and prices come down for all.

we should. I totally agree. But we should build more housing period, not just council housing. For that, nimbyism needs to be crushed, and planning restrictions removed.

Yes, let's just build all over England's beautiful countryside.

And all over Scotland's as well while we are at it since the government is trying to get estates to sell their land off and the communities want to build all over it, just brilliant