Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 ··· 27 28

Original poster

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

685 replies

sparklesandglitterxx · 17/12/2015 09:09

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

OP posts:

redstrawberry10 · 17/12/2015 10:15

arent council house cheaper than the equivalent on the open market?

Often yes. But there are those (on this very thread) that don't regard that as a subsidy, for some odd reason.

foragogo · 17/12/2015 10:16

How would it create a ghetto - people would pass back and forth between private rent, council properties, home ownership according to need and income. The situation now is ghettoised - people permanently in council housing, children following them into it. Or are you really saying that Bob Crowe / a lottery winner shouldn't be asked to move on and buy their own property and free up the council house for a young family on a fraction of that income?

LarrytheCucumber · 17/12/2015 10:17

Or...you could just get a job and buy your own bloody house. I think that's a bit harsh. People who live in London and surrounding areas face an enormous struggle to buy anything. I have seen horrible 2 bed terraces in the area where I was born selling for up to £350,000. We certainly couldn't buy one now, let alone if we were young and just getting on the housing ladder. For some people moving to a cheaper area is an option, but not for everyone, and a lot of people do work very hard, but in jobs that are badly paid.

gamerchick · 17/12/2015 10:18

Council houses pay for themselves many many times over. There is a surplus that until a few years ago the government was taking a large chunk of. You wouldn't pay your mortgage off and then start paying it again would you?

BertPuttocks · 17/12/2015 10:19

"The council has a choice - rent to a council tenant for £5000 a year or rent to a non council tenant for £7000 a year."

And if the non council tenant needs to claim housing benefit to be able to pay that higher rent, are they not still being subsidised?

redstrawberry10 · 17/12/2015 10:20

I think that's a bit harsh. People who live in London and surrounding areas face an enormous struggle to buy anything.

it's not a bit harsh. it's completely missing the entire economy of the capital.

It's not people on the dole that's a problem. The problem is that people with good jobs can't buy anything.

x2boys · 17/12/2015 10:20

Ah gamerchick its funny to read the misconceptions of those who have never set foot on a council estate in their lives let alone live on them free houses ,subsididised rents have we had the i cant get a council house because i work yet?

AppleSetsSail · 17/12/2015 10:20

Particularly in the Southeast, a lifetime council tenancy is worth so much money to the recipient that they would be strongly incentivised to keep their income below whatever threshold you set in order to retain the tenancy.

A very high threshold might be fine e.g. 100K, but I would guess it would affect very few people and probably unnecessary in any case because they'd move of their own accord.

redstrawberry10 · 17/12/2015 10:22

Council houses pay for themselves many many times over.

who cares? That's not what makes it subsidised. It's subsidised because they could otherwise rent it for a higher take.

SirChenjin · 17/12/2015 10:23

but I would guess it would affect very few people and probably unnecessary in any case because they'd move of their own accord

Bob Crowe didn't

gamerchick · 17/12/2015 10:23

It doesn't even matter because people are going to get their way. It's in the pipeline that people on 30 grand or over will have to pay market rents on their council house to keep their tenancy.

People will still be jealous though because they will still have that security but skintness will be equal.

Can't win anyway.

sparechange · 17/12/2015 10:24

Those who get to the end of their 5 year tenancy and still qualify for council housing are going to be unaffected by this. They will simply be given another tenancy and life goes on. So communities should be broken up, or any of the other scaremongering.

But if you get to the end of your 5 years, and you've got yourself a £40k job, or your children have moved out, then fair enough, the council can say you no longer qualify and can find something in the private sector.
I can't see any justification for keeping single people in family houses, or letting those earning good salaries get council houses while those in need spend another year in a hostel. It makes no sense.
Outside council estates, people move on when they earn more, or earn less, or downsize or upsize. Why should estates be some special protected bubble where the normal rules of social mobility don't apply?

With all the will in the world, there just isn't going to be a mass council house building programme. The only time in British history that there has been one was to replace slum houses and to stimulate the economy. We don't have millions of people living in slums which need to be cleared, and we don't have a building industry which desperately needs the government to drum up work for it. And that is before we look at how on earth it would be financed...

futureme · 17/12/2015 10:24

No misconceptions here - I have an ex council house and am surrounded by those earning more than me in similar houses but at cheaper (subsidised ;)) rent.

AppleSetsSail · 17/12/2015 10:25

You're being wilfully ignorant, so I'll just let this one pass without comment.

Iwanttobeadog · 17/12/2015 10:25

I live on a small estate of typical council solid family homes with large gardens. The 50% or so that are still council owned are exclusively occupied by single elderly people, or in some cases the middle aged single children of the previous owners. The gardens are too large for them to deal with and two of the three bedrooms of each are unoccupied. the local families who need help with housing are moved out of the area and away from their support networks. It's wrong. Incidentally we paid £245k for our house. The previous owner bought it 10 years prior for £42k. The system is broken.

futureme · 17/12/2015 10:25

And yes earn too much to get one. You have to be in need to get one in most areas but of course they can still stay in them when on very good wages meaning not enough for those in need.

gamerchick · 17/12/2015 10:25

I still want to know where those free houses are x2

etttvatre · 17/12/2015 10:26

Or...you could just get a job and buy your own bloody house.

I've got a job, £39k a year, and there is no way in hell I'll be able to buy a house anytime soon!

BadLad · 17/12/2015 10:26

Is anyone going to correct the misconceptions, or is this discussion going to be a complete waste of time other than providing amusement for a handful of posters?

KitZacJak · 17/12/2015 10:26

Really the housing market needs to crash so house prices are in line with wages. Then council housing and housing benefit wouldn't be needed to the extent they are now. But that is not going to happen and would have major repercussions on the whole economy. So what is the solution, I do not know??? But the government has a duty to make sure people can afford to live as not everyone has amazingly well paid jobs.

x2boys · 17/12/2015 10:28

me too i,ll let you know when i find one i,ll probably find it alongside the mumsnet mythical chicken.

redstrawberry10 · 17/12/2015 10:30

Is anyone going to correct the misconceptions

we are trying.

foragogo · 17/12/2015 10:30

I dont understand your argument apple? Being strongly incentivised to keep your income artificially low is a) a bad thing, surely and b) creates a ghetto of people who managed to get in first and then refuse to ever move on. A changing population of people given help while they need it, with finite resources, seems a fairer system to me.

Mumoftwoyoungkids · 17/12/2015 10:30

*"The council has a choice - rent to a council tenant for £5000 a year or rent to a non council tenant for £7000 a year."

And if the non council tenant needs to claim housing benefit to be able to pay that higher rent, are they not still being subsidised?*

Ah - that's simple - they can just be like every other landlord and refuse people who use housing benefit.

Seriously though - housing benefit is based on area, housing size needed and income - right? (With a max of the rent.) And the vast majority of people who claim it work and it is just a top up? So wouldn't they get the same top up whether they are in social housing or private rental?

x2boys · 17/12/2015 10:31

whats the point BadLad people wont beleive us they assume we all live in london and the south and all pay ridiculous rents apart from those in social housing .

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 ··· 27 28

Swipe left for the next trending thread