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

Council housing is not subsidised in any way, shape or form; to say otherwise is silly. The rents are set by the local "fair rent" rate based on the standard of the house, no of bedrooms etc and this should really apply to private rentals as well - in fact, it does in my area as all rents are a fairly similar amount.

If the so-called "market rent" for private housing is significantly higher for accommodation of a similar standard, then the ridiculous bandying about of the word "subsidy" should be turned around because the truth is that those landlords are thieves and swindlers. Housing is essential - it's not an x box or a fancy car. The market rent is clearly inflated and should be brought down by regulation if necessary.

The rents are set by the local "fair rent" rate

How does that work when an 'area' takes in a wide variety of housing and demographics? The example I gave upthread is in a city - so person I know pays around £300 to the HA when the exact same privately owned flats next door go for £350k (he could well afford to pay more in rent). There are areas of high deprivation in the city though - does that affect (as in bring down) the fair rent rate across the piece?

Does nobody care about the concept of community anymore?.

Actually, no. Despite what anyone says (another example of watching what the priest does, not doing as they say).

Remember Mrs Thatcher ? "There is no such thing as society"

Politicians are terrified of communities and do their best to divide and conquer to prevent them from forming (as this thread demonstrates). It's communities that overthrow governments. Not a bunch of squabbling children.

What tosh Lurking. I've been involved in local politics and our community council for years - the politicians I've worked with are not 'terrified' of us nor do they try and divide and conquer, and those worth their salt will do whatever they can to help us. Those who don't can be/are voted out.

As if you're going to quote Mrs T, set it in context:

"They are casting their problems at society. And, you know, there's no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look after themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then, also, to look after our neighbours"

Not a huge fan of her, but I agree with that sentiment actually. Look after ourselves, our families and our neighbours - seems fair enough.

SirChenjin

What tosh Lurking.

And how much money is put into communities (after you've subtracted the money being taken out) ? Probably less than the fine words.

Thank you for correcting the quote - I'd forgotten WALOB it was ...

people must look after themselves first

unmitigated bollocks. I have to look after the government first, and then myself. Unless I misread my tax return. It was (another) classic case of saying something which sounds friendly over the sounds of the machinery.

And if you disagree with my view that society is being divided and conquered, I refer you again to this very thread. Quite a lot of vocal disagreement which will never lead to a consensus.

Meanwhile, the population grows faster than the houses they need.

Community isn't all about money Lurking - you can't buy it.

Not unmitigated bollocks at all - and I refer you to this thread, where people are expressing open and honest views that don't necessarily agree with the idea that people should be given a council house tenancy for life. Wonderful! I'm all for open and frank discussion - it's when it's shut down in order to toe the party line I get concerned.

And until we overhaul the planning laws we're not going to get to a point where we build enough of the right housing.

Council housing is not subsidised in any way, shape or form; to say otherwise is silly. The rents are set by the local "fair rent" rate based on the standard of the house, no of bedrooms etc and this should really apply to private rentals as well - in fact, it does in my area as all rents are a fairly similar amount.

that's not what subsidised means. To say otherwise is silly.

People talk about "fair rent" like it's a real concept. It's not. There's market rent. As everyone knows, you are excluding in the determination of price the biggest factor: location. The exact same house rents for different values if it were in rural india, norfolk or London. It's not only about the bedrooms and condition. If "fair rent" is below market rent and it's openly available, you will have severe competition for the good (housing in this case). if that's the case, you have to decide how to allocate the good. Once you start picking who gets to win this lottery, you are necessarily picking losers too.

Another one thinking that community is all too important. I grew up in a town with a new council estate, where people had come from quite different parts, so nobody knew anyone. Lots of disruptive children as a consequence.

Whereas in a mature council estate, people know the children and will tell members of a child's family when they see problems, which makes it a lot easier for those children to grow up with healthy boundaries.

"Market rent" isn't a real concept either - it's what some greedy, selfish landlords can gouge out of their tenants. People need places to live and moving to find work isn't necessarily possible. No wonder private landlords have such a bad name. As for good housing, basic standards should really all be the same but if people want to pay extra for a specific advantage like a swimming pool or something else non-standard, then why not?

I suspect that's down to parenting as opposed to the length of tenancy agreements.

Market price or rent is a real, economic concept - the economic price for which a good or service is offered in the marketplace. Some might find the market prices a reflection of greedy landlords*, but that's not to say it isn't a real concept. It's also a "concept" that many people experience palpably when they seek appropriate housing.

*though there's waaay more to it

And until we overhaul the planning laws we're not going to get to a point where we build enough of the right housing.

Well, I can agree with that. It's unlikely to happen anytime soon, as it's not in the interests of the people who make the laws. Turkeys, Xmas etc (suitably apposite metaphor )). You'll hear a lot of noise about it, of course (as we have done for years). But nothing will actually change.

Another one thinking that community is all too important

I didn't say community wasn't important. I was suggesting that our government doesn't think it is, which is all that matters in this discussion, since it means decisions will be made which do not take into account the effect on communities.

It's not in the interests of the developers either, or the LAs who own the land. Here in Scotland we have a government (grinds teeth) who have prevented LAs from putting up council tax for the last 8 (iirc) years - they have to raise money somehow for local services, so land sale is one way they do that. There actually hasn't been much noise up here sadly - it was this government who made it easier for developers.

If the so-called "market rent" for private housing is significantly higher for accommodation of a similar standard, then the ridiculous bandying about of the word "subsidy" should be turned around because the truth is that those landlords are thieves and swindlers. Housing is essential - it's not an x box or a fancy car. The market rent is clearly inflated and should be brought down by regulation if necessary

agree with that as well. shelter = essential human need...to profit from it is immoral IMO

Lurking - which Govt are you talking about when you say that our govt doesn't think it's important?

By concept, I mean that we allow what are extortionate rents by many standards for an absolutely essential commodity to be just explained away as the market rate rather than vilifying landlords who buy up available property to artificially skew the "market" to their own advantage.

exactly allthepretty

really interesting reading the replies and different viewpoints - thanks for all the replies

i am a complete and utter socialist, clearly ;) but one thing I think we all mostly agree with is the private rental sector needs to be made more secure... I don't understand why this isn't happening

one thing I think we all mostly agree with is the private rental sector needs to be made more secure

Absolutely agree - although I would also add affordable to that

This is going to brand me as a neo-Con wanker, but hey ho -

I don't deny that shelter is an essential human need sparkles. Who would? Food is essential too, right? Yet most of us pay a market rate for food on a regular basis, from private corporations, rather than expect the prices to be managed by the government or for government to feed us. We make a rational choice based on our needs as to whether to eat Value beanz or dine out at Sheeky's. Yet, somehow, with housing, there is a real sense that it is the government's responsibility to house its citizens, all of them, regardless of their means, and it leads to a pretty pernicious sense of entitlement IMO.

Market = intersection of supply and demand. There's a high demand for housing in some parts of the country, and there's a real case to be made for increasing building programmes across the country, limiting overseas ownership, regulating and taxing landlords, but that needs a much more nuanced argument than just "landlords are thieves and swindlers". Landlords are acting in their best interests, just like all those council tenants who are earning enough to rent elsewhere but choose not to.

based on our means*

Lurking - which Govt are you talking about when you say that our govt doesn't think it's important?

All of them.

Roberta, there are thousands of families without social housing support that every year have to home homes, change schools and loose friends. Is it "fair" on those children, to have to be uprooted, just because their parents work?

Essential - that's the nub. We can make the choice between eating value beans or dine out, and if we don't like one supermarket we can shop in another. The option is simply not there in housing.

A while back, I read an eloquent article detailing how we - as a society - had been stitched up. It made the point that we had made it impossible to actually live without money, and that by substituting money for needs, we had lost everything.

If you consider that without money, you'd be able to find a spot, build some shelter, and support yourself/family. As, indeed, mankind did for countless millennia.

As soon as you create money - and the concept of owning land - you lose that forever, and allow the present situation to flourish.

This isn't a hippy-trippy call to reimagine "The Good Life" - but it does highlight that a lot of the "problems" being discussed here are completely artificial and a function of the concept of currency.

I imagine most posters here are aware that when William the Bastard took over in 1066 he gave huge chunks of land to his supporters. What is probably less well-known is that as of 2015, over 65% of that land remains in those families. Or, to put it another way 70% of Britain’s land remains in the hand of less than 1% of its population, with a mere 160,000 families owning 66% of it.

In the face of such facts, it's irrelevant what has happened in the past 5,10,15, 100 years. If 1,000 years, civil war, two changes of royal dynasties and two world wars can't change British life, it's a tad naive to assume David Cameron and co. are in anyway up to the task of making society fairer. Especially if they are part of the 1%.