To want social housing for most

[Jillybons]

I find it strange that in the U.K. we are so protective and proud of public healthcare and see it as a universal right regardless of household income (which I fully support).

But when it comes to public housing we vilify it and criticise people who have public houses as ‘less’ than those who rent privately or own houses.

Shouldn’t public housing be the standard for 90% of the population and private housing be the ‘option’ just like private healthcare?

What do you think?

[quote Jillybons]@GappyValley I assume there is (though i don’t know so won’t pretend to) a ‘standard level’ provided by the govt in Sweden and then if you want the big house in the country with a pool, then you can ‘go private’[/quote]
But the pp said they want all housing to be social housing...
That presumably means no option to ‘go private’?

Thankfully, and touch wood, I don't need social housing. If I can afford my own home I shouldn't be taking up a house that somebody may need more.

@Jillybons

Basically acceptable social housing for all that want it, if you want something else then go private. Much like some choose to pay for private healthcare as they want the private room in hospital/fast tracked service etc.

So you're actively wanting the state to own the majority of housing stock?

That’s a really interesting perspective @MadMadMadamMim I suppose it is socialism. It’s interesting that we’re v socialist on healthcare but not socialist on housing!

I think the people who vilify it are either the ones who are jealous they don’t have access to fair rent rates and need somewhere to direct that rage (and choose social tenants rather than private landlords to aim it at) or are people who’ve saved for a mortgage and are jealous that other people get a house potentially for life without having to save. It really does just boil down to jealousy and anger at the system being aimed at the people who have the social housing rather than the people who control the system.

They’d shit on the nhs too if that wasn’t for everyone.

@alpenguin

I agree OP. I think all housing should be social housing. You get a house for life and when you die someone who needs it gets it. Obviously there would be opportunities for upsizing and downsizing as family requirements change but imagine how much more equal it would be if everyone had a home if they needed it and it wasn’t dependent on how rich your parents are or How much you earn whether you had appropriate housing.

I hate that despite having a decent income and no mortgage we’re priced out of the market where we live by people wanting the postcode and school catchment so we are seriously under housed for our needs. We moved here when the school was crap and prices were low.

This. Totally agree. In my vision of utopia most housing is owned by local authorities, housing co-ops or not for profit operations, with the rent/tax you pay to live there being directly invested back into maintaining housing stock and building more. The rent would be means tested, tenancies would be be lifetime, pets would be allowed, you could decorate however you please, and if you wanted to move areas you can house-swap or register yourself in a different authority. Property wouldn’t be a possession hoarded by people who can afford it.

But I can’t see how we could transition from the current system to that, at least not in our lifetime. The transfer of privately owned property to a councils and co ops would have to happen over several decades, centuries even - by policy changes like statutory repossession on empty buildings and more regulation of the existing estate.

I support a cap on house price rises - no more than inflation - and rent control, and a limit on how many properties one person/business can own. Those are actionable things that could be done right now.

It's one of the few success stories of post war yet it's turned full circle to being slum/poor housing.
A national rebuild of true social housing would be an excellent economic idea for the recession.
Won't happen but it's nice to dream.

people who’ve saved for a mortgage and are jealous that other people get a house potentially for life without having to save.

I very much people with mortgages are jealous of people who will have to keep paying rent every single month until they die, long after a mortgage would have been paid off

And according to most of the threads on here, social housing tenancies start with a house with no carpets, flooring, white goods, etc, so surely most tenants have to save so they can fork out to not be walking on bare concrete all the time

You are going to get very different responses OP depending on whether the person replying is a homeowner or not.

We should absolutely have more good social housing, particularly as wages are stagnating and the cost of housing has skyrocketed. When we were house hunting trying to buy for the first time we just got so sick of the way housing has become a status indicator and a wealth accumulator. Even buying an ordinary flat in an expensive area has become a status indicator now. We all just need somewhere secure to live.

If we could somehow make buying a house affordable for the majority of people, as well as making social rent good and accessible, that would do a tremendous amount for the wellbeing of this country.

I believe private landlords should be abolished and local governments should provide not-for-profit rental housing. Imo home ownership is great, but I don't believe anyone should profit from the need for housing. So I agree with you to a point, but I don't think it'll be a popular view on here!

@TedMullins

Same question to you please!
How does the system deal with people who want to live in a house with fields and stables?

Or someone that really loves luxy en suite bathrooms and dressing rooms?

Is the state expected to maintain listed buildings to cater to the whims of those who really like old houses?

There are numerous things that could be done to help the dire situation that lots of areas are now in.

All of these things would piss off massive groups of voters though.
Rent control, caps on how many properties an individual can own. That’s not going to happen is it? Rich people get richer through property.

The situation could be improved no end if we made some effort to get the (probably hundreds and thousands) of elderly council tenants living mainly on their own in family homes to downsize. People will be on here to tell me that’s inhumane now shortly though.

@GappyValley

Yes, a person in social housing might pay rent for a long time. They’ll never have to pay for repairs though, or to upgrade the kitchen or bathroom or boiler, or fix the roof etc. And that’s before you get into the whole “I saved my whole life to get this house and I’ll have sell it to pay for care when I’m older but people who didn’t work hard for their own house will get it paid for them” shit. And that’s what sparks the jealousy. You can see it all over mumsnet when social housing comes up, the whole “I worked hard to get my house so why should someone who didn’t work as hard get a home for life”.

[quote GappyValley]@TedMullins

Same question to you please!
How does the system deal with people who want to live in a house with fields and stables?

Or someone that really loves luxy en suite bathrooms and dressing rooms?

Is the state expected to maintain listed buildings to cater to the whims of those who really like old houses?[/quote]
Well, this is the problem in practice. Because capitalism has been in place for so long (and communism, where it has happened, is a dictatorship that did the very opposite of achieving equality) there will always be people who want more, such as a huge house with a pool and stables.

I do believe there needs to be some element of private building for people who’d want to ‘opt out’ of the social housing system, because to me that’s the only way to keep it democratic. So in practice, that would mean that it is people with money who can afford to go and build a big house with stables in the country. But, if the majority of housing was affordable and controlled, more people would be in a position to become richer and achieve this if they wish.

Listed buildings is a difficult one, and it’s one of the reasons I said I don’t think it’s workable to transfer all the property stock to the state because there’s just such a vast variety of buildings, and it obviously shouldn’t be that some people get a crap flat whereas others get a castle purely because of their proximity to a national trust house, for example. So I don’t actually have an answer for you on what should be done with historical or listed buildings. They should definitely be kept. Earmarked only for certain uses, perhaps? Converted into community hubs for arts, learning and social history? I don’t know.

A slightly tangential point there is also the look and feel of property - Victorian terraces or Edwardian townhouses were the standard building style of the time but now are perceived as very desirable because modern building is often very boxy and devoid of character. I think a novel idea under my state-owned dreamworld would be developers revisiting the idea of character buildings when applying for state contracts to build more houses, widening the variety of properties available and taking inspiration from historical characteristics.

I don't think all housing should be social housing, but I agree that in an ideal world social housing would be available to all those who wish to have it regardless of income.

Just basic 3 bed family homes, with a small garden and basic bathroom/kitchen. Means tested rent but still lower than current market rate and no right to buy. If you wish to buy or live in something bigger the private sector is available.

I live in the SE and the difference between private rental and social housing is insane. In most cases the private rental is more than double the social housing rent.

I watched a very good documentary on the state of social housing in this country and if I remember correctly in the 1970s around 40% of the country lived in council houses. So not so long ago this wasn’t out of reach.

[quote Aneyebrowforaneyebrow]@GappyValley

Yes, a person in social housing might pay rent for a long time. They’ll never have to pay for repairs though, or to upgrade the kitchen or bathroom or boiler, or fix the roof etc. And that’s before you get into the whole “I saved my whole life to get this house and I’ll have sell it to pay for care when I’m older but people who didn’t work hard for their own house will get it paid for them” shit. And that’s what sparks the jealousy. You can see it all over mumsnet when social housing comes up, the whole “I worked hard to get my house so why should someone who didn’t work as hard get a home for life”.[/quote]
I’ve got a few friends who bought under right to buy and the first thing they all did was rip out the awful council kitchens and bathrooms!
So I’m not sure the idea of a lifetime of their awful awful ‘upgrade’ kitchens is any sort of dream for anyone!

I get that there is a certain level of comfort and security that comes with knowing someone else is taking care of and paying for the maintenance, but in reality, the majorly of people aspire to a nicer level of decor, layout, autonomy etc than social housing is able to provide, so having to organise your own plumber is a small price to pay for being the one who decides what sort of bathroom suite to have, or whether you can knock down a wall to make a bigger room

Sweden's social housing has waiting lists that are insanely long, Stockholm has a huge shortage of housing of all sorts and suffers many of the same dysfunctional nature as the UK's just with a higher proportion of people in social housing, and little private rental market.

Like probably everywhere, simply not enough houses are being built in places people want to live and rich old folk under-occupying a lot of the stock that is there.

You’re missing my point @GappyValley The people who own aren’t jealous of the physical aspects of the social housing. They are jealous that the people get all that covered for low rents. Or perhaps, it’s less jealously and more just bitterness that people they perceive as not working as hard as they do aren’t being punished for it by not having that level of comfort and stability. Either way, whatever you call it, it’s an attitude that pops up on here regularly from people who don’t have social housing.

@00100001

Maybe people should also have realistic and lower expectations for their homes?

For example, my friends DD is 22, and is saving up for a 2 bed semi. She doesn't want a 1 bed flat that she could afford right now.

Then you have parents propping up their children's deposits, pushing and keeping prices up...

It's not black and white

Flats come with other costs, like service charge and ground rent.

Perhaps your friend's DD Is taking that into account and being sensible?

For the record we ‘own’ our house, except we don’t obvs as we own 40% and 60% is a loan from the bank.

I agree entirely with inflation only house price rises, rent control and the cap on number of houses owned.

Don’t agree at all. What about free will?

Yes social housing should be there as a safety net - but people should be free to buy homes as they choose.

Everyone should be able to access safe housing that has heat and power and running water. I am certainly will to pay taxes to live in a country where everyone can access comfortable shelter. But I also want to be free to life where I want - and to be able to work hard to improve on my housing.

Vienna is an excellent example of social housing.
m.youtube.com/watch?v=d6DBKoWbtjE

In theory. But you have to do a lot of building to get it, and are they all cookie cutter? And will you have choice where to live? The estates i see being built are awful and barely git gir purpose (they are not social housing either). The big blocks of flats that replaced terraces were a disaster.
It's one thkng to say it, but how would you provide it?

Like most things fantastic idea but where does the money come from to fund it