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?

no way would i want to live in social housing. wouldnt want to pay rent forever and have nothing to leave to my children when i die. wouldnt want to improve the property that i didnt own and on the other hand wouldnt want to live in substandard accommodation/didnt fit with my taste. wouldnt want someone telling me what size house i could have and where.

Wow @loveisanopensore this is exactly what I imagined! So cool

Defies logic to me that we treat people for health problems for free, that they only have because of no housing/ sub standard housing and yet the NHS is glorious and social housing is the devil.

@Aneyebrowforaneyebrow

I appreciate there are some people who are jealous of social housing tenants for their low rents and security, but I suspect it is a much lower number than you think it is

If a social tenancy was more appealing than a mortgage, then right to buy wouldn’t exist

The hundreds of thousands of people who bought their council houses proves that for an awful lot of people, owning is more appealing than being a council tenant...

Would it mean we would just have to take what is allocated? How does a couple with 2 adults get a bigger house?

Your facts aren’t quite accurate though. Home ownership for U.K. and Sweden are remarkably similar with a 2% difference. Both countries are in lowest quartile of European nations when it comes to home ownership.
I think we shouldn’t be encouraging dependency on state provision, but there should be adequate support when necessary. Housing is necessary for many and should be in public ownership without right to buy. High quality rental for lifetime use. There should not be profit in social housing.
It’s not comparable to universal healthcare.

@Aneyebrowforaneyebrow

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.

No sorry. 0 bitterness or jealousy over someone in social housing.

To be able to get this, your income and means must be so low that I hope the person meets months end, I would never envy that.

Would there be a constant supply of properties to move in and out of as your family grows or as and when kids move out?

And who gets the damp 1970’s tower block over the smart new build ?

I couldn;t vote as whilst I agree there should be far more social housing, the 90% you suggest is far too high.

What we need though is to vastly reduce the private rental sector. It is expensive, low quality and costs us as taxpayers a fortune as we pay for buy-to-let landlords to amass private property at very high prices. It would be far better for housing benefit to pay for social housing with funds reinvested.

I don't understand why so many ordinary people are happy for their taxes to line the pockets of landlords, it makes no sense to me.

@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 basically you'd like things to go back to how they were before 1979 when the labour government changed it to a needs based system?

I understand what you are saying, and I fully agree.
A few years ago we were comfortable, privately renting and started small savings for a deposit. Twice within 2 years we were evicted because the landlords wanted to sell. The cost of moving ate our savings. We eventually got a council house and there is definitely a judgement issue, from the very same people who use the free health care.

It was already a huge source of shame of me since I’m the first person in my family to live in a council house.
I don’t think people truly understand the insecurity of private renting until they have seen it for themselves. Despite it being a crap house in a crap place, knowing that I have a lifetime tenancy (for as long as I want it - I do still hope to buy one day....) I would take this security over a ‘nicer’ house any day. There’s also the fact that I’m now paying less than half that what I was for the same sized private house, so at least I have a chance of saving.

In my parents country one of first things that happened after the collapse of soviet union was privatisation of housing stock. 30 years on, nobody there thinks this was a bad thing. You are also deluded if you think that when all housing is social, we will all have equally nice houses in equally nice areas. We need affordable housing that people can buy.

totally agree

Housing is very different to healthcare. You can’t own a hospital if you want treatment. People do own houses that they want to live in. In fact, having your own roof is universally revered concept which people feel brings them a sense of security that no other system can.
Aside from that, when you own something, your attitude to taking care of it is different. Generally speaking people take more pride in their home when they own it. As demonstrated by many slum like council estates in the 80s becoming more desirable when people would buy the houses.

@Aneyebrowforaneyebrow

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.

The architects of the post war welfare state understood that for everyone to support the welfare state then everyone should have access to it. As far as social housing is concerned, that contract changed in 1979 when the system became needs based and changed the demographics of who lived on social housing estates.

Most people know they won't get a chance to live in social housing, therefore investing in social housing isn't a vote winner and isn't a key concern for any of the major parties.

@Jillybons

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!

We used to be a lot more socialist about housing. Then Thatcher came along with right to buy and fucked it up.

I am in my early 40s now and have spent more than three quarters of my life so far in local authority housing. I have privately rented for the past 8 years because I have kids and couldn’t get anywhere bigger through the housing association. I LOVED my HA flat. It was well built, solid, things like windows, heating, kitchen and bathroom got replaced regularly and if something broke it got fixed quickly. I could decorate to my liking and it would have been mine for life if I had wanted it. Had the opportunity to buy it for a significantly reduced amount but I couldn’t afford it at the time, part of me is gutted I didn’t but the sensible and non selfish part thinks that you shouldn’t be able to buy them because this is why there are none for the people who need them.

What really needs to happen in this country is to stop investors buying up houses and pushing the prices up so those of us who actually grew up here could have a hope of buying somewhere.

I think it’s a really interesting idea but it would be so expensive to implement that the housing would be pushed down to a very low standard.

If, somehow, we could all have a nice and reasonably spacious family home in a good area (and paying no or a nominal rent) then society would largely go back to the way it used to be with far fewer women working. This would be fantastic for people’s freedom of choice but not so great for the economy and the funding of all these houses!

We eventually got a council house and there is definitely a judgement issue, from the very same people who use the free health care.

Do you mean use the NHS? The NHS is free at the point of service. It's paid for out of taxation, so it's only free to those who pay no or little tax.

No, I want stability and a property to leave so that mine will always have somewhere to live.

Healthcare is different, it’s funded through NI and I’ve often though there should be small charges rather than free so that we have money for other things that are needed.

I think social housing, or at least housing that is as regulated as social housing should be available to all.
Meaning -
Everyone should have access to fair rent.
Property being maintained and kept in good condition.
Security of lifetime tenancy.
I don’t agree that social housing should be for the most deprived members of society, they need to be prioritised, but anyone that applies should be given fair access.

YY..I have said on here before that the money tree needs a shake again and mass housing for social rent built and not then sold! In the 1950s the country was on its arse financially but did it. Homes with gardens, space round them. It was only when they were allowed to become sink estates that the problems started. Originally they were planned to have a cross section of society in them.

I don’t agree OP but I think that rental should be overhauled. If private tenants had a lengthy guaranteed tenancy then short term landlords who own maybe one or two rental properties would be less common as the investment required would be too great for the rate of profit in the short term. Instead rental properties would be owned by consortia and would offer profits for longer term investments. I know that people will say that this mean that landlords won’t buy and offer property for rent but I disagree. It will probably mean an end of buy to let mortgages though and the rise of more professional landlords.

I'd say no to more social housing far to costly. This should really be reserved for the most vulnerable/ in need people of our society.
Instead I would like to see a better regulated rental market where tenants as well as landlords are better protected.
Landlords should not be able to refuse to housing to someone receiving any type of benefits. Annual rent increases should be regulated, so people are not squeezed out. Contracts should run indefinitely, with notice period increasing buy the number of years in the property. And tenants should vacate the property when notice given is up. (None of the section 21 business which seems to be encouraged by the councils...)
There should be a minimum standard for rental properties to ensure the property is safe and habitable.

I definitely don’t think the government should be trusted with any more responsibility or money than they have got already.