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 cheesebubble]@EddyF I live in London and bought a property 3 years ago in my 20s. No matter how low the rent would be, owning a property is a good retirement investment, compared to staying in social housing. Surely that person would have been able to save enough for a deposit if their salary is 60k. If you have the means, I personally think the percentage of people is lower than low who'd choose to not buy a property and continue to live in social housing - why would you? [/quote]
You are using a very narrow view based on your own value system/desires. Like I said, I know a wide range of people/cultures. Some are building/have built back home. Others have no desire to own. They want reasonable rent and disposable income. You living in London should know that 60K is just OK/decent enough to get by; it is by no means even a starting point of mortgage esp for those who don’t have savings/ don’t have good credit etc.

Those I know who are in SH are in decent housing in London that are attractive and well kept. They are not in some deprecated buildings and now earning enough to move away from that. It is also likely that the assurance of salary going up and down is one less stress to worry about!

Now my own personal view is that to buy is better but you have to look away from your own views to get an understanding of things. I am so glad I know a wide range of people from many cultures to enrich my life experience. Because being in a bubble where you base everything on your circumstances is so limiting.

@HotCrossBumsticks ummm it was sarcastic?

There was no indication of that. It's text,there is no tone. You made a statement, you can't then claim it was sarcasm when you did not indicate that.

Social housing has security of tenure and much better terms for tenants.

Which is a big problem for some people, and the root of the problem. They don't think it's deserved to have those things unless you've 'worked hard enough to buy'.
There is a belief that you 'deserve' to have unstable housing, and poor terms because you're not in a position to buy.
They seem to feel that only home owners deserve those things.

@HotCrossBumsticks I apologize wholeheartedly.... I am so so sorry you misunderstood me... Please forgive me!

Experience of the USA seems to show that a purely free-market model has lots of issues

It’s really not since no one in America actually knows the real price of any health service they are getting so unable to shop around

Plus most people haggle the final bill they get a month later anyway ....

So inefficient but at least it’s not the NHS 🤷‍♀️

@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.

@alpenguin so I’d be forced to live in a 1bedroom flat as we have no children? That’s all the state would allow if I was looking for social housing. Instead we worked out arses off and I even worked 2 jobs to buy a nice house with 3 bedrooms and a garden (ok we did hope to fill the bedrooms with children but we can’t). How is that fair in your mind? Every couple holed up in tiny flats...,

@BashfulClam
The minimum you would get is a suitable size property in good repair for the tenancy.
If you want bigger rent private or buy.
No one gets forced, no one is restricted.

@BashfulClam perhaps if we thought of the needs of others instead of the material wants of ourselves we’d have less poverty and homelessness and less underhoused families or over housed singles/couples.

What I talk about works elsewhere for large swathes of the population but Brits are way to entitled and selfish to think of others or want any kind of housing equality.

You do you clam. I’ll dream of equity

People want different things from a home.
My (retired) dad gets a lot of value from his garden, he puts hours of considered labour into it. Most people wouldn't get so much value out of it.
I used to visit a lot of social housing professionally and lots of tenants (on a couple of estates in particular) complained there was nowhere to put a dining table. The actual houses were a reasonable size, but the downstairs was an awkwardly shaped kitchen and one reception room with the sofa. DH and I specifically had "decent sized dining room" on our list. We also wanted a spare room so people could visit (and then a year ago turned it into an office!)
There is a location Vs size payoff and I'd hate for the council to make that decision for me. I've got the Goldilocks sweet spot that works for me, other people would prefer a smaller house in a smarter area, (or vice versa). I like the fact that I've got a nice house over foreign holidays, a third child, one less child but privately educated, designer clothes and meals out, fancy art on the wall or whatever else I could be spending that money on.

I've seen social housing and I don't trust the government to do a half decent job.
Yet I trust the NHS with my and my children's health.

Nobody worth caring about looks down on those in council houses.

Guessing a lot of the usual playground envy on here, which strangely all goes towards landlords rather than mortgage brokers or banks - do remember that the Guardian is for lighting fires, not reading.

Right to buy, rocketing population, refusal to pay realistic taxes, etc etc. Feel free to vote for change, although it seems that we don't.

And then I listen to my friend who is from Belarus talking about her teenage years in a grim, Soviet government owned apartment. State control of housing, which forces most people to live in it, isn't always idyllic

^This

OP, maybe you shouldn't ask MN. Try and reach out to those currently living/having lived under regimes like the one you are proposing to get an accurate view of their experience

so I’d be forced to live in a 1bedroom flat as we have no children

Yes, probably.

[quote alpenguin]@BashfulClam perhaps if we thought of the needs of others instead of the material wants of ourselves we’d have less poverty and homelessness and less underhoused families or over housed singles/couples.

What I talk about works elsewhere for large swathes of the population but Brits are way to entitled and selfish to think of others or want any kind of housing equality.

You do you clam. I’ll dream of equity[/quote]
@alpenguin if you think I am selfish then go ahead. I started with a 1bedroom fist and worked 70 hours a week to be able to get the deposit for my house so I think I’m entitled to it as I worked bloody hard to do it. Never had any help from parents etc and earn less that £25k full time right now. I’m by no means rich but I’m proud of my achievements.

In fact being a provider means it has a conflict of interest, which is better resolved by it ceasing provision than it dropping out of regulation, as the private sector can't do regulation.

But that leaves the far larger conflict of interest with politicians who are landlords and/or involved in the housing industry. That has continuously been a major problem in bringing in better protection for tenants, ensuring that tenants can enforce those protections, and making an effective long-term housing strategy. In many parts of the country, social housing is largely in the hands of housing associations anyways.

Technically, yes, they could regulate a system without being directly involved, but just withdrawing from it doesn't mean they'd do that well anymore than just putting all the housing stock into the government's hands means they would manage it to a good standard. Especially when considering supported, sheltered, and other accomodations for vulnerable people, our current systems - social and private - are not in a state where just shifting it one way or the other would do much to reduce suffering. That's why we need far better targets that just the percentages in different types of housing, but the question remains how to get them and make them enforceable.

Experience of the USA seems to show that a purely free-market model has lots of issues.

The US has a mixed system, both in healthcare and in housing. That it's an incredibly ineffective mixed system that leaves many unsupported is another issue, but it is still a mixed system.

@DennisTMenace

One of the larger drivers for property ownership for me is to be mortgage free for retirement. I am currently on track to have it paid off by the time I am 65 and retirement age will be 68 unless it goes up again. So when my income reduces at pension age, I will have no rent or mortgage to pay, whereas renting in social housing would continue to be a financial drain.

I think those past the state retirement age have a statutory right to housing benefit. State pension, plus pension credit plus housing benefit - if you are in social housing the rent is subsidised so covered by housing benefit.

[quote alpenguin]@BashfulClam perhaps if we thought of the needs of others instead of the material wants of ourselves we’d have less poverty and homelessness and less underhoused families or over housed singles/couples.

What I talk about works elsewhere for large swathes of the population but Brits are way to entitled and selfish to think of others or want any kind of housing equality.

You do you clam. I’ll dream of equity[/quote]
You have to be trolling, this is too funny 😂😂😂

People are the best judges of their own needs, not you or the government.

How arrogant of anyone to actually think this!

I think every 5 years you should put a case forward as to whether you still need it. I.e if your children have left home you get down sized

God help any government who tried to implement this! Too many people look on a council house as a house for life, my late mother's neighbour brought up two children who did well, bought their own houses which they rented out and continued to live almost rent free with their parents!

When the under-occupancy rules were brought in, sneeringly and erroneously referred to a the 'bedroom tax', all hell broke loose but why should people have a heavily subsudised home with rooms they don't need when others need them?

YABU. I don't want the state dictating where I live or what size home I have. Glad to have the option to rent or buy what I can afford.

In an ideal world it would be good if everyone who needed social housing was provided with it. It would also be a good idea if it was reviewed periodically (say every 10 years) so that those who no longer needed eg a large family home were rehoused in smaller social housing suitable to their needs. Where I live most of the social housing on the nearest estate is occupied by older adults who have been there for ages and no longer have children living at home whilst families have to squash into smaller properties.

In the meantime the best solution to the problems in the rental market would be to reregulate the rental market so that there were fair rent benchmarks and landlords had to register so that they could be required to fix dodgy properties or lose their licence to rent. It would no doubt lead to a rush to sell properties that were no longer profitable and lead to a fall in house prices but property is so unaffordable it needs a price correction. And I say that as a home owner.

@AnaofBroceliande in order for the state not to dictate anything, just make sure you earn enough. I don't worry if the nhs is slow as i have private health insurance. But similarly, I don't begrudge other people using the nhs. based on your logic, I should say- i don't want the nhs as I don't want to be subjected to long wait times as I believe I am so much better than that, and I should be able to pay money to get better service.

@BashfulClam im in a one bedroom flat with my DH. Im childfree by choice. You get moaned at when you do have kids when you live in social housing because you shouldnt have kids if you cant afford them and moaned at when you dont because of the lack of one bedroom places. You cant win.

why should people have a heavily subsidised home with rooms they don't need when others need them

The concept of 'need' is not entirely clear here.

Who creates the needs/why do they arise? Who can assess/dictate who 'needs' what?

The housing problem in this country, and particularly the shortage of low cost social housing, could be easily sorted out by changing the way we tax land. The biggest factor in the price of new build houses is the huge value/cost of the land it's built on. It is totally distorting the housing market.

When you get planning permission for a piece of land the value of it increases massively. There needs to be a tax on this increase in value because at the moment all this financial benefit goes to the land owner - very often this is the big house builders and companies which have been set up purely to make money by land speculation.

If you shared this monetary boost between the land owner and the local council then this would not only reduce the price of land, so smaller builders, councils and housing associations could afford to buy more land, but it would also give the council more money to spend on building their own social housing and investing in the new infrastructure like roads, schools etc.

There have been so many official reports written saying that this needs to be done, yet hardly anyone knows about it.

When you have Tories like Oliver Letwin saying that the current system is flawed and unfair and must change, it's a no brainer surely.

Lobby your MPs and make them aware!

I would have thought people would have learned a few lessons from the pandemic. People need room to self isolate. A lot of ppl on this estate laughed at the twats in Government last year when they were telling us to use a separate bathroom. They have no idea But yeah SH tenants are totes to blame. Must be all the ski trips we go on.

@MercyBooth in my area of north london, there are so many £1 million houses with only 1 bathroom. Most of them now have a tiny downstairs loo, but not all and they also don't have a shower - so effectively only 1 place to wash. A lot of uk housing is not adapted to modern lifestyles but yet most people still prefer period housing (me included as i chose to buy a 1930s mansion flat rather than a new build despite it not being eligible for any government schemes).

May have been a factor in covid spreading as in asian countries, the flats are all modern and most would have 1 ensuite in the master bedroom (so effectively at least 2 bathrooms) even if its a small flat. Easier to self isolate in such an apartment than the traditional 2 up 2 down.