To think these changes to the housing waiting list are not “cruel” but simply realistic?

[Eastie77Returns]

Our council has announced changes to the local housing waiting list from next month. There are tens of thousands on the list who will never be housed as they are not deemed to be in urgent need so they will now be removed.

The council has said they will be offered “personalised support to explore their options” which probably means advising they leave London, advances to help with private rent etc. I understand in many cases that is really not helpful but a close relative of mine who works in housing has been on the phone to me in tears because of the level of abuse she has faced from frustrated residents who have been on the list for years and are being removed.

Now a parent from DD’s school is organising a march on the town hall to protest all of this and has asked parents for support. She has been offered a council house 100+ miles outside London and is refusing to leave as her support network is here and I fully understand that. However, I do think a dose of realism is needed. There are 15,000 people on the waiting list here and a few hundred council properties become available each year. This parent has been told she does not fall into the 3 bands that will be kept on the list so she will never get a council house and she has responded by accusing the council of unimaginable cruelty

I don’t understand where she expects the council to magically just find thousands of homes and change that situation?

Thousands of people who have grown up as children in rentals will be telling their stories about this selfish decade. It’s easy to judge others when you’re well fed and well housed in a safe place.

@ComtesseDeSpair
Public housing in Singapore isn’t social housing as we know it in the UK. A significant proportion (I think even the vast majority of it nowadays) is owner occupied and sold at a slight subsidy to middle-income households, and apartments in major cities can still cost upwards of the equivalent of half a million pounds. It’s more akin to the UK’s Help to Buy and Affordable ownership schemes. It’s also only available to Singaporean citizens, among whom birth rates are among the lowest in the world, so public housing isn’t required to house thousands of non-native poor people.

The difference is that HTB and affordable ownership properties are still built by the private sector and the prices are set by them. So if the government HTB loan is 40%, the price also goes up by 40%. I could not afford a HTB flat but I could afford to buy a 1930s flat in zone 3 london for 400k. This was because I could save a slightly larger deposit. In Singapore, the government sets the prices. Someone who worked in government once told me that they pegged it to average salaries.

Also our flats in Singapore do cater to foreigners because the government has invited over 1 million foreigners to Singapore to do jobs that the locals don't want to do or simply to help the economy grow. Many have now become singaporean, particularly those from third world countries. They are therefore eligible to buy government flats. So while most are not poor as they would have needed to be able to hold down a job to get PR and later citizenship, a lot of them are not rich either! Esp in the earlier years before the backlash against foreigners, the criteria was fairly loose and plenty of lower paid workers managed to get citizenship.

@ComtesseDeSpair and 1 million is a 20% increase in Singapore's population!

the year of small things I actually meant to put half their income/salary - I agree, at least in London and other major cities you would not find anything for a quarter of your income.

I was in a council house. I would have moved away to improve the 4 year wait, but I didn’t qualify as I didn’t have “local links” to anywhere else.

However I do think people should have the choice. Why not offer anyone the chance to move out of area, whether they qualify for a London property or not, no matter where on the list they are??

I really do support the need for SH but as someone from N America, I was really struck by the way so many people I encounter in the UK believe that
(a) the govt has a duty to house you and an expectation once housed to be housed forever no matter how good much your circumstances improve
and by the belief, backed up by policy that
(b) the idea of community and staying in one's network is only of value to those in poorer areas but not at all relevant or considered for the lower-to-middle classes and above. They have to move hours away for work but, on the other hand, it's critical that Jane down the road and her three children live next door to her mom and across from Auntie and cousins. If anything that kind of thinking encourages a kind of tribalism and ultra-reliance on family networks that I find a bit strange.

David Goodheart's book The Road to Somewhere is a really illuminating book about the ideological divide in the country between those who are rooted in 'somewhere' and those who are less rooted, the sort of more metropolitan, international nomads. It helps to explain why some people feel they must live in Islington where they grew up even if most of London can't afford to.

I really don't understand people's reluctance to move if would mean getting a suitable family house.
People move for work all the time, and to downsize/upsize and all kinds of reasons.
You make new friends and develop new support networks.
I'm not suggesting it's always easy, but if it means getting a decent home, it's a no brainer for me.

I do wonder if the kind of idiot who thinks only rich people should live in London considers where the people who will be working in their shops, delivering their groceries and cleaning their streets and homes should live? Outside of London and pay a small fortune to commute in ?

Yes, I know, they should have tried harder at school and they should be grateful they have a job

Plenty of people have to move away from their support networks and hometowns, obviously the ideal would be to keep people local but if they can't then surely a home elsewhere is better than nowhere at all?

@Waferbiscuit its because the middle class sends their children to childminders/nurseries and the rich have nannies. Poor people have unpredictable shift patterns, perhaps even zero hour contracts. Night shifts even. Many may not have supportive partners or perhaps even no partner. So they might rely on mum to do the majority of childcare so they can work. Low housing costs mean nothing if you have no income.

I mean, I wasn't born in London but I believed very strongly that I must live in London. In fact I felt so strongly about it that I bought a flat in London instead of moving miles away like most of my peers were doing because I was acutely aware that as a couple with below average income, it was cheaper for us to stay in london with some childcare help from family than to move to a town (where houses are technically cheaper) and have to pay for additional childcare as well as commute. If that is the case for us, what more for a poor person who cannot afford a car or private childcare.

Why not support her? You don't have to agree with her side. I love that she cares enough to take a stand. That she is asking people to support her cause. That she sees that she can mane a difference and I hope you at least support the tenacity that takes.

There’s a lot of hard working people that are struggling to save 10% to get a mortgage and then they announced it’s now 15% for some the security of council SH is better than private. I have to rent have a child and it’s very difficult to save that extra when private rental is a lot more. The people who get priority aren’t always the most deserving they can be and some are the stereotypes. There’s nothing wrong in wanting security and to not be penalised cause you work and can pay the rent. If you think about it if they flipped some of who got it. Would councils have better areas.

@Waferbiscuit

I really do support the need for SH but as someone from N America, I was really struck by the way so many people I encounter in the UK believe that (a) the govt has a duty to house you and an expectation once housed to be housed forever no matter how good much your circumstances improve and by the belief, backed up by policy that (b) the idea of community and staying in one's network is only of value to those in poorer areas but not at all relevant or considered for the lower-to-middle classes and above. They have to move hours away for work but, on the other hand, it's critical that Jane down the road and her three children live next door to her mom and across from Auntie and cousins. If anything that kind of thinking encourages a kind of tribalism and ultra-reliance on family networks that I find a bit strange.

David Goodheart's book The Road to Somewhere is a really illuminating book about the ideological divide in the country between those who are rooted in 'somewhere' and those who are less rooted, the sort of more metropolitan, international nomads. It helps to explain why some people feel they must live in Islington where they grew up even if most of London can't afford to.

I’m in the UK and I agree with you.

Most people who own their homes move away out of choice - to take a better job, to move near to family, to buy a bigger house in a cheaper area, etc. etc. - not because you have no option if you want a half way decent home to live in.

My husband and I have moved several times - from Essex to West Sussex, from West Sussex to Lancashire, from Lancashire to London. In all cases, it was for a better job and more money. It can be a wrench at times but you have the security of your own home, which is gradually being paid for and, usually, increasing in value.

It is quite different if you can only afford social housing and you are told that in order to get it you will have to move many miles away from where you are currently living - or else remain in sub-standard, cramped and damp accommodation.

Stop wasting money on ridiculous projects like HS2 (and now Johnson is talking about our own space programme) and make sure our citizens are properly treated.

I moved out of London 15 years ago as a single parent as I couldn’t afford it. I moved to a cheaper area that has now become desirable and is experiencing rapid gentrification. I moved away from my friends and family - started again and it was really hard. Should I move and start again? What happens when we run out of cheap areas to move to? We need more social housing.

@ellyeth 100%. And people who move away for work/larger home often have number crunched and realized they could afford it. They would have saved up enough for the move and would hopefully have back up savings if the move did not work out and things weren't as planned. Very different for council tenants who are living hand to mouth.

*@Eastie77Returns
Thank you for the explanation.

Many people move not just for cost but quality of life. I don't see why one person living in a three story house in Islington gets to stay their whole life. Especially when they have inheritance and capital. That's bonkers.

@Cailleachian I may be missing something but I’m not sure how those proposed solutions in Berlin, California and Canada would solve the problem of a lack of social housing in London.

According to the article, the idea touted in Berlin will make zero difference to the housing problem there. As far as I can see, the proposal in Canada wouldn’t make much difference either. Even if we banned wealthy investors from buying homes here how would that help people like the parent in my OP unless those homes were turned into council properties which realistically wouldn’t happen.

I really don’t think wealthy investors are the main problem tbh. Removing luxury flats from a few Oligarchs isn’t going to make a dent in the 15,000 waiting list in my borough in any case. The die was cast when Right to Buy was introduced and there were no replacements built in place of the newly privately owned council properties.

Pretty awful news if you've been on list for number of years/long time. But when I was first married moved to village near Stevenage which found out was a "new town" created for people as an overspill and presume thats what Milton Keynes started out as then new houses built and such a big place now, its the children who would suffer in moving schools and anyone who has decent enough job to find alternative employment. Know a place not too far from us which is a top hotel/spa is housing foreigners and they are walking around the grounds and being fed + watered, and yes know of some of their plights but sometimes the system does seem unfair for the hard working family on low incomes or those in genuine need in our own country. Not wanting a political debate as I once 20 years did work part time in housing myself but in the typing section with lots of different requests, rent arrears, evictions, council house contracts on new windows, bathroom + kitchens being installed it was a very hard job when bringing up my own 2 young school children not leaving on time as everyone is under pressure these days guess even more so.

When people are moved away from their support networks, who pays for the community support they need as a result?

Kicking the can down the road away from London doesn't make the problem of service provision go away. It just becomes a bigger burden on someone else, especially if the support network has enabled a woman to work.

Manchester where I grew up till I moved south when got married was a place I loved and knew everywhere so well but all I can see/hear is all the new towerblocks being built/erected for the weathy at such tremendous costs and the regular council houses being torn down when there is nothing wrong with them and families of generations have lived near each other may have to moved into different areas/boroughs, its all very sad, progress for profit.

@onlychildhamster you are making the assumption that everyone in SH is poor, living hand to mouth and at the same time are a great support network to each other. This simply isn't true.
@AnnieSnap your (a) is spot on. IME as a child growing up on a council estate this becomes an engrained mentality - you have no personal responsibility and all of your problems are the government's.
We as a nation love to think of ourselves as poor. Look at the posters falling over themselves to make it known that they are staunchly working class and those who are on £100k salaries claiming they are hard up because they have 2 dc in private school. It's almost like a race to the bottom.

@Eastie77Returns I was an international student in 2012 and I rented a room in an ex council flat (shared the flat with two of my uni friends) in London during my second year of university. Truly my dad could have afforded to pay for private rent and indeed in my other years, i paid £1k per month for a room in student accommodation so I was probably not the best person to live in the ex council flat.

The government could re-acquire flats and houses for social housing. it would be expensive but in the long term would save on housing benefit as they would own the homes rather than paying housing benefit to private landlords. Hefty tax on empty properties- those empty properties would be sold and if this is combined with higher landlord taxes, hopefully more people would sell up, causing property prices in london to go down due to increase in supply, making it cheaper for government to reacquire flats.

I am a home owner in London so I guess I would be negatively affected by it (though it may make it easier for me to upsize to a larger flat) but I don't mind that if it meant a more equitable London.

@FancySomeChips

I was in a council house. I would have moved away to improve the 4 year wait, but I didn’t qualify as I didn’t have “local links” to anywhere else.

However I do think people should have the choice. Why not offer anyone the chance to move out of area, whether they qualify for a London property or not, no matter where on the list they are??

You can in general, but you'll be lowest priority because you're out of area