No more council houses 'for life' - thoughts?

[Ewe]

Link

A large part of me thinks that with the social housing crisis as it is then this is most certainly a good thing. However, when I start to think about it in more detail I find myself wondering how this could possibly work? How much notice would people get? Would you enable them to downsize if in a house too big? When adult children have left home etc.

I do agree that something needs to be done but it does seem like yet another thing that is going to negatively impact people on benefits (his aim, no doubt!) along with cuts to housing benefit.

Badgers - I wouldn't class social housing as a benefit.

"Why is it happening now all of a sudden?"

Well the problems are getting worse.

Council House building peaked in the years after WW2 and it's now that generation that is also living for far longer into retirement. So the young families that got those Council Houses often still have them now as pensioners living alone. And it's exactly that situation that I've seen with my relatives.

So not only are the homes not coming back into circulation as people might have imagined but the right to buy has also drastically reduced the numbers still in the hands of Councils.

"If it was so unfair, why didn't governments tackle it in the past?"

I've been hearing rumblings about it for years so it's been bubbling away.

Anyhow while I agree that something does need to be done to keep the focus on "need" we can't just go leaping into it and kick old people out who were expecting to live until they death in their homes.

so if your grandmother has lived in the same council home for 60 years, and has made lifelong friendships, you think her entire social fabric should be disrupted because a family of asylum seekers, who have just entered the country, are in greater need? They can build more houses if they want to. They did it after the war. The truth is they don't give a stuff.

I think there needs to be far more regulation of private lets before bringing this out, tbh.

But there won't be, because then you put BTL landlords at risk and the government doesn't want this because people use property in lieu of pensions when pensions went to seed.

The other issue is that there is no quality affordable housing to move people to when they need to downsize.

Until this is managed, it's closing the stable door after the horse has bolted, IMO.

I completely agree, however, with ending RTB for good.

I'd never buy an ex-LA home, for two reasons.

No. 1, I don't want the possibility of really getting stuck next to anti-social neighbours.

No. 2, it's lining someone's pockets. They got a huge arse discount to buy the home. Now they want me to pay market value whilst they, by pure luck, move some place nicer. And our taxes paid for their discount. I don't think so.

lalalonglegs - If Council tenants are paying full rent and full Council tax themselves, why not? They would have paid enough rent to the council over the years to justify the emergency measures of their own offspring to be housed again.

I do sympathise with families in crowded conditions, sincerely I do. But I think there is a natural turnaround in properties and pensioners occuping larger properties will not always do so. It's a cycle. No one should be forced to move at all. Pensioners deserve the dignity and respect and full rent paying full council tax paying tenants also deserve some kind of recognition

"You see social housing as a benefit? I don't. I see it as a necessity."

"Badgers - I wouldn't class social housing as a benefit."

Calling something a benefit doesn't meant that it's not a necessity. Incapacity benefit and maternity pay are all things that are clearly "benefits" but also inarguably, well except by the most die hard of Tory, necessities.

Social Housing during it's "boom years" after the war was funded by subsidies and was provided with the intention of being below market rate. It was the state helping people, and quite rightly too in my opinion.

So I view Social Housing provision as an essential benefit but a benefit never the less.

I don't see it as a benefit in the way that the word is usually used in government policy terms. I don't expect council tenants to feel ever-so-grateful to the mighty state for kindly providing a home out of the goodness of minsters' hearts (or councillors). It's an objection to the terminology rather than your point of view, I think.

The supply problem is largely down to right to buy and lack of building. RTB has taken council houses out of the sector, while councils have not been allowed to keep the money to build new homes.

"so if your grandmother has lived in the same council home for 60 years, and has made lifelong friendships, you think her entire social fabric should be disrupted because a family of asylum seekers, who have just entered the country, are in greater need"

I've already said that we shouldn't be making old people who expected a home for life to move. I'd rather see something done with new tenants who know what they're getting in to from the beginning.

And asylum seekers don't get Council Housing, more than that it's illegal for any local authority to give it to them.

So conjuring up a fantasy of old ladies being dragged away from their friends so that a family of asylum seekers can have her home is not only pointless scare mongering but also damaging the debate and the argument of those who don't want to see their grans kicked out.

Council tenants aren't paying "full rent" they are paying subsidised rent so your argument doesn't stand up. No one is suggesting that pensioners (or anyone else) should be thrown out on the streets but simply rehoused in a smaller property once dependents have moved away. There are far more available council flats and maisonettes than three-plus bedroom homes.

And, claig, cut the crap about asylum seekers getting all the council houses.

x-post with Badgers

"I don't see it as a benefit in the way that the word is usually used in government policy terms. I don't expect council tenants to feel ever-so-grateful to the mighty state for kindly providing a home out of the goodness of minsters' hearts (or councillors). It's an objection to the terminology rather than your point of view, I think. "

I don't expect people on incapacity benefit to "feel ever-so-grateful to the mighty state".

So my terminology wasn't loaded and/or meant to imply anything other than it's something provided by the state.

"The supply problem is largely down to right to buy and lack of building. RTB has taken council houses out of the sector, while councils have not been allowed to keep the money to build new homes.'

As said it's being nibbled at at both ends, less homes are provided and those that remain have tenants for longer than people envisioned.

All things told while I agree that something does need to be done here I'm probably of the mind that RTB is the bigger problem.

Read it carefully, I didn't say they get all the houses. But people like you would be happy to throw council tenants, who have lived all their lives in one home, and whose memories are tied up in those homes, out of those homes because of the greater need of newly arrived asylum seekers. That's where we differ and if there was a vote on it, the majority would agree with me and not you.

We are HA tenants. There is no council housing around here except for temporary accommodation for the homeless, which incidentally the flat downstairs and about half the flats in this building are used for.

We do not receive housing benefit or council tax benefit, but we are working poor.

If we were to rent privately, we would need partial HB/CTB.

'But people like you would be happy to throw council tenants, who have lived all their lives in one home, and whose memories are tied up in those homes, out of those homes because of the greater need of newly arrived asylum seekers.'

Why assume everyone, or even the majority, of HA/council tenants are asylum seekers?

Maybe in parts of the UK, but in vast areas of the UK, there's not an asylum seeker around for many miles.

This is a semi-rural/rural area. Most people in need of affordable housing here are families who are working poor.

But it's true, you wouldnt like to see your grandmother have to move home, downsize possessions, perhaps change doctors, services, move away from community and friends - and see a family who havent been here long gain the property. Street of council tenants in my nan's area has not seen an English family move in in the last 5 years. WHY?

No pensioner should be forced to downsize. By natural events, the property will be available in due course.

And by 'full' rent, I meant the full rent that the council charge. It might be cheaper (subsidised) than private. That doesnt make it cheap when you consider who or what you may have to live next door to. If you are paying the full amount that council charge - no housing benefit - and paying full council tax - probably maintaining a house that isnt your own to a high standard - the council has an obligation towards you. YOu are a respected tenant

lala - as far as I understand it council tenants are NOT paying subsidised rent. The council charges the cost of the housing, maintenance, and the land. Private tenants have to pay a lot more because the landlord has to make a profit on costs which include inflated house prices.

It's not that council tenants are subsidised, it's that private tenants are screwed by our mad house market.

I'm not assuming that, I'm taking one example of greater need.

I can tell you, too, where these people are put in Glasgow. More than a few are in Red Road. Do you realise most of the high-rise buildings in that area have been condemned for years and are just awaiting demolition? Do you realise those people are grateful to be there because there's also a detention centre where some wind up, a jail for children? Do you realise that a large proportion of the people who claim asylum are women? On their own, with children? They are not allowed to work. There are many I have met personally who have qualifications that blow my mind, and I graduated from a world-renowned university with honours? Why tar everyone with one brush, be they asylum seekers or 'council' tenants?

I don't do that to people because I think it's narrow-minded and ultimately deprives me and my children of some brilliant opportunities at living life more fully.

Horses for courses, I guess.

OK I'm wrong about asylum seekers. I used them as an example of need. Take any other example of need. I still don't think people should be thrown out to make room for the homeless. This is letting the government off the hook, and playing the poor against each other. The government should build more council homes. They found the money for the Dome, the Olympics and the war. If they felt strongly about it, they could find money for homes.

They won't, claig. They won't. LOL. They don't care because they don't have to live here with us.

claig

This is only for new occupants. No grannies who has been living in the same council house for 50 years will end up on the street. Don't fall for the Labour hype.

This will only affect young people.

Of course, there are negatives but they can be overcome.

The lack of incentives for the occupant to look after the property is addressed in the private rental sector by a deposit - no reason why there can't be a deposit for social housing too.

Social housing, as with most benefits, should be a hand-up, not a hand-out.

longfingernails, I realise it is only for future tenants. But it is still a tragedy as it is removing one of our great provisions. This is one of the things that makes us a civilised country. We provided security for poor people. Now we are scrapping it. What will we scrap next? We can afford it, we are still one of the world's leading nations.

Every five years people will have to queue up and have an interview with the State to see if they will be forced to move out. It is an erosion of the bond between the State and the people. Some jobsworth bureaucrat can change people's lives with the stroke of a pen.

I don't think the fact that we have council houses makes us a civilised country, nor an uncivilised one.