Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Andy B]

....
 but live in a rented property, and go to work every day to pay their rent and other bills.  ......

and I think that is the gist of the argument, there are far too many that have a council house paid for them and do the square root of f ... all (officially  ) in return.

[Entwood]

I'm sorry ... but "subsidised housing" is NOT just about subsidised rent to those on housing benefit......... council tax payers have to buy the land, pay for the architect, pay for the building and then pay for maintainance, etc etc etc .... these "life style" choices cost the rest a lot of money.

The way some are going on one would think that pre-thatcher or pre-war everyone lived on the streets !! They didn't ... social housing then was linked to your employment .... if you worked for the (privately owned) Mining industry .. you lived in a mining village .. likewise railway villages, mill villages etc etc etc

It was only because the Labour Government nationalised many of those industries - mining/railways that they actually nationalised housing .. by default .. !! They than passed on the running and maintainance of that housing to councils .. and so the Council House came to be ... since when things have gone from bad to worse.

Factually incorrect imo. There has been virtually no council houses built in the last 30 years afaik. The houses which are council owned, will have had the initial costs covered many times over by rental payments. Many of these houses were built so long ago that the cost of building them is probably the same as a months rent today.
Housing association houses are built as part of housing developments. It is now normal practice when a building company applies for permission to build a number of houses, that permission is granted with the proviso that a percentage (typically around 10%) of the houses are to be used for social housing.
I am normally one of the most right wing contributors to discussion on the forum, but I cant understand why so many of you are happy to put the boot into people who dont buy their own house (for a variety of reasons) but live in a rented property, and go to work every day to pay their rent and other bills. I can only imagine its good old fashioned snobbery, and I have no time for snobbery, old fashioned, inverted, or any other type.

I have many friends who fit that description perfectly ... they have made a life style choice NOT to buy, for many different and varied reasons... ... but the don't have their lifestyle supported by other taxpayers.... they rent privately ... there is a HUGE difference.

I am NOT anti-renting ... I am NOT anti-social housing ... I AM anti scroungers ..

[albitz]

There is a major difference in choosing to rent as a lifestyle choice ... and having your rent partially paid by every other council tax payer.

Council houses/social housing/subsidised accomodation .. whatever label you place on it was SUPPOSED to be for those unable to afford the usual housing routes.

Now seen as a simple way to get almost "free" housing that allows - in many cases - an extremely high standard of living.

Why should a single pensioner occupy a 3 bedroom council house, for free, simply because they have lived in it 30 years If they still need low cost housing .. a single bed flat in sheltered accomodation is probably a better solution

Why should the child of a council house tenant have the "right" to take on the tenancy with no regard to their actual neeeds ??

All subsidised housing should be on time limited tenancy AND subject to means testing IMHO

And as I pay part of their rent I believe I should have a say .. 

and I won't start on councils knocking two houses into one just because the "tenants" can't control their animal instincts..... 

I am not going to get into the main argument, but there is a shortage of much needed social housing with 3 or 4 bedrooms occupied by couples or single people who's children have moved away imho these should be freed up by offering more appropriate alternative.........

Thats a fair point tbh Mike. Although in my experience, many tenants move to a council bungalow or similar (if there is one available) when the kids flee the nest and they get to retirement age, I know my parents did. It could be possible to make some kind of rule on these circumstances, but it would depend on suitable accomodation being available in the local area.

[albitz]

Entwood and Andy - I repeat my point from earlier in the discussion. This proposal will do nothing to deter scroungers whatsoever. It is about getting people out of social houses who the govt. have decreed earn enough money to make other arrangements. My main argument against that is that many of these people will surely have lived in these houses for many years. If they are earning reasonably decent money, the chances are they will have looked after and possibly improved the property, as they regard it as their home. The kind of people who are normally a landlords dream.
I honestly dont know what the thinking is behind this policy, but it isnt anything to do with scroungers, from what I have read about it. I assure you I detest scroungers at least as much as you do.

[Entwood]

Of course ... if you ACTUALLY read the proposals .. and not the headlines ... it is only for NEW tenants - not existing tenants ...

But of course such headlines would not get all the lefties up in arms or sell papers  ... now would it ..

[HolyCount]

Of course ... if you ACTUALLY read the proposals .. and not the headlines ... it is only for NEW tenants - not existing tenants ...

But of course such headlines would not get all the lefties up in arms or sell papers  ... now would it ..

I realise it is for new tenants, but these will, eventually, become the majority occupants of social housing and so the problems caused by this move will still exist.  Private rents will (and are already starting to) skyrocket, making that unaffordable. Private tenants are often obliged to move on every 6 months as the Assured Shorthold tenancies come to term. Albeit with better incomes than when they entered social housing, the likelihood of a mortgage is slim to nil.

These potential pitfalls need to be addressed also.

[Varche]

There is a major difference in choosing to rent as a lifestyle choice ... and having your rent partially paid by every other council tax payer.

Council houses/social housing/subsidised accomodation .. whatever label you place on it was SUPPOSED to be for those unable to afford the usual housing routes.

Now seen as a simple way to get almost "free" housing that allows - in many cases - an extremely high standard of living.

Why should a single pensioner occupy a 3 bedroom council house, for free, simply because they have lived in it 30 years If they still need low cost housing .. a single bed flat in sheltered accomodation is probably a better solution

Why should the child of a council house tenant have the "right" to take on the tenancy with no regard to their actual neeeds ??

All subsidised housing should be on time limited tenancy AND subject to means testing IMHO

And as I pay part of their rent I believe I should have a say .. 

and I won't start on councils knocking two houses into one just because the "tenants" can't control their animal instincts..... 

I am not going to get into the main argument, but there is a shortage of much needed social housing with 3 or 4 bedrooms occupied by couples or single people who's children have moved away imho these should be freed up by offering more appropriate alternative.........

This is flawed. Let me give you a real life example. Mr and Mrs raise their five kids in a three bed council house they took on from being built. Worked hard all their lives. The kids left the nest and one of the parents dies. The other lives on with their memories. Needs some assistance from carers.

To be "booted out" and put in a home would hasten their death and be a burden on the state. Course it is easy to not think about the person just the grander concepts.  It might be different for younger folk but what about the community?

[tidla]

What a fantastic idea by the Government.  I just sincerely hope they have the balls to pull it off.

Council Houses, sorry, Social Housing, should be reserved for the most needy.  And by needy, I don't mean the Bletchley peroxide blonde teenagers who get up the duff several times in order to secure a home for life.

todays local sunday newspaper headline.

even worse that above scenario.

http://www.sundaymercury.net/news/midlands-news/2010/11/21/birmingham-mum-if-they-keep-taking-my-kids-away-i-will-keep-having-them-66331-27686204/

edit, read the three pages if you can

[HolyCount]

What will happen, in reality, is that those in social housing will remain unemployed, or have no incentive to better themselves, income-wise, thereby ensuring they don't lose the house.

In this way the houses will all become choked with career benefit claimants andf there will still be none available for those currently on the waiting lists.

It's change for change's sake.

[geoffr70]

Of course ... if you ACTUALLY read the proposals .. and not the headlines ... it is only for NEW tenants - not existing tenants ...

But of course such headlines would not get all the lefties up in arms or sell papers  ... now would it ..

I realise it is for new tenants, but these will, eventually, become the majority occupants of social housing and so the problems caused by this move will still exist.  Private rents will (and are already starting to) skyrocket, making that unaffordable. Private tenants are often obliged to move on every 6 months as the Assured Shorthold tenancies come to term. Albeit with better incomes than when they entered social housing, the likelihood of a mortgage is slim to nil.

These potential pitfalls need to be addressed also.

You say about private rents are beginning to and already have skyrocketed! Well unfortunately for all of us this is just the cost of living in our great nation, which many of the scroungers have yet to come to terms with and still expect the tax payers to wipe their backsides for them. Rents are high, the cost of buying your own house is high also.

With the boom in property prices in recent years, rents in general (and in particular LHA or Local housing allowance - limits set by local government for housing benefit) have fallen in real terms.

The government aren't silly. They get rid of all the social housing to social landlords and housing associations, and pretend they are being good to the people by having a 'right to buy' scheme and very low prices. When in fact it is beneficial to the government. They get rid of all the houses, then bring in a wave of legislation to increase cost and red tape for landlords and make it easier for sponger workshy tenants to work the system and take everyone for a ride (not all of them of course). The same can be said for care/rest homes! Notice how the government don't have many now and have said people in their old age should stay at home!

Then what is even worse (even after the legislation), they start a nasty smear campaign, nation wide, against private landlords, when the fact is, the government, the housing market, and the country in general need private landlords but don't want to face the inconvenient truth.

Houses are unique, in that you go to a pub and buy a pint, you pay for it there and then, but tenants seem to think it's ok to with hold rent and do whatever they want because they live there! As said the country needs private landlords, byt they don't do it for nothing, it is a business, but I'm surprised they don't pack up and say 'sod you all'.

I think social tenants should have less cans of Fosters, take aways, go to the bloody social club less, and pay full market rates for their accommodation.

2ndly, when short terms tenancies come to an end, generally on a 6 month term, they are renewed, unless the tenant is a total scumbag, but if they are not then there is no problem. Better than this than allowing a bad tenant to get more rites by letting it lapse to an assured tenancy.

If they want the security of a long term place of accommodation, they should buy their own house.

[HolyCount]

Of course ... if you ACTUALLY read the proposals .. and not the headlines ... it is only for NEW tenants - not existing tenants ...

But of course such headlines would not get all the lefties up in arms or sell papers  ... now would it ..

I realise it is for new tenants, but these will, eventually, become the majority occupants of social housing and so the problems caused by this move will still exist.  Private rents will (and are already starting to) skyrocket, making that unaffordable. Private tenants are often obliged to move on every 6 months as the Assured Shorthold tenancies come to term. Albeit with better incomes than when they entered social housing, the likelihood of a mortgage is slim to nil.

These potential pitfalls need to be addressed also.

You say about private rents are beginning to and already have skyrocketed! Well unfortunately for all of us this is just the cost of living in our great nation, which many of the scroungers have yet to come to terms with and still expect the tax payers to wipe their backsides for them. Rents are high, the cost of buying your own house is high also.

With the boom in property prices in recent years, rents in general (and in particular LHA or Local housing allowance - limits set by local government for housing benefit) have fallen in real terms.

The government aren't silly. They get rid of all the social housing to social landlords and housing associations, and pretend they are being good to the people by having a 'right to buy' scheme and very low prices. When in fact it is beneficial to the government. They get rid of all the houses, then bring in a wave of legislation to increase cost and red tape for landlords and make it easier for sponger workshy tenants to work the system and take everyone for a ride (not all of them of course). The same can be said for care/rest homes! Notice how the government don't have many now and have said people in their old age should stay at home!

Then what is even worse (even after the legislation), they start a nasty smear campaign, nation wide, against private landlords, when the fact is, the government, the housing market, and the country in general need private landlords but don't want to face the inconvenient truth.

Houses are unique, in that you go to a pub and buy a pint, you pay for it there and then, but tenants seem to think it's ok to with hold rent and do whatever they want because they live there! As said the country needs private landlords, byt they don't do it for nothing, it is a business, but I'm surprised they don't pack up and say 'sod you all'.

I think social tenants should have less cans of Fosters, take aways, go to the bloody social club less, and pay full market rates for their accommodation.

2ndly, when short terms tenancies come to an end, generally on a 6 month term, they are renewed, unless the tenant is a total scumbag, but if they are not then there is no problem. Better than this than allowing a bad tenant to get more rites by letting it lapse to an assured tenancy.

If they want the security of a long term place of accommodation, they should buy their own house.

If only it were that easy !!  Both my wife and I are in reasonable jobs, both have worked ever since leaving full time education  (except, in my case when I was out of work for a year after being made redundant ..... That's when I lost my bought house as I could get no assistance with the mortgage payments, but could get help with rent. Hey ho .. all in the past now). Anyway, we'd dearly love to be home owners again ... currently with a private landlord (in the same home we once "owned" and paying more than the mortgage was!). But ... there's always a "but" ...... there isn't a chance in hell of getting a mortgage to buy the garage, let alone a house!  Our multiples would get us half a house if lenders were lending!

[Lizzie_Zoom]

Of course ... if you ACTUALLY read the proposals .. and not the headlines ... it is only for NEW tenants - not existing tenants ...

But of course such headlines would not get all the lefties up in arms or sell papers  ... now would it ..

I realise it is for new tenants, but these will, eventually, become the majority occupants of social housing and so the problems caused by this move will still exist.  Private rents will (and are already starting to) skyrocket, making that unaffordable. Private tenants are often obliged to move on every 6 months as the Assured Shorthold tenancies come to term. Albeit with better incomes than when they entered social housing, the likelihood of a mortgage is slim to nil.

These potential pitfalls need to be addressed also.

You say about private rents are beginning to and already have skyrocketed! Well unfortunately for all of us this is just the cost of living in our great nation, which many of the scroungers have yet to come to terms with and still expect the tax payers to wipe their backsides for them. Rents are high, the cost of buying your own house is high also.

With the boom in property prices in recent years, rents in general (and in particular LHA or Local housing allowance - limits set by local government for housing benefit) have fallen in real terms.

The government aren't silly. They get rid of all the social housing to social landlords and housing associations, and pretend they are being good to the people by having a 'right to buy' scheme and very low prices. When in fact it is beneficial to the government. They get rid of all the houses, then bring in a wave of legislation to increase cost and red tape for landlords and make it easier for sponger workshy tenants to work the system and take everyone for a ride (not all of them of course). The same can be said for care/rest homes! Notice how the government don't have many now and have said people in their old age should stay at home!

Then what is even worse (even after the legislation), they start a nasty smear campaign, nation wide, against private landlords, when the fact is, the government, the housing market, and the country in general need private landlords but don't want to face the inconvenient truth.

Houses are unique, in that you go to a pub and buy a pint, you pay for it there and then, but tenants seem to think it's ok to with hold rent and do whatever they want because they live there! As said the country needs private landlords, byt they don't do it for nothing, it is a business, but I'm surprised they don't pack up and say 'sod you all'.

I think social tenants should have less cans of Fosters, take aways, go to the bloody social club less, and pay full market rates for their accommodation.

2ndly, when short terms tenancies come to an end, generally on a 6 month term, they are renewed, unless the tenant is a total scumbag, but if they are not then there is no problem. Better than this than allowing a bad tenant to get more rites by letting it lapse to an assured tenancy.

If they want the security of a long term place of accommodation, they should buy their own house.

And people on here have accused me of being elitist!!

Your comments are extremely sweeping and derogatory to a lot of hard working individuals, and far from the truth.  All the council tenants I have known over the years, and now, do not live that life style and just work to survive!!

In the South East the average property prices are 11X the average wage, which means 10s of thousands will never be able to obtain a mortgage, and I am one who was lucky enough to be in a marriage where we were both business professionals earning very good salaries so know what it is like on both sides of the coin!


What is so wrong anyway in the state building cheap, rent affordable houses for the masses who cannot afford to purchase, even on part rent part ownership schemes?  We are very short of housing stock in this country, and especially in the South, so what is wrong with the socialist principle of providing workers with council houses. 

As for the unemployed is it really ALL their fault?  Of course not, it is the fault of the system that thousands cannot find good quality work!  Build the council houses in thousands and it will employ hundreds of thousands in the construction and building supply industry alone!

[aaronjb]

[edit] Self censorship FTW.

[geoffr70]

I don't think it's elitist at all. In any case I hate that word when it used in relation to people.

I think in my post I acknowledged the fact that not everyone is like that.

Well I live in Sunderland so perhaps my views might be influenced due to the fact this has a high rate of unemployment, welfare dependency and benefit fraud.

As said it's not elitist. I have nothing against fosters etc or the people who consume it, but i mentioned this as that is what they have. If we were talking about middle or upper class i would have mentioned theatre/ballet etc.

Perhaps i should've said: 'spend less on theire indulgent lifestyle' and pay full market rents'. I don't think they are derogatory either, they might be to scronugers, if they are then good.

[HolyCount]

Oh ... to have an indulgent lifestyle  :-/