"Subsidised" council housing?

[oryx]

There are a couple of ways in which you could look upon council/HA housing as 'subsidised':

- a slight majority of council/HA tenants are on housing benefit, although as someone else on this threads pointed out, that applies to many private tenants as well
- many of their houses/flats would have been built using public money* - up until the eighties, when councils more or less stopped building & HAs were increasingly relying on loans, not subsidy, to build. Up until the 1988 Housing Act, HAs were given 90% grant.

* which I see as a good thing, as there will always be people who cannot afford to buy or rent privately.

 

[scifisam]

There are a couple of ways in which you could look upon council/HA housing as 'subsidised':

- a slight majority of council/HA tenants are on housing benefit, although as someone else on this threads pointed out, that applies to many private tenants as well
- many of their houses/flats would have been built using public money* - up until the eighties, when councils more or less stopped building & HAs were increasingly relying on loans, not subsidy, to build. Up until the 1988 Housing Act, HAs were given 90% grant.

* which I see as a good thing, as there will always be people who cannot afford to buy or rent privately.

Thanks to right to buy, many private dwellings were also built using public money. In any case, those buildings were funded by taxpayers' money which most likely included funds from either the current tenants or their relatives. That applies even if the current tenants or their parents are immigrants, since they were probably either from a colony that we got rich off, or from the rest of the world, that we got rich off.

Then there are the palaces and so on. Built using taxpayers' money, funded partly out of taxes - the biggest council houses in the land!

Housing benefit's a separate issue, no matter what people like to think.

 

[Prince Rhyus]

Hang on hang on...wasn't it the Chartered Institute for Housing that came up with this? Hasn't this been opposed by the federation representing housing associations (the NHF) and Shelter? Three non-governmental institutions having a disagreement.

 

[scifisam]

Heh.

On the point regarding the use of the word 'subsidy' - it's a fine example of how language is used as a political tool.

Think about it: We invest in roads. We subsidise railways.

I'd argue that people paying 'market rents' are subsidising predatory lenders etc., while controlling rents can be seen as a way of investing in the community.

I meant to say, I think this post is really well put. You could try posting it in the comments to this article, but it probably wouldn't get posted.

 

[shagnasty]

When you claim housing benefit or income support jsa you have to disclose all yours and your families details wages savings etc.so by this scheme the so called aspirational class who nu labour is counting on will have to do the same as us scum and declare all their private details no it won't wash

 

[darkfibre]

You could try posting it in the comments to this article, but it probably wouldn't get posted.

I could try... I can also flap my arms as hard as I can...

Feel free to do so on my behalf.

Weren't the proceeds of 'Right to Buy' local authority housing stock sales 'ringfenced' to prevent them from being reinvested in building new homes?

 

[scifisam]

When you claim housing benefit or income support jsa you have to disclose all yours and your families details wages savings etc.so by this scheme the so called aspirational class who nu labour is counting on will have to do the same as us scum and declare all their private details no it won't wash

I don't think that's an issue, because there just aren't that many wealthy people living on council housing. The aspirational class is not going to be bothered by this; they're the ones who'll love it most. Pull yourself up by the bootstraps kinda thing.

But you raise a good point: how would the council know how much its residents were earning, if they weren't in receipt of benefits?

 

[darkfibre]

how would the council know how much its residents were earning, if they weren't in receipt of benefits?

Because they can now use 'anti-terror' laws to access all sorts of information.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article4036231.ece

 

[scifisam]

Because they can now use 'anti-terror' laws to access all sorts of information.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article4036231.ece

Only if you count 'being in a job with decent pay' as a 'petty offence' for a council tenant. That could never happen, surely?

Also only if the database is up-to-date and accurate. That really could never happen.

 

[_angel_]

I don't think that's an issue, because there just aren't that many wealthy people living on council housing. The aspirational class is not going to be bothered by this; they're the ones who'll love it most. Pull yourself up by the bootstraps kinda thing.

But you raise a good point: how would the council know how much its residents were earning, if they weren't in receipt of benefits?

Good question. I think it's mere speculation this idea that there are 'many' council tenants on *good* money (please lets define what this is - a penny over the minimum wage or Richard Branson??)


Either way, council tenants are again demonised. Either they are feckless doley chav scum or they are rich people taking the piss at the expense of *decent hard working families* (even though they pay their rent)

Bloody hell, you cannot possibly have it both ways!

 

[Wolveryeti]

I think the answer is to build high-density council housing that is functional, but undesirable - i.e. bedsits. This way more people will be with a roof over their heads, but will be keen to vacate the property for someone needier once they are on the up and up.

 

[_angel_]

I think the answer is to build high-density council housing that is functional, but undesirable - i.e. bedsits. This way more people will be with a roof over their heads, but will be keen to vacate the property for someone needier once they are on the up and up.

Families shouldn't live in bedsits - but, hey they already do thanks to the current situation of having nowhere else to go.

Lots of council accommodation is already in bad repair and 'undesirable' ffs. Do you really want families living in single rooms without cooking facilities (this does already happen but they're supposed to be waiting for something better)

What was the point in abolishing the slums and the workhouse when there are people determined to go back there.


Where are people living on the minimum wage or thereabouts meant to live?

 

[scifisam]

Either way, council tenants are again demonised. Either they are feckless doley chav scum or they are rich people taking the piss at the expense of *decent hard working families* (even though they pay their rent)

Bloody hell, you cannot possibly have it both ways!

That's funny. Demonise even the working council house tenants!

My estate is a HA estate, but it's a very old one. I only know 9 (10 including me) of the 64 households well enough to know their job status. Which is a pretty good count for London, really.

One household is a single pensioner - though her grandchildren stay over at least twice a week, so she does need a larger flat.

Another is a pensioner I know nothing else about.

Another is a working couple with one teenage son.

Then there's a couple with five kids (in a two bedroom place) - the Dad works legit - I've seen him put and about in uniform.

One household is a single childless woman who works as a part-time tutor.

One is a huge family with both parents and a couple of adult kids working at a nearby shop.

Another is a woman who childminds and her partner who does something which requires builders' clothes, and their child.

A couple of floors above me is a woman with a teenage son; I'm not sure she works, but she leaves every morning in a suit, so it seems likely.

There's also a single woman with two very young children; she doesn't speak English much. She's around in the day at half-term, so I don't think she works. But then, her children are about 18months and 2 and a half, and she doesn't speak much English, so she's not exactly at the top of the unemployment pyramid.

Then there's me, in a couple, both of us working part-time, with one child. Household income surely below any threshold the government could think of.


What a bunch of scroungers, eh?

 

[_angel_]

Scifi: They should be in bedsits. Even the ones with six kids.... if they don't have kids they shouldn't get a place at all..

Got a job - how dare you have a place, don't have a job - SCROUNGERS OUT!!!!


I will evict myself and the kids into the nearest gutter cos it's the only decent thing to do.

 

[scifisam]

I think the answer is to build high-density council housing that is functional, but undesirable - i.e. bedsits. This way more people will be with a roof over their heads, but will be keen to vacate the property for someone needier once they are on the up and up.

So let's build lots more social housing for single childless people! In tower blocks!

Mind you, nearly all the part-buy part-rent flats are, well, flats, not houses - no outdoor space - and are one or two-bedroom. Most new HA flats seem also to be 2 bedroom at the most. So, really, the government is doing what you propose: not building homes for families, or people that want families in the future.

 

[_angel_]

Actually I'm confused, it's the ones with kids that shouldn't get houses cos they only have em to get em.

Unless they're hardworking families in which case they're entitled....

as long as they ---urgh I dunno now.

 

[Wolveryeti]

I'm saying housing should be allocated on a needs-first basis. I.e. you should put singletons into bedsits to reserve more spacious housing for families. At the moment they get entire flats. I know personally of two people who pretended they had an abusive relationship at home in order to get one. I bet they wouldn't have been so keen to take the piss if they knew they'd be placed in something resembling student halls instead.

 

[_angel_]

I'm saying housing should be allocated on a needs-first basis. I.e. you should put singletons into bedsits to reserve more spacious housing for families. At the moment they get entire flats. I know personally of two people who pretended they had an abusive relationship at home in order to get one. I bet they wouldn't have been so keen to take the piss if they knew they'd be placed in something resembling student halls instead.

Ok say you're talking about people lying to get ahead of the waiting list which is a truly shameful thing to do. (Incidentally single people getting housed are unlikely to succeed without bucket loads of reasons)

I know, this was ten years ago, Oxford city council were being forced to offer lone parents one bedroom flats and in blocks etc which were designed for singletons or adult couples. (That's if they got an offer at all after years of being in a hostel)

I know Bradford council is a bastard to get a place off even for families.

I know even Leeds has thousands of homeless families...

Unfortunately, taking people who lie about circumstances to get placed above genuine people is not a good way to formulate policy. It usually ends up with the honest people being penalised.

The only answer to the situation is more affordable housing. The number of council houses have declined ever since right to buy... there was bound to be a problem.

It's typical that the government should now penalise the people who HAVEN'T beneffited from rtb and choose to punish them for either not working (who cares if they're ill!!) or working and earning "too much".

 

[scifisam]

I'm saying housing should be allocated on a needs-first basis. I.e. you should put singletons into bedsits to reserve more spacious housing for families. At the moment they get entire flats. I know personally of two people who pretended they had an abusive relationship at home in order to get one. I bet they wouldn't have been so keen to take the piss if they knew they'd be placed in something resembling student halls instead.

Single people tend not to get anywhere at all. If they do, it's one beds maximum.

You know personally of two separate people who pretended to be in abusive relationships in order to get whole council flats, and succeeded? Where do you live, planet Daily Mail?

In any case, how does this suddenly mean that couples and families no longer need housing?

 

[Wolveryeti]

You know personally of two separate people who pretended to be in abusive relationships in order to get whole council flats, and succeeded? Where do you live, planet Daily Mail?

How did you guess? I chose it because it affords an excellent view of the constellation of LazyCliche

In any case, how does this suddenly mean that couples and families no longer need housing?

I never said that. But getting single people to live in no frills high density housing would take the pressure off the remanining social housing stock for people with families which (I presume?) you think would be a good thing.

 

[_angel_]

Mmmmm it's really hard for single people to get housed ---- and single accommodation isn't suitable for families anyway.... we need more family accomm that's affordable...

 

[Wolveryeti]

Surely better than being homeless though, as in the thousands of families you mention in Leeds.

 

[scifisam]

Sorry for taking the piss about the Daily Mail, but really, it is unusual to know two people taking the piss in that way, and succeeding. Not impossible, I guess, but not something to base a worldview on. Social housing is not easy to get, especially if you're single and childless.

I never said that. But getting single people to live in no frills high density housing would take the pressure off the remanining social housing stock for people with families which (I presume?) you think would be a good thing.

Well, no, because single people are - apart from a few pensioners and empty-nesters - not taking up social housing that would be suitable for families. They're not being moved into family homes.

Unless your friends somehow got 2-bedroom+ flats?

 

[brasicritique]

this whole scheme is sick

still it was only a matter of time before people are suposed to start moving around and change houses in order for the system to fiddal the figures and isolate the individual to fuck

who is going to choose the new housing?

if this ever takes of thats it the bnp will be in power befofe you can say ' V '


while people say it will never happen well with so much debt in the country this whole scheme cuold be being muted as a means to generate money and stiumlate the economy

in any case nushambore have been suppporting social cleansing since day1

are you out there fullypumped i suppose you have a good nushamebore txted defence of this

 

[_angel_]

Surely better than being homeless though, as in the thousands of families you mention in Leeds.

I don't think the answer is families being forced to share one (or even two) bed accomms because that's more or less what they have to do when they're on the waiting list already!

Why did they knock so many council houses down knowing there was a need for them? Why did they persist in allowing private developments of only 1 and 2 bed apartments (that are standing empty now). Who is going to live in those buildings now??

 

[ViolentPanda]

.wrong on something

eta - quite a few councils are running schemes already to look at the occupancy of there housing stock - elderly people who no longer have families etc who do not (in theory) need the space the occupy and looking at moving them to smaller properties to free up houses/larger flats for families etc.

Lambeth do a scheme where they compensate you if you move from a larger to a smaller place, IIRC.

sub letting is also a problem in london from people i know in housing departments at councils but councils lack the where with all to do much about it.

Of course, sub-letting wasn't a problem until "Right to Buy" and councils being disbarred from direct build of new social housing.

they should just be building more proper council housing and looking for natural move on, not coming up with bonkers ideas like this to remove peoples security of tenure.

Hear hear.

 

[Zachor]

Lambeth do a scheme where they compensate you if you move from a larger to a smaller place, IIRC.

Of course, sub-letting wasn't a problem until "Right to Buy" and councils being disbarred from direct build of new social housing.

Hear hear.

Couldn't agree more there.

 

[treelover]

still it was only a matter of time before people are suposed to start moving around and change houses in order for the system to fiddal the figures and isolate the individual to fuck

Its not just that, Nu-Labor also idolise the neo-liberal US where workers are forced to trek across the country to gain work.

 

[_angel_]

Its not just that, Nu-Labor also idolise the neo-liberal US where workers are forced to trek across the country to gain work.

They've got more space in the US for new housing though, it's never going to work in the UK.

 

[Kaka Tim]

Its ovious the problem is far too much pressure on social housing.

The obvious solution is to build more social housing as a matter of urgency.

But no - the cheaper and nastier thing to do is to further restrict peoples eligibility for social housing and removing security of tenure.

And U75s fuckwit fraterntiy obviously support option 2.

And many many people do some blagging to get a counci house, becasue most people will do whatever it takes to get somewhere to live - after all their still poor and in need of housing.