egafd.com

now if you happen to be in work and earning a little more than cameron thinks you should,and all this time happen to be living in council property,dear old mr cameron think its right to kick you out of there and put you into private sector housing,what a caring bunch these tories/libs are

It's the underlying motive for this that worries me. Quote from D-Cam "Maybe in five or 10 years you will be doing a different job and be better paid and you won't need that home, you will be able to go into the private sector". It's the "able" that I note in particular. Translation, as I see it "fuck this choice malarkey about which I previously bored the tits off you all. Unless you are poor, the state has no interest in you so go and give some of my donors a big wedge of your money. Did you lot not get it in the 80s? We hate council housing....unless we can use it for gerrymandering, of course."

This from a dude earning ?142.5k a year (with family wealth a multiple thereof) who lives in effectively the country's most exclusive council house. (Yeah, I know..."tradition....security considerations" etc).

Why not just ensure that council house rents are set at a fair rate, in proportion to cost and ability to pay?

alicia_fan_uk

If he can force people to move from council to private, it allows his government to "do" something about the chronic housing shortage in the country without actually building the homes we need and boosting the construction industry.

Because of political ideology, rather than reality, he is stuck on this need to slash and burn to get the deficit down and is pushing things far harder than he needs to.

It won't become law anyway.

Why should someone have a council house if they can afford to pay rent in the private sector?

Why should a couple whose kids have left home keep a 5 bed council house?

For fuck sake people, everyone goes up in arms immediately that anything new is suggested, people always give examples of the exceptions, not the norm.

I would like to see a society were freeloading is not encouraged, but improving ones finacial and social status is.

I beleive people on income support should earn their income support threw community based projects, you clean the streets for 5 hours a week you get income support, get people out and doing things rather than festering at home.

I love my country, but it is going to shit, and for the first time ever I am actually thinking about moving away, maybe just for a few years, but who knows.

Zorro,

Some fair points, well made.

My only observation is in relation to your comment on people "having" a council house and the reference to "freeloaders" (admittedly, I'm not sure if the latter was a council-house specific or more general reference); "having" could imply some kind of giveaway but the majority of people pay for council houses. Some would much rather give their ?s to a local authority to reinvest into the local community than to a private landlord (with the associated risks in relation to quality/ethics of said landlord etc).

As I said above, a system based on cost and ability to pay seems fair.

I'd like to see a society not ruled by financial/social status, but rather where happiness and respect for self and others is the main aim. Too often the drive for money and status above all else can create problems further down the line.

alicia_fan_uk

Zorro wrote:

> Why should someone have a council house if they can afford to
> pay rent in the private sector?
>
> Why should a couple whose kids have left home keep a 5 bed
> council house?
>
> For fuck sake people, everyone goes up in arms immediately that
> anything new is suggested, people always give examples of the
> exceptions, not the norm.
>
> I would like to see a society were freeloading is not
> encouraged, but improving ones finacial and social status is.
>
> I beleive people on income support should earn their income
> support threw community based projects, you clean the streets
> for 5 hours a week you get income support, get people out and
> doing things rather than festering at home.
>
> I love my country, but it is going to shit, and for the first
> time ever I am actually thinking about moving away, maybe just
> for a few years, but who knows.
>


Private rental costs in this country are some of the highest in Europe and are disproportionate to income levels. That's why so many people get housing benefit. It would save the tax payer a great deal of money if the tax payer wasn't subsidising the lifestyles of private landlords. The fact that housing associations and councils can provide accommodation at rates far lower than private landlords proves that those private landlords are charging too much in the first place.

I might take what you have to say a little more seriously... if you could spell!!!! Maybe one of the reasons why this country is going to shit, as you say, is the lack of education shown by those who most complain about what's happening.

Please let me know if I can help your move out of the country... the fewer people like you around, the better chance we have of things getting better... oh, and please don't come back!

Why should someone who may have lived in a house for 30 years and paid thousands in rent on it have to leave it because this cunt says so? Someone who has been paying rent on a property for a long period has the right to buy it, and I believe under European law has a massive amount of protection from being forced to move so what you'll probably see is more people who can afford to taking up their right to buy and the poorest will be the ones who get fucked. Again.

I work in Social Housing so REAL issues are as follows.

1 Rents are fair. They are set by the government so are always affordable. You can rent a social property in London for ?300 a month that is worth ?400k+.

2 Council Housing is almost dead. Most social housing is run by Registered State Landlords i.e, housing associations and almos (management agreements between local council and a services company). These companies collect rent, do repiars and manage the environments on their estates.

3 There are hundreds of thousands of people on housing lists who can't get a house because someone earing a high wage is hogging their place.
However the high earning tenant can't get a mortgage because he hasn't got 25% deposit to get on the private ladder. The idea of social housing was a stepping stone on the ladder, not a home for life. So there are people who want to buy but are blocked by new FSA rules and as a result they are staying social tenants, getting their house modernised, repaired and externally decorated for ?75 a week. Catch 22 ETC ETC.

4 There is a more serious underlying trend. Many workshy freeloaders want social housing becuase they have no intention of ever paying tax or contributing to society. These people will never go anywhere near a mortgage or quality private rent as that would mean doing a days hard graft. These people are the real issue, not hard working tenants with aspirations to move to their own home.

"There is a more serious underlying trend. Many workshy freeloaders want social housing becuase they have no intention of ever paying tax or contributing to society. These people will never go anywhere near a mortgage or quality private rent as that would mean doing a days hard graft. These people are the real issue, not hard working tenants with aspirations to move to their own home."

No. The real issue is the introduction of the ?Right to Buy? under the Housing Act 1980 by Thatcher which was a watershed event for councils all over the country.

From the start local authorities have been able to sell off their houses, but until the introduction of the RTB they were not forced to do so. Up until this time mostly the production of new homes exceeded the numbers sold, however following the passing of this policy, the period of growth halted and began a decline. Largely it led to many of the better quality council properties being purchased by tenants who qualified for the right to buy.

The number of houses managed by London?s councils had shrunk from 840,000 in 1984 to just over 500,000 by the end of the century. Another impact of the right to buy was that the majority of dwellings that were sold were houses rather than flats. So the right to buy has reduced the supply of family houses and altered the balance of council housing stock in the country.

Nationally 1 million houses were sold within 10 years. Spending restrictions were also introduced at the same time which that it was no longer possible to build new houses in large numbers. After fifty years of virtually uninterrupted growth, the numbers of council houses began to fall, and have continued to do so ever since.

The result is nowhere near enough housing at an affordable price. Cameron's plans, as usual, do nothing to address the real issue.

Cheers
D