Council homes to have fixed term tenancies

Mancie · 04-08-2010, 00:12

Cameron has said council tennats will be placed on fix term agreements of ten years.. his reasoning seems to be that only those on low incomes rent council homes, and should be means tested every ten years.
So now it is official.. only poor people should live in council houses!.. is there is anyone left in the country that doubts this Government are hell-bent on dismantling any vestige of social improvements made after the World War ?.

BBC News - Council homes for life could go, says Cameron

blazey · 04-08-2010, 23:37

Maybe it shouldn't even be for 10 years. There is a certain stigma that comes with living in a council house, usually the label that you are lazy and can't be bothered to work 40 hours a week on minimum wage and would rather claim benefits. Personally I can see where the label comes from in a lot of instances.

Council houses probably should be seen as a temporary solution for most people, a way of being able to afford to live whilst getting back on your feet. Then once you have you can move into private rented accommodation and remove yourself from the social stigma and hopefully progress through life and your career to one that means you never have to consider council property again and then those who ARE struggling like you once were can have the same opportunity to live in cheap accommodation and work their way up as well.

To be honest, the problem is that you can often rent privately now with your benefits anyway so there isn't really much organisation to the chaos of renting whilst on benefits or very low income. People scrape by in expensive properties sometimes whilst others float by on huge amounts of benefits and can afford expensive TVs, nice cars, holidays etc. The whole system is ridiculous.

I find myself increasingly frustrated by the benefits system but unable to vent my anger towards it without offending people who seem to think they receive benefits as some sort of right and can't be bothered to work because they'd get the same amount of money anyway, if not less.

It actually disgusts me. So whilst some people NEED benefits and NEED council houses and all the rest of it, I think the coalition government is right to review the system starting at employment and accommodation, because it is unemployment and council houses which makes people feel a certain way in the first place and not always in a way that makes them motivated to find a job.

Mancie · 05-08-2010, 04:03

Since when has a council tennet had a "social stigma" ?... but then again this sort of thing was always on the cards the day after the Tories got power..the "impartial press" have been gearing up to stigmatize any low incomes families .. working or not.. it's a direct attack on low incomes.

Boeing Guy · 05-08-2010, 06:52

I think the only stigma, is from snobs. It might surprise you Mancie, that I have lived in a Council house for several years of my adult life, it never bothered me.
After reading the full article, yes it is a Tory paper and I am a right wing capitalist pig, I kind of have to agree. This is about encouraging people to be self sufficient and standing on their own two feet. There are a lot of people in the UK who are able to work who just enjoy leeching the system dry. If they were encouraged to work, get some pride back in their lives then there would be more money for those who do need help the most.
It is by no means a perfect idea, but then what is.

MargaretR · 05-08-2010, 07:20

As well as a means test to see whether you can afford to move out, there is a supposed solution to 'under occupancy'.

When the children leave home it is sensible to downsize but it isn't always possible.
Moving house is a traumatic experience which many older people cannot cope with.
Being forced to move is insensitive/inhumane

jaysay · 05-08-2010, 09:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by MargaretR

As well as a means test to see whether you can afford to move out, there is a supposed solution to 'under occupancy'.

When the children leave home it is sensible to downsize but it isn't always possible.
Moving house is a traumatic experience which many older people cannot cope with.
Being forced to move is insensitive/inhumane

But when one person is living in a three or even four bedroom council(housing Ass) property when families are on a waiting list, downsizing to me makes sense

SPUGGIE J · 05-08-2010, 10:39

I stay on my own and live in a council property as I cannot afford a morgage nor be able to afford the council tax. All the good council properties have been bought up and it is private housing associations that now build houses. Cant rember the last time the council built any up here. In the 20 years I have been up here the local authority has built 0. There is no stigma attached to it up here because wages are low to start with and even married couples struggle to afford a mortgage even if they dont have kids.

MargaretR · 05-08-2010, 11:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaysay

But when one person is living in a three or even four bedroom council(housing Ass) property when families are on a waiting list, downsizing to me makes sense

It makes sense unless you are the person who is told to move.
It would be reasonable to expect them to move IF -
... the costs involved (including replacement carpets, curtains and redecoration) are met in full
....the arrangements for removal are placed in the hands of professional movers (who will do all the packing/unpacking)
....the new accommodation is of the same standard or better than the one they leave.
....the new accommodation is in the same area or better.

I can't see these 4 items being considered - let alone met

SPUGGIE J · 05-08-2010, 11:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by MargaretR

It makes sense unless you are the person who is told to move.
It would be reasonable to expect them to move IF -
... the costs involved (including replacement carpets, curtains and redecoration) are met in full
....the arrangements for removal are placed in the hands of professional movers (who will do all the packing/unpacking)
....the new accommodation is of the same standard or better than the one they leave.
....the new accommodation is in the same area or better.

I can't see these 4 items being considered - let alone met

You forgot compensation for doing so. In essence your are being forced to leave your home even if you have been there 20+ years. If compo is paid to those moved out for regeneration work roads etc then the same rules should apply. At the end of the day you are forcing a person to abandon their home for the sake of so called progress.

Mancie · 06-08-2010, 22:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaysay

But when one person is living in a three or even four bedroom council(housing Ass) property when families are on a waiting list, downsizing to me makes sense

OK makes sense.. but these proposals are more on the lines that every ten years the council tenant will basically be means tested.. the higher the income the more likley to be told to leave.. to my mind this policey will turn the whole notion of council houses/flats into more like temporary accomodation for low incomes...and that will stigmatize a fairly high proportion of the population.
After WW2 (no matter the rubbish some want us to believe) Britian was even more skint than we are now.. but families needed jobs and homes..thousands were built and thousands of jobs created, this policy worked.. and like I say this mob are determined to reverse any good done over the last 60 years

andrewb · 06-08-2010, 22:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mancie

but these proposals are more on the lines that every ten years the council tenant will basically be means tested.. the higher the income the more likley to be told to leave.. to my mind this policey will turn the whole notion of council houses/flats into more like temporary accomodation for low incomes...

You describe a welfare state for those most in need... not really that outrageous is it Mancie.

Mancie · 06-08-2010, 22:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewb

You describe a welfare state for those most in need... not really that outrageous is it Mancie.

Well that statement says it all.. you, as a Tory, consider council housing as part of the welfare state...thank you for clarifying my point

andrewb · 07-08-2010, 06:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mancie

Well that statement says it all.. you, as a Tory, consider council housing as part of the welfare state...thank you for clarifying my point

Umn, yes? Beveridge wanted to create a welfare state to tackle the "five giants" of want, disease, squalor, ignorance and idleness. Part of the plan to tackling these was to increase the number of public houses built.

Those who most need a council home should be the ones that get them.

Eric · 07-08-2010, 07:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mancie

Since when has a council tennet had a "social stigma" ?... but then again this sort of thing was always on the cards the day after the Tories got power..the "impartial press" have been gearing up to stigmatize any low incomes families .. working or not.. it's a direct attack on low incomes.

I think that your response is a little long-winded ... "BS" would have been succinct and sufficient

SPUGGIE J · 07-08-2010, 08:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewb

Umn, yes? Beveridge wanted to create a welfare state to tackle the "five giants" of want, disease, squalor, ignorance and idleness. Part of the plan to tackling these was to increase the number of public houses built.

Those who most need a council home should be the ones that get them.

Unfortunately it does not work that way.