Damn I just hate it when I agree with David Cameron PM and disagree inpart atleast with Simon Hughes Deputy Lib Dem.
David Cameron has said "Tenants could be given fixed terms of up to 10 years and move on if their circumstances had changed". Well I have to say I think this is worth looking at. When social housing is now so hard to come by and is in such demand it makes sence that if your family move out then perhaps you should move to a smaller home. Many people do keep their council house and hold on too it when their circumstances have changed.
I agree with Simon that this is not in the coalition agreement or policy for the Tories or the Lib Dems. If so perhaps this should be a policy for a future manifesto and not tabled during the coalition. But I do agree with the idea. Is it really fair to allow people to hang on for years to a family council home while other families wait?
The BBC has the full story here Lib Dems wary of Cameron social housing plan - Hughes.
Tory blogger Walaa Idris gives the arguments on Social Housing Reforms are a necessity not a choice
As does Lib Dem Sara Bedford on Lib Dem Voice here Social housing: a home for life?
UPDATE: this blog I agree with http://spiderplant88.wordpress.com/2010/08/04/why-the-coalitions-plan-for-social-housing-could-actually-work/
of course the obvious answer to this problem, and many other housing problems, is to simply build a lot more social housing.I still haven't managed to work out why political parties and governments seem so reluctant to do this.
ReplyDeleteI entirely agree that the solution is not to turf people out their family home but instead to build new social housing.
ReplyDeleteThis solution is ludicrous. Ending secure tenancies in favour of evicting people who move up the "social ladder" so to speak is another absurd, top of the head, horrid policy from Cameron. As Simon Hughes rightly points out, this was not even in the coalition document, like so many of the new polcies brought in by the coalition.
ReplyDeleteThe aim is to free up social housing for the thousands on waiting lists across the country. As a writer above says, this can be done my building more social housing to replace the stock sold off over the past 20-30 years. Selling off social housing stock is one thing - not replacing it however causes problems down the line...as we are now witnessing.
Instead of fullfilling the aim, the cause of this policy will be to further Ghettoise social housing areas - like the one in which I live, a mixture of ex-council and current council rent properties - making them simply areas in which the poor, the disadvantaged, the elderly and the disabled exist.
Cameron and his millionaire posse know nohing of social housing, nothing of the poor and disadvantaged, nothing of how those who arne't lucky enough to be able to live off a trust fund lead our lives.
Simon Hughes is quite right to be outraged by this, but I am afraid it will come to nothing as long as Clegg remains Cameron's lacky.
In no way do I want people turf out their home but they could be offered accommodation lower rent at a good sized but smaller home if they don't need it. I do want to see more housing but I know of people who hold onto their unused house in some cases because a council house offers flexibility and they now earn plenty of money but don't attemp to find private accommodation others will rent it out to friends. How can that be right when people with children are waiting. It's nor idea but the situation is desperate and fewer homes r being built plus public complain about all new builds
ReplyDeleteIs it also write that a council owned house passes down from parents to children
ReplyDeleteFirstly I think Cameron sounded worryingly Blairite - shooting off policy from the hip, and so memories of Blair's populist, on the hoof, ideas such as frog-marching louts to cashpoints for on-the-spot fines. I think this policy also fails the social test of fairness in its potential for uprooting people. "Big Society Says Pack Ya Bags", what next - compulsory euthanasia?
ReplyDeleteIt also fails the economic test, pushing people towards property ownership when the market is generally short on supply, and also a profound lack of part-ownership and first-time buyer property available almost anywhere.
Property boom and bust has been at the core of economic turmoil for decades whilst the country needs a more mobile workforce and reasonably priced rental property. House prices remain insane - making this rich property owning democracy a nation-miserable!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt is difficult when there are elderly people occupying quite large houses, when there are young families in desperate need of accommodation.
ReplyDeleteI listened to a radio program earlier about how people move on, and get to grips with things themselves, instead of relying on the state - How society and families can help each other. When we need help, then the state can help. We hope then move on and help ourselves. There are probably many ways that people can move on form social housing.
I suspect there will be all sorts of legal wrangles about this and "human rights". Bracknell Forest pioneered "introductory tenancies". That was all a bit interesting - More at:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200203/jtselect/jtrights/67/67ap09.htm
By the way of things that would help people move into different types of accommodation:
BFC have launched a cash incentive scheme which lets people who live in social housing apply for a grant to help them with the deposit on a house of their own.
http://www.getbracknell.co.uk/news/s/2075362_home_scheme_helps_familys_dream_come_true
We also have Bracknell Forest Council's My Home Buy; A shared equity scheme that will let first-time buyers choose their own house then have the council help them pay the mortgage.
http://www.getbracknell.co.uk/news/s/2075360_1m_leg_up_the_housing_ladder
A priority for both the Council and RSL's with properties in the borough is to ensure that best use is made of the existing social rented housing stock in the borough. Under-occupying tenants are prioritised for re-housing in the Council's Allocations Policy and Bracknell Forest Homes offer financial incentives to tenants releasing family sized properties. An average of 20 properties are released in this way each year.
More at:
http://www.bracknell-forest.gov.uk/housing-strategy.pdf
These are all things for the benefit of us all.
Dazmando,
ReplyDeleteI believe (though may be wrong) that the child has to have been living at the house for the 12 months prior to their parents' death. i.e. it has to be their only home.
As for people subletting their council homes, I believe this is against the rules, and the answer to that is to enforce the rules not create new ones which penalise everyone.
The answer, as stated by many people above, is to have more social housing.
Its not that I dont agree that we need more social housing but its not going to happen. It hasn't happened and I still dont see the number of home required being built.
ReplyDeleteAlso is the fact that some people are tied to their council home means that they are stuck in the area or even trapped in some ways.
It would still rely on proper budget allocation and estimation. We don't really need some infrastructure when many are homeless and in need of affordable housing. Thanks. By the way, if you think it's time to have your own place in Nottingham, why not try this great option of rent to own homes. It's the best option you have these days. Good luck in everything!
ReplyDeletepeople dont seem to have thought this through
ReplyDeleteif you only give housing on short term lets to very high need people you will end up with ghettos of chaotic, vulnerable people which will drag everyone down and not solve the problem
it smacks of people who dont know what the housing system is like to go through
sorry, i just dont agree with it!
you need balanced, mixed communities
otherwise places become a living hell to live in
and you have mobility within the stock anyway
people can transfer
buy their house if they become successful
(which i dont agree with - i think right to invest is a better idea)
but this kind of commentary just doesnt understand the system or the opportunities for those who do well
most tenants who get good employment etc end up buying the house
so cameron's argument is from a false premise anyway