Council homes for life ‘to be scrapped’

epz_2

sounds like typical labour thinking of ways to incentive staying poor.

the real solution would be to provide a bare minimum safety net and expect everyone else to fend for their selfs. Couple that with benefits reform where if someone has lost their job they gets substantially more benefits for the first few months of unemployment to help them get back on their feet so the system is actully setup to get you back to work,

bubblesmoney

Catwoman1975 wrote: »

Because it is secure. No other reason. I do not want to be forced to move home every 6 months on the whim of a landlord

the only people who can say i wont move are people who live in their own homes (ie homes that they own). all tenants will always have to move if their LL wants them to move(if in accordance with the tenancy agreement).

people who dont want to move should be buyingtheir own houses (where they can afford it). anyone who cant afford it doesnt have any right to expect someone else to pay for it.

neas

How about.... if someone requires to claim benefits for longer than a year or so.... just make it mandatory that they are sterilised (temporarily... i.e in men get the snip) so they can concentrate on getting out of their financial hardship... and not burdening themselves with things they cannot afford to maintain.

Simple steps:

Save for a deposit
Get mortgage.. maintain job
have children...

People should be encouraged to have children when they can support them... otherwise we encourage a soceity whereby having chidren supported by the rest of soceity.. is the norm.

Wheres the incentive to save, scrimp and put off having children for a few years when you know of your best friend with 3 kids a 3 bedroom house (albeit bad house... but still a house... and a living).

Mandatory sterlisation i say.....

Note: Take slightly tongue in cheek :P... But somethin has to be done lol

bubblesmoney

i dont think that will happen here. but it does happen elsewhere i guess like in china and also did happen for a couple of years in india about 30y ago during an emergency when the constitution was put aside by those in power then.

looks like it has happened in many other countries before as well. see link

adr0ck

on the same basis as neas comments

perhaps the way to go is to have a cull of old people

anyone over 70 to begin with

would put the country back in order

sort pensions crisis, lower house prices etc in one go

job done sorted

StevieJ

bubblesmoney wrote: »

the only people who can say i wont move are people who live in their own homes (ie homes that they own). all tenants will always have to move if their LL wants them to move(if in accordance with the tenancy agreement).

people who dont want to move should be buyingtheir own houses (where they can afford it). anyone who cant afford it doesnt have any right to expect someone else to pay for it.

Should provide good support for the housing market, oh hang on a minute I thought the jokers on here said the banks were not lending any money.

robin_banks

Sounds like stigmatising council tenants to me. This has been bandied about numerous times by the Tories and Labour and has never come to fruition.

My partner and I are desperate to leave our 1 bed council flat, I'm in employment and earn a reasonable salary and the property itself is need of some major repairs, I have carried a fair bit minor ones myself (I dont even bother ringing our council for these).

We looked at shared ownership and the housing association concerned have massively overvalued thier property and it wont sell at it's current price - the inference is that Housing Associations are not concerned with moving people on or providing 'affordable home ownership' but covering thier costs. To rent privately is not an option as a 2 bed flat with limited security is over £1000 a month in London (over 50% of my salary) , so what choice does an individual have other than stay in council housing ?

When a 2 bed ex council flat is a quarter of a million pounds there is something very very wrong in the housing market.

neas

adr0ck wrote: »

on the same basis as neas comments

perhaps the way to go is to have a cull of old people

anyone over 70 to begin with

would put the country back in order

sort pensions crisis, lower house prices etc in one go

job done sorted

Do both... double whammy we be knee deep in 50" plasmas by then and we'd all own 5 houses!

LittleMissAspie

I agree that when your circumstances improve to the point where if you applied now, you wouldn't be entitled to a council house, then you should move into private.

Problem is, that would be another ceiling to getting back into work. Stay unemployed and get your rent paid, or go to work and have to pay it yourself. There's no incentive for someone to improve themselves.

robin_banks

Private renting for the majority of poeple is prohibitively expensive especially for family housing, the example I used earlier is a classic example a 2 bed flat rented privately in London is over £1000 a month, based on affordibilty you need to be earning over £30,000 a year before a letting agent will consider you for such a property.

Housing has to be based on affordability, if not more not less money will be spent shunting people in an out of temporary accomodation and B&B's -this costs a fortune by the way, housing a family of 4 in 'temporary accomodation' (love that phrase) for a year in central london costs in the region of £30,000 as councils are hit with the 'double whammy' or paying the owner of the property rent for the building and then paying them housing benefit for the individual as well .

Surely the answer is not to move people out of council or housing associating accomodation but to build more of it ?.

The target for affordable housing nationally is 200,000 less than half of that has been completed, and those that are aren't really that affordable.