Council houses for fixed terms only!

Gorgeous_George

The problem is that there are not enough houses. The answer is to build more, encourage sharing or reduce demand.

Build more. The big housebuilders are not likely to build if prices are falling. They'll wait for a rising market to maximise profits.

Encourage sharing. We don't even share xars so sharing homes will not be popular.

Reduce demand. This is an area that could have some merit. Less immigration from non EU countries is already on the agenda. The ConDems may also reduce the ease that people qualify for LHA - especially in the more expensive areas. By not allowing parents to keep their family homes when the kids flee the nest, more kids may be encouraged to stay with mum (& dad) when they find themselves pregnant.

I still think we need more houses and if housebuilders are not prepared to build them, the Government should do it. Social housing with no Right to Buy and on green belt land if necessary.

GG

poppysarah

ninky wrote: »

2 bed council housing for each of the single mums until they are able to find work or meet a partner who can support them. i wouldn't put the council housing on lifetime tenure. providing it during a time of need would appear to me to be adequately generous.

I would rather the taxpayer paid as little as possible for rents.

Council housing is cheap. If they succeed in making private rents cheaper then the taxpayer will save money.

Cheap rents and secure tenancies could improve Britain's communities.

poppysarah

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

I still think we need more houses and if housebuilders are not prepared to build them, the Government should do it. Social housing with no Right to Buy and on green belt land if necessary.

GG

I agree that building more social housing is the way forward. Boost to job numbers (perhaps cut out the private building companies and employ directly so it's cheaper)

Cheap rents mean more money in the rest of the economy.

FOURCANDLES_2

ninky wrote: »

2 bed council housing for each of the single mums until they are able to find work or meet a partner who can support them. i wouldn't put the council housing on lifetime tenure. providing it during a time of need would appear to me to be adequately generous.

What about all the people in private sector getting a percentage of the rent paid by the social?? do we limit them to small private lets? if you do what about working single people what will they rent?as the landlord will up the rent , Are single mothers who have got divorced the same as single never married mothers?? in my view they are they are divorced single with children and most lose the mortgaged house in the end so have to rent . It is housing you cant do it like all this they need secure tenure any one with children doe's . secure tenure or mortgage is the only way forward with both if you do not pay OUT.

FOURCANDLES_2

poppysarah wrote: »

I would rather the taxpayer paid as little as possible for rents.

Council housing is cheap. If they succeed in making private rents cheaper then the taxpayer will save money.

Cheap rents and secure tenancies could improve Britain's communities.

AHHHH some one who is on the same wave length what a breath of fresh air.

ninky_2

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

So, there you have it. Ninkys advice is.... If you want social housing, stay single and don't work. Another well thought out idea. Are you one of Camerons advisers?

so who would you give social housing to?

Wee_Willy_Harris

ninky wrote: »

so who would you give social housing to?

The allocation of social housing is currently based on need. That seems fair enough to me.

ninky_2

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

The allocation of social housing is currently based on need. That seems fair enough to me.

the allocation may be. but the keeping of it isn't currently based on need at all.

under the current system you could be a millionaire and still live in social housing. which seems a little bit ridiculous.

Wee_Willy_Harris

ninky wrote: »

the allocation may be. but the keeping of it isn't currently based on need at all.

under the current system you could be a millionaire and still live in social housing. which seems a little bit ridiculous.

Perhaps you have some stats on the percentage of social housing tenant who are millionaires? I wasn't aware it was such a huge problem.

ninky_2

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Perhaps you have some stats on the percentage of social housing tenant who are millionaires? I wasn't aware it was such a huge problem.

no need to be sarcastic.

it's not just about being a millionaire it's about no longer having a need for the housing you are allocated. plenty of people on above average incomes stay in council housing. and they also stay in houses with 2 or more spare rooms. so that is no longer meeting a housing need really, is it?