a third of brits lived in council housing

ninky_2

in the 1970s.

this doc tonight looks interesting. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0109dvs

what would the country be like if we hadn't sold off all that social housing?

it used to be more of a choice to live in a council house - a bit like sending your child to state school or using the nhs. of course for some they couldn't have afforded anything else but there certainly weren't the waiting lists or criteria of today.

my parents were offered a council house. dad was low wage, mum was sahm and they had baby me. they took an affordable mortgage that you could get through the glc in those days instead. however i had lots of friends who lived in council houses. their parents (or at least their fathers) worked and they were two parent households.

afaik two parent families with adult workers would stand no chance of getting council housing these days.

ILW

In my opinion, Thatcher only made two big errors.
1. Selling off council houses at a big discount.
2. Not standing up the the riff raff regarding the poll tax.

ninky_2

ILW wrote: »

In my opinion, Thatcher only made two big errors.
1. Selling off council houses at a big discount.
2. Not standing up the the riff raff regarding the poll tax.

is there anyone who doesn't think selling off the council houses at a big discount was a massive error? it must have had conservative party support at the time?

Generali

ninky wrote: »

is there anyone who doesn't think selling off the council houses at a big discount was a massive error? it must have had conservative party support at the time?

Council housing by the end of the 1970s was generally of very poor quality and you weren't allowed to make any changes or improvements even if the place was falling apart.

Selling off social housing was possibly the single biggest improvement in the UK's housing stock since Homes for Heroes in the post WW1 era.

When my Uncle bought his council house he was able to paint it for the first time in over a decade and replace the rotted front door.

ILW

The disounts were not necessary.

Generali

ILW wrote: »

The disounts were not necessary.

They were for my uncle.

ninky_2

Generali wrote: »

Council housing by the end of the 1970s was generally of very poor quality and you weren't allowed to make any changes or improvements even if the place was falling apart.

you are making a massive generali-isation - i'd like to know what you base that on and how that compared to the state of private rented accommodation in the 1970s.

what is better about private rentals now? there were many alternatives to improve the maintenance of council homes rather than sell them off at massive discounts.

according to this 41% of private rentals are in "poor condition" - so if the aim of council home sell off was to improve the housing conditions and rights of the population as a whole it has failed miserably.

http://www.upad.co.uk/blog/2011/03/41-of-private-rental-properties-are-in-poor-condition-2/

The private sector may be booming but standards of accommodation remain low. 1.4 million privately renting households are living in properties rated as "non-decent". That's 41% of the 3.4 million households who rent privately in England.
Under the criteria set down by the department of communities and local government, to be classed as “non-decent”, a property fails three or more of these minimum standards. These include a kitchen no more than 20 years old with “reasonable space and layout”, a bathroom less than 30 years old and good insulation against noise plus energy efficient features. Flats must have communal spaces of adequate size and properties of all kinds must be of an appropriate size for the number of tenants.

Radiantsoul

I suspect the discounts were granted as government believed their was a postive externatality(a kind of negative pollution) for private ownership of property. To be fair it does seem regardless of your political persuasion allowing people to own their own small home is likely to be a good thing as they will invest more, take pride in, etc.

ukcarper

Generali wrote: »

Council housing by the end of the 1970s was generally of very poor quality and you weren't allowed to make any changes or improvements even if the place was falling apart.

Selling off social housing was possibly the single biggest improvement in the UK's housing stock since Homes for Heroes in the post WW1 era.

When my Uncle bought his council house he was able to paint it for the first time in over a decade and replace the rotted front door.

We moved from a privately rented house to a council house in the early 1970s and it was a big improvement. In the late 1970s after I had moved out it was converted from a 3 bed to a 2 bed and had a new kitchen and bathroom fitted.

Generali

ninky wrote: »

you are making a massive generali-isation - i'd like to know what you base that on and how that compared to the state of private rented accommodation in the 1970s.

what is better about private rentals now? there were many alternatives to improve the maintenance of council homes rather than sell them off at massive discounts.

TV programs of the time and personal experience. It's annecdote I confess. Do you have any contrary data?

If the councils could have improved maintenance why didn't they? The reason is they couldn't because the Government can't afford to house a third of the population at very cheap rents. Who do you think was subsidizing the rents?

ninky_2

Generali wrote: »

TV programs of the time and personal experience. It's annecdote I confess. Do you have any contrary data?

If the councils could have improved maintenance why didn't they? The reason is they couldn't because the Government can't afford to house a third of the population at very cheap rents.

see my edited post above....41% of private rentals are now in "poor condition".

given the cost of acquiring the housing stock at the time the rents were not actually "very cheap". of course when you sell off 1.5 million social homes and expect the private sector to pick up the tab what you see are soaring rents and property prices and suddenly the cost of replacing social housing soars. plus getting a council house is seen as akin to a win on the lottery.

if however you hadn't lost all that social housing in the first place you would be in a very different position.

the costs of housing a third of the population in council housing (at reasonable - not cheap - rents) is far more affordable than paying out massive amounts in housing benefit to the private sector. not only this but you have to count the costs of lack of social mobility for a large number of people confined to spending increasing amounts of income in high private rents.