Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum. This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are - or become - political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Is this right?
Comments
-
Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »Should she be entitled to a council house at all? What are the entitlements to council houses? Shouldn't the entitlement be reviewed on a change of circumstances or on a yearly basis? Why should one person get a council house over someone else? What's it all about?
Confused.com
I think she has had plenty of time to sort a house out for herself but chose not to because it made life easier. hopefully the new ruling regarding people not getting a council house for life does actually get enforced.0 -
I think she has had plenty of time to sort a house out for herself but chose not to because it made life easier. hopefully the new ruling regarding people not getting a council house for life does actually get enforced.
Not for her, it won't. As for making life easier? Isn't that what we all want?0 -
the tories are doing away with lifetime tenancies for new tenants which may be a relief to you - not sure whether that will include forcible downsizing. they can't remove them from those who already have the lifetime tenancies however.
it might seem crazy in this era of lack of social housing and very costly private housing. it wasn't such a crazy thing in the past however.We cannot change anything unless we accept it. Condemnation does not liberate, it oppresses. Carl Jung
0 -
Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »Not for her, it won't. As for making life easier? Isn't that what we all want?
Oh i know its not going to apply to her, yet anyway, once we are down to very very low levels of council houses then hopefully the ruling will apply to lifelong council tenants as well.
Yes we all want an easy life, you are getting pretty good at stating the obvious.0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »Personally I don't see why she should be treated differently to those people she works with. The same people on the same wage, having to bring up children in private rentals.
But hey ho. It's not my thoughts that count.
what's your point. you started out with:
(i) if she is entitled to a council house, and it gets demolished, should she get a similar replacement, or should she have her needs reassessed.
now you are onto
(ii) it's not fair because she has a job like mine and therefore should not have the option of renting a council house because you don't have the option.
what's this thread supposed to be about. is it about whether or not it's fair for her to have her housing situation changed when someone else knocks it down, or is it about whether or not it's fair that you don't get what she gets?0 -
I think she has had plenty of time to sort a house out for herself but chose not to because it made life easier. hopefully the new ruling regarding people not getting a council house for life does actually get enforced.
She put her name on a list and got one.
It was not allocated to her on any condition or expectation that she 'get herself sorted'. I can't see why so many people don't understand that?We cannot change anything unless we accept it. Condemnation does not liberate, it oppresses. Carl Jung
0 -
Oh i know its not going to apply to her, yet anyway, once we are down to very very low levels of council houses then hopefully the ruling will apply to lifelong council tenants as well.
Yes we all want an easy life, you are getting pretty good at stating the obvious.
I was answering your post, which stated the obvious.
Social Housing stock will never get low enough for the change in legislation you seem to want.0 -
chewmylegoff wrote: »what's your point. you started out with:
(i) if she is entitled to a council house, and it gets demolished, should she get a similar replacement, or should she have her needs reassessed.
now you are onto
(ii) it's not fair because she has a job like mine and therefore should not have the option of renting a council house because you don't have the option.
what's this thread supposed to be about. is it about whether or not it's fair for her to have her housing situation changed when someone else knocks it down, or is it about whether or not it's fair that you don't get what she gets?
What this thread is about is widening the gap between those who own and those who rent. As yet, we have had nobody suggesting that the legislation governing private rents be changed to afford renters in that sector the same security as social housing tenants now have. Wouldn't it be nice if we could aspire, instead of always wishing the lowest common denominator on others?0 -
-
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 348.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 252.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 452.4K Spending & Discounts
- 240.8K Work, Benefits & Business
- 617.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 175.6K Life & Family
- 254K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards