Listening to housing debate on Radio 2

homelessskilledworker

Driving down to London today I caught a a bit about housing and prices and something about selling off the more expensive council houses on Radio 2.
There were plenty of people who phoned in and the studio was also quite lively.

Just stepping away from the Bear v's Bull fisty cuffs for just one minute, something I might add that I am as much if not more guilty than most, something really clicked with me today.

Its amazing how you become used to something or even desensitized. Housing along with food, water, travel, fuel and much more are items and services that are a privilege, often dished out to the community on the basis of what you put in, in most cases the wage packet you pick from whatever job you do.

If we look at the homes within our social housing stock, each of these homes would have taken thousand of man hours to build, and then there are the materials. There is nothing more privilaged than to be given one of these places, or that is the way it should be.

And how do we decide on who gets these properties to live in, the person who can make him or herself look the biggest victim. "The dad's to my five kids are not on the scene", "hubby is in jail", "partner is a junkie", the list goes on and on.

No way can you today walk into a social housing office and say "I/we have jobs, we have a small family and are married, and have no criminal record, we think we are entitled to be considered for some social housing.
Thats how it used to work more or less up until the 1970's.

Today you have to be the biggest f*** up going to get housing, and you have to wonder how many people are working their hardest to be the biggest victim/mess in order to get on top of the list

chewmylegoff

What would you do with all the people who you don't think should be on the list. Whilst I agree generally that it is counter-intuitive to prioritise the "biggest f*** up"s you also do need to either execute them, house them, have them roaming the streets. Option (i) tends to be deemed to be socially unacceptable, and option (iii) means that they will steal all of your stuff. with respect to option (ii), you do have the option to house them in a secure facility with barbed wire around the top and guards, but that is more expensive so costs you more in tax than putting them in a corner on wotsthat's estate.

homelessskilledworker

chewmylegoff wrote: »

What would you do with all the people who you don't think should be on the list. Whilst I agree generally that it is counter-intuitive to prioritise the "biggest f*** up"s you also do need to either execute them, house them, have them roaming the streets. Option (i) tends to be deemed to be socially unacceptable, and option (iii) means that they will steal all of your stuff. with respect to option (ii), you do have the option to house them in a secure facility with barbed wire around the top and guards, but that is more expensive so costs you more in tax than putting them in a corner on wotsthat's estate.

You make my point wonderfully, the emphasis is then on working responsible people to become second fiddle or suffer the emotional blackmail of putting the weak on the streets, or even worse, robbed or murdered.

MacMickster

homelessskilledworker wrote: »

No way can you today walk into a social housing office and say "I/we have jobs, we have a small family and are married, and have no criminal record, we think we are entitled to be considered for some social housing.
Thats how it used to work more or less up until the 1970's.

Today you have to be the biggest f*** up going to get housing, and you have to wonder how many people are working their hardest to be the biggest victim/mess in order to get on top of the list

For a number of years now, new developments have often been required to include an element of social housing.

Perhaps there should now be 2 waiting lists for social housing.
One for the working, settled families with no criminal record who would be eligible for this newer type of social housing. Tenancies to be granted for 2 years at a time with renewal being automatic if rent is up to date, still no criminal record or antisocial behaviour etc.
The second waiting list would be for the f*** ups/chavs who would only be eligible for property on the sink estates until such a time that they could demonstrate that they had put their problem behaviours behind them.

chewmylegoff

homelessskilledworker wrote: »

You make my point wonderfully, the emphasis is then on working responsible people to become second fiddle or suffer the emotional blackmail of putting the weak on the streets, or even worse, robbed or murdered.

well i'm not trying to emotionally blackmail anyone. i would rather see hard working honest types in social housing and scroungers/thugs/anarchists/arts students (ok maybe not the anarchists) chucked off a cliff, but we seem to continually vote against such action as a society, so what are we supposed to do with the reprobates? it's a practical problem, not an attempt at emotional blackmail.

if you give all the social housing to the people you decide are "worthy" and not to anyone else, presumably you just house all of the reprobates in private lets and pay housing benefit. i expect the private lets are probably nicer places (at least at the start of the tenancies, anyway), so wouldn't it actually be better to pay for the "worthy" types to live in them?

Loughton_Monkey

I have long advocated the use of 40 foot containers for the purpose of housing. These things are made so cheaply in China, that they are used once, and have become a big issue regarding disposal.

A sort of modern equivalent of the cardboard box, really.

I'm sure there must be some innovative people out there who can devise a way of taking, say, a budget of about £500 a container to instal a potty, washstand, and a ladder to get up to it.

Then these things could be piled up, miles high and miles wide in waste areas of Britain. Surely this beats the USA "Tent City" concept? And it's cheap, cheap, cheap.

This fine idea could, of course, be developed further over time. I have in mind possibly leaving these things on the ships, thus providing the 'residents' with opportunities to relocate to, say, Equador and start a new life elsewhere if they (or the local council) wish.

grizzly1911

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

I have long advocated the use of 40 foot containers for the purpose of housing. These things are made so cheaply in China, that they are used once, and have become a big issue regarding disposal.

A sort of modern equivalent of the cardboard box, really.

I'm sure there must be some innovative people out there who can devise a way of taking, say, a budget of about £500 a container to instal a potty, washstand, and a ladder to get up to it.

Then these things could be piled up, miles high and miles wide in waste areas of Britain. Surely this beats the USA "Tent City" concept? And it's cheap, cheap, cheap.

This fine idea could, of course, be developed further over time. I have in mind possibly leaving these things on the ships, thus providing the 'residents' with opportunities to relocate to, say, Equador and start a new life elsewhere if they (or the local council) wish.

Sited on a high risk flood plain so they get washed now and again.

thescouselander

Bring back the poor house I say.

wymondham

thescouselander wrote: »

Bring back the poor house I say.

Crazy i know, but I think there is going to be a place for this in the future the way things are going!

hildosaver

Listen to yourselves, honestly. Let's just get rid of the poor so us who are well off don't have to look at them. That's what it sounds like.

wotsthat

hildosaver wrote: »

Listen to yourselves, honestly. Let's just get rid of the poor so us who are well off don't have to look at them. That's what it sounds like.

The OP is simply pointing out that housing is allocated on ability to pay or need and wondering if there should be a mechanism for 'deserve' to enter the equation.

I don't mind looking at the poor - I just wish they'd drop less litter that's all.