Should 'Social Housing' be re-branded 'Taxpayer-supported Housing?

ILW

Fine, but it is only a fair system if everybody is offered a council house. Why should some be favoured because they are alcoholics, ssingle mothers etc etc? Whereas most are excluded.

Matt1977

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

I note that the Guardian's poll on this issue [should it be re-branded as taxpayer-funded housing] currently shows 84% against. This proves conclusively that Guardian readers are left wing, namb-pamby, pinko, communist, Marxist, Leninist, trade unionists.

I think I'm a pinko. "Now - where's my Goddamn 'Taxpayer supported' flat that I have been waiting for for 18 months?"

Gotta love Grant Schapps [STRIKE]'Housing Minister[/STRIKE]'Minister for Landlords, Landowners and Property Developers'

nollag2006

At least one of the lunatic fringe members of the crashers is a big fan of the government subsidising her housing, despite claiming to be in a secure well paid police job

brit1234 wrote: »

I have used government and key worker rent schemes to reduce costs.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=55162467&postcount=2

CKhalvashi

ILW wrote: »

Fine, but it is only a fair system if everybody is offered a council house. Why should some be favoured because they are alcoholics, ssingle mothers etc etc? Whereas most are excluded.

As I've said on various occasions, we need a Finnish-style system, with a right to buy.

CK

prepareathome

ILW wrote: »

Fine, but it is only a fair system if everybody is offered a council house. Why should some be favoured because they are alcoholics, ssingle mothers etc etc? Whereas most are excluded.

I am neither a single parent nor an alcoholic or drug addict or any other name you care to bandy about at council house tenants.

Believe it or not some of us were offered rubbish and took it as we needed it then slowly but surely as the rubbish was demolished and thanks to some not so lovely neighbours ended up in a nice house in nice area.

If you really want a council house or HA one I think you will find if you say you will live anywhere they will supply you with somewhere just expect it to be dripping in damp, no heating, holes in the ceiling, neighbours from hell that is the route the majority of council tenants have taken to end up in their nice homes now, places most people would never think of living in.

When you don't have a choice any hovel is a palace.

People see those living in nice homes now but don't think how they got there the horrors they had to face before eventually ending up in somewhere nice.

Very few single mothers, alcoholics etc arrive at council say I want a home and are handed the keys to a brand new 3 bed semi with garage in nice areas. If there are empty homes in some areas its most likely because its area any decent person would turn up their nose at.

vivatifosi

CKhalvashi wrote: »

As I've said on various occasions, we need a Finnish-style system, with a right to buy.

CK

Well, I'm sure there are plenty who'll tell you we've already got Hell Sinky estates. (I'll get me coat)...

N1AK

leveller2911 wrote: »

Take it up with your MP, we pay a "Fair rent" calculated by the Government.

And if the government had charged £10 a week more then it could have given £10 more to a pensioner trying to get by, to a soldier who has been disabled or to a school to provide better nutrition or textbooks.

If providing social housing for anyone was a good idea the government should nationalise property and become the only landlord in the country. If it isn't then it should limit itself to providing subsidy to those who actually need it not just anyone who managed to get their foot through the door of a council house a couple of decades ago and could comfortably afford to pay a normal price.

ILW

Social housing should be graded so that it is of a lower standard than what people are paying full price for. Oddly it seems the other way round in many cases. Bit like a benefits offering a higher standard of living than working in some cases.

leveller2911

ILW wrote: »

Social housing should be graded so that it is of a lower standard than what people are paying full price for. Oddly it seems the other way round in many cases. .

Like having window frames but no glass in them?. Its not really the fault of Social Housing tenants that private landlords don't maintain their housing stock .


I'm assuming your post is tongue in cheek.. I'm guessing your bored or !!!!!!.........;)

ILW

leveller2911 wrote: »

Like having window frames but no glass in them?. Its not really the fault of Social Housing tenants that private landlords don't maintain their housing stock .


I'm assuming your post is tongue in cheek.. I'm guessing your bored or !!!!!!.........;)

I believe that the statuted standards for social housing for such things as room size are higher that any regs for private house building. Cannot see why social housing tenants should be entitled to larger rooms whilst paying lower rents.