Do you support social housing?

purch

wotsthat wrote: »

The benefits system is holding people back - social housing (to a degree) is part of that.

Because of what social housing has become, not what it once was.

wotsthat

purch wrote: »

Because of what social housing has become, not what it once was.

Which is why I voted yes in the poll. I'm supportive of the provision of social housing but not in its current guise.

It's become an end in itself rather than a stepping stone to better things.

IveSeenTheLight

lostinrates wrote: »

Financially or conceptually, or both? Question doesn't allow for mixed answer or partial support or support in some form but not current form.

I thought I clarified this in the question.
It's the "idea" of Social housing.

By considering the idea, we can omit the complications of levels of support, financially or whether the current system is good or flawed.

It's just a basic question of basic concept.

Do you believe (in the idea) in Social Housing?

IveSeenTheLight

purch wrote: »

Well I voted Yes. What did you vote ISTL ??

I voted Yes, of course.

At this stage of this poll, 78.26% of this forum supports Social Housing.

BigAunty

JencParker wrote: »

It's not the provision of social housing that is holding them back. There are many factors, but if that were the one then why have some many people who grew up in council houses done well for themselves? Education, aspirations and upbringing play a major part, but simply living in a council house should not.

I agree but the I believe the facts are that those of working age in social housing are twice as likely to be unemployed as the national average. It should be a spring board into employment as the rents are low so an employee should feel as if they aren't just working to pay the rent but it does not.

For example, I have a lone parent friend with a part time job whose boyfriend is considering moving into her privately rented flat and they believe (don't know if they've calculated this with a benefit calculator or just a perception) that it is simply not worth her while working full time or him taking any job at all as their extra employment income just wipes out their HB. Yes, it's a terrible mentality, one that probably comes out of their long term benefit dependency so they don't have a mindset that is used to paying their own rent but she did say that they'd increase their hours if they get a social housing property.

BigAunty

wotsthat wrote: »

I'm supportive of helping those most vulnerable and those in a short term fix.

If you only allocate social housing based on need, and you make the tenancies short term, then what you are creating is a transient community of needy people with no stake in the property or their community, hence produce a deprived ghetto with lots of churn of tenants with social or health problems.

I know that social housing is now largely based on need with very little left over for those not in high priority but I would like it to go back to the time when social housing estates were full of working families, not just victims of domestic violence, addicts, newly released prisoners, lone parents, adolescents leaving care, the disabled, etc, and make it a more mixed environment of different groups.

I would like social housing tenancies to be given to the unemployed on condition that they agree to be mentored into employment, training or education, for example.

It is virtually impossible to evict a secure tenant with anti social behaviour or rent arrears and I would like a new fast track to eviction for them so those that are the bane of their community aren't immune to losing their properties.

Jenny001

Yes but only for those who need it and are entitled.. My friend and her Husband have 1 child and have applied for a council house and have been on the list for years and have to live in a 2 bed privately rented which they cannot afford and yet I have seen people moving in to properties who have only been in this country for a few months. This is very unfair!
They should never have sold council houses either as now they have created a shortage.

CLAPTON

the issue of social housing is an essentially pragmatic issue and not one of principle or basic belief.

e.g. if nearly 100% of the population owned their own property (e.g. somewhere like Romania) could one reasonably pose the question of whether one supported the basic idea of social housing?

if private sector housing was cheap and plentiful and social housing was expensive would one pose the question?

the sole reason the question is being asked is that we have a shortage of housing and consequently the price is high.

seven-day-weekend

I certainly agree with affordable rented housing with secure tenancies for hard-working but low-paid folk. Whether that is social or private I don't really mind, but like others would like it to be mixed, not just given out to those who are considered to 'need' it. Obviously there will be those in greater need, but years ago when there was plenty of Council housing you just went on a list, and when you got to the top of the list , you got offered the next available suitable place. I think it should still be like that, with very few exceptions.

lostinrates

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I thought I clarified this in the question.
It's the "idea" of Social housing.

By considering the idea, we can omit the complications of levels of support, financially or whether the current system is good or flawed.

It's just a basic question of basic concept.

Do you believe (in the idea) in Social Housing?

ISTL, apologies. It was a bit of a poorly expressed quip on a grumpy day.

Practically of course, many 'support' social housing whether they 'support' it or not. Whichever way round you want to read that.


I support social housing wholE heatedly, but not in its current guise. I find myself unable to say yes or no, because my yes means to me 'yes' and my 'no' no. So I'm abstaining.