Camerons plans to reform social housing.

[DJKillaQueen]

c/o Guardian.co.uk

An end to lifetime council tenancies was signalled today by David Cameron as he warned the coming public spending cuts will not be restored when the economy recovers.

Cameron said he wanted to see fixed terms for all new council and housing association tenancies lasting as little as five years to help increase social mobility.

The prime minister admitted that "not everyone will support this and there will be quite a big argument". Speaking in Birmingham, he said: "There is a question mark about whether, in future, we should be asking when you are given a council home, is it for a fixed period? Because maybe in five or 10 years you will be doing a different job and be better paid and you won't need that home, you will be able to go into the private sector."

A consultation paper, due to be published as early astomorrow, will say the new short-term tenure would be for local councils to implement, but would involve regular reviews of tenancies to see if the council tenant still needed such a large property or had sufficient income to shift to the private sector.

At present council tenants have secure tenancy for life. Housing association tenants have secure tenancy for life after a probationary year. Council tenants have the right to hand the property over to their children, whereas housing association tenants do not.

The communities department estimates that it costs each taxpayer ?35 a week to keep people in affordable homes, and it is argued the tenancy for life is an inefficient use of scarce resources.

Under the government's proposals council tenants could be forced to downsize. A total of 234,000 households in the social tenant sector are overcrowded while 456,000 are under-occupied, meaning people have more than one extra spare room, according to official figures.

The government has already announced separate plans to cut housing benefit.

Defending the reforms that have proved too politically explosive for Labour housing ministers to implement, the coalition's housing minister, Grant Shapps, said last night: "It is quite clear that the real losers from the current system are the 1.8m people on council house waiting lists who the current arrangements do not help.

"It is time to consider whether our affordable housing system can be better used and whether one of the benefits would be greater social mobility. Any benefits from these changes might take many years, but it does not mean we should shy away from doing something. This will have no impact on existing council or housing association tenants."

Shapps has been holding private talks with key housing groups to persuade them to back the reforms.

Critics of the proposed reforms say it could disincentivise the unemployed to seek well-paid work as they might lose their tenancy as result. There are also fears that it would increase the chances of council estates becoming ghettos of the workless poor.

The homeless charity Shelter said tonight: "We do not believe the big question in housing policy is security of tenure for new tenants. The prime minister has sidestepped the fundamental cause of our housing crisis ? the desperate lack of affordable housing supply."

Helen Williams, assistant director at the National Housing Federation, said: "There is a case for looking at what is offered to new tenants, as a way to seeing if over time social housing could help more people."

Cameron today urged the public to recognise that the deficit was a moral issue and suggested public spending would not be restored to its current levels when the economy improves.

"Should we cut things now and then go back later and try and restore them?" Cameron asked. "I think we should try to avoid that approach ? people should open their minds and find new ways of doing more for less. We're going to have to change the way we work. How can we do things differently and better to give the value for money?"

With the Spending review due to be published in October, he urged people to recognise there would be light at the end of the tunnel, and that "it is not all doom and gloom". Cuts of 25% ? the equivalent of a 5% cut every year ? was what many businesses and families were facing with their own budgets.

He said his aim was to tackle the big ticket items like pensions public sector pay, and welfare before tackling smaller budgets.

Does he not know that local authorities already operate homeswap schemes? And they they can force succeeded tenants to move if the property exceeds their needs? Some local authorities offer incentives to other tenants to downsize.

He is completely in denial of the real problem, of a lack of unaffordable rents and that the bill for HB in propping up private sector rents is far more obscene than that of social housing. He says he wants to encourage upward mobility - well how will that happen is at the moment you earn some disposable income you are forced to move only to see it swallowed up by private sector rent?

I live on an estate...not many high fliers here Mr Cameron. Another Tory attempt to destabilise the poor and keep them poor imo.

[MitchK]

When I saw this story, my response was 'I can't believe that there is secure tenancy for life'. Presumably so did most people, unless they read the Guardian.

Sorry to upset anyone, but a council house is just that. The council's. Not yours. If there are more needy people than you, then off you go.

But clearly more social housing does need to be built and/or measures taken to limit population growth.

[Brendan]

Yeah. Poor people. The cunts. Who are they to have things like houses.

[Brendan]

He?s a conservative DJKQ. To him a mother and father with 2 or 3 kids who both work but are forced to rent off the council because due to the inequality in society it is the only way they can house their family are not people but rather a nuisance who should, no deserve to get chucked out of their house ever five years.

The human cost of what it does to these people?s lives and their children?s lives means sod all to him. They aren?t his responsibility.

Social mobility my arse.

It?s just another term this sort of scum use to try to morally justify policy that persecutes people whose lives and situations they couldn?t even come close to understanding.

[MitchK]

Yes that's all jolly good. I am a beastly capitalist in a top hat.

But surely the point of what the PM is saying is that there should be regular reviews of council tenants to see whether they still merit residency in taxpayer funded accommodation? I think the term for this approach is common sense.

The idea that you can somehow just pass your property on to your kids despite it being government property is surely laughable?

[DJKillaQueen]

I just think he's completely lost the plot tbh.

As for secure tenancies - No private landlord has the right to evict you because you earn more than the rent you have to pay.....and statistically so few council tenants do get themselves upwardly mobile that he's barking up a tree that's not in the real world. He wants to make the review every five years? So why would anyone then bother to spend money on their council homes - because a lot of tenants do spend money improving their homes.

If anything, allowing the cheap sale of council homes is what has done the real damage in creating the shortage of suitable housing.

I'm just beginning to think he's evil now. An ignorant privileged typical (and not very bright) tory hell bent on bashing the poor in every way he can. Meanwhile the banks are returning as healthy as ever profits.

Hopefully in four years he'll be gone.

[DJKillaQueen]

taxpayer funded accommodation

But it's not tax payer funded. People pay rent, but unlike many private landlords most councils don't have pricey mortgages to pay back.

The idea that you can somehow just pass your property on to your kids despite it being government property is surely laughable

Only one sucession is allowed and only to children that have lived (and still are) at the address as their primary home for a set period of at least a year. Also the council can force the child into smaller accommodation (and regularly do) if the home is too big for their needs. So can't really see what the problem with that is. Again no private landlord can evict a child on the death of a parent from the property. So it's pretty standard legal protection.

[Brendan]

True but only if you address the issue that there is not any housing out there and what there is, is prohibitively expensive for most people. So what the, prime minister, is suggesting is taking away council housing from people on the assumption that they will be able to. ?enter the private sector.? How? Is someone who has needed a council house suddenly going to have a few hundred K in their pocket to buy a house? Or are they going to be moved out and forced to rent privately where they will have an exploitative agreement, no security of tenure and no ownership over what by rights should be their home?

Doubt he gives a toss.

Oh but wait in 5 years time the economy is going to be booming, all the people who now do socially useless jobs are going to be gainfully employed by the banks (god bless their magnanimity) and people will be so socially mobile they will end up in the gutter without even noticing.

[DJKillaQueen]

Well also there is no such thing as job security. So how long before the family forced out has to be rehoused by the local authority? And if any person is ever going to suddenly find themselves in a position to afford private sector rents then they are far more likely to buy their council home as the mortgage on that will be cheaper anyway.

I will never be able to afford to buy a home, but don't mind renting either as long as my rent is within my means. But as long as my rent is paid I expect to be secure in my tenancy. And the law currently protects me in that way.

Cameron clearly sees these proposals as the solution to the shortage of social housing. That is where he is completely off the mark. He just won't accept that the solution is more affordable rents/ housing - so long as he and his homeowner buddies can contiue to enjoy vastly inflated growth and profit (one bank recently predicted 20% growth on house prices in the next fours years ffs).......it's just an insane approach to the real problem.

[Brendan]

But how else is he going to create a properly disenfranchise underclass?

[MitchK]

I think he just wants people to stop relying on the state and fend for themselves. However, I would agree that this suggestion is likely to make very little difference to the overall problem.

Latest projections are for our population to grow by 24% over the next 40 years and become the most populous state in Western Europe. Now, most of these studies are unreliable but it is clear that overcrowding is an issue.

The solution is quite simply to withdraw from the EU and control our borders again.

[Brendan]

So someone who works 10 hours a day for minimum wage to support a family is supposed to stop relying on the state and fend for themselves Mitch?

Oh I suppose they should just stop complaining and get a better job.

[DJKillaQueen]

I agree that someone who works for minimum wage IS fending for themself....but that the cost of living is too high for them is not their fault and nor is it right for a wealthy politician (who has never known poverty) to then say that it is. We will always need cleaners, porters, and all of those poorly paid workers. It's about time we started valueing them too.

What Cameron is really representing is the survival of the fittest free market ideology. He believes that is the solution even though it hasn't worked for the last 30 years. The idea that you drop vulnerable people into water and see if they can swim out of it is what's behind many of these reforms because they won't make very much difference in government coffers after all. They genuinely believe for example, that all the poor need is a little shove to force them to do better. They also believe that council rents should be as high as private sector rents. It's etonian bs that seeks to make the cost of living for the poor even more expensive than it already is. They have no interest in alleviating poverty.

Upward mobility has gone backwards and the gap between the top and bottom in society is wider than ever and still widening and nothing he is proposing will reverse that.

[Brendan]

Well obviously. If it would he, or people of his ilk, wouldn?t be suggesting it. They see equality as a bad thing. So long as they?re on the top.

And as they?re on the top they obviously know what?s best for everyone else.

If they were at least honest about being antisocial bastards that would be fine but what really gets me is that they try to contrive bullshit about their view actually being morally valid.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Someone should have told Thatcher and successive governments - might have prevented them selling off so many of the damn things

[Brendan]

Commie!

[sophiesofa]

I think it's a good idea to re-asses the need. A very small majority simply do not need large flats at cheap rents.

My boyfriend's friend earns about 34k and has about 100k in the bank and lives in a 3 bed council house on his own. He's 40 something and had lived there with his mum and I appreciate that he grew up there etc but there are people who really need a 3 bed flat and a single man on a decent wage isn't one of them. I know this is only one example and it must be quite uncommon but if a new review system helps make room for people in genuine need then great. I don't know what the earnings threshold cut off would be but I'd like it to be high enough that as soon as people move out they then get into debt etc. as a result but can live comfortably. I don't know much about these things though so I probably am missing important factors out and therefore completely wrong!

[silverfox]

This issue should be looked at afresh. Council houses, rightly so, are for those in need.

However, it's not just the subsidised rent that has to be considered but all the other associated costs. If a boiler breaks down, a window broken, leaks etc the council fixes it at tax payers' expense. The occupants grow old and infirm and because they're council tenants stannah stair lifts, baths with doors, non-slip carpets etc are provided even though the children have often gone on to do well in life but leave it to social services to look after aging parents 'because they're entitled to it'.

The view that 'the state will provide' is about to be seriously questioned.

[DJKillaQueen]

A very small majority simply do not need large flats at cheap rents.

I think your boyfriend is unusual. The vast majority of council tenants have nothing like that income or those savings.

His council already has the power to have moved him after his mother died (which they must do no earlier than six months after death and no later than a year after) under ground 16 of the Housing Act 1997. So there is no need for legislation in your boyfriends case to free up large properties as it already exists. Some councils though do not act on it.

What he earns should neither be here nor there (he could easily lose his job). Private Landlords cannot evict a tenant because the property is too big for them, nor can they evict someone because they earn a certain salary. Plus it would be a bad idea to reduce council areas to ghettos for the unemployed and low waged. We've been there before.

I'm guessing the 100k may in part be inheritted money which he may well choose to use to buy the house. I'd argue that stopping the sale of coucil homes would do more good than evicting the small numbers most likely to affected by these proposals (most of who would appeal and cost tax payers who knows what in legal fees).

The only benefit a council tenant has is the lower rent. Trust me, the condition and size of many council properties wouldn't get much higher rented in the private sector anyway. It's a myth to think that council tenants enjoy some kind of luxurious housing for the price.

There may something to look at as to why some councils don't use existing legislation to free up property on sucession by forcing the downsizing of tenants but there really is no need to for change in the law. That being said, changing the law is exactly what Cameron would have to get through parliament and the House of Lords if he wants to do any of this (and it would apply to new tenants only so most of the housing stock will continue to remain as secure and succeeded tenancies).

We need more affordable homes....along with use of existing legislation. A change in the law in what defines overcrowding (which hasn't been reformed in more than 100 years) would also be welcome. Landlord's, be they social or private, get away with overcrowding because the law says that children under a certain age can sleep in the bathroom or Kitchen - so there's no legal obligaton to rehouse a faily of five living in a one or two bedroom flat. Those are the things Cameron should be looking at - not ways to force people out of their homes.

[DJKillaQueen]

However, it's not just the subsidised rent that has to be considered but all the other associated costs

Coucil housing is NOT subsidised. Tenants pay rent like everyone else and that's how councils raise the revenue. They do not have huge mortgages still outstanding though but do face challenges in other areas. Housing Benefit helps those who can't pay but far more HB is spent topping up private sector rents - which means tax payers ARE subsidising some private rented sector landlord's mortgages and that I find incredibly immoral.

When something goes wrong like a boiler, or window etc...ALL landlords are required by law to repair them under the 1985 housing Act in line with what deems a property as fit to live in. To use that as some 'advantage' to a council tenant is ludicrous as that is an expense all landlords have to cover along with annual servicing.

You seem to think there are different standards for private and social rented housing...there are not...the law applies equally to them both.

As for the elderly - and we all grow old and infirm....special needs are usually supplied by a seperate department - often linked to the NHS and have nothing to do with the housing department. They are the same care services offered to all people who can not afford it privately (even if they own their home). I know of many children of those who own their own homes who are equally unwillingly to 'help' out on that front, so the cost to the NHS is just as high from elderly homeowners as it is from elderly council tenants.

[silverfox]

DJKillaQueen said "Coucil housing is NOT subsidised..."

If that's the case then many working tenants may as well rent privately and free up houses/flats for those more in need.

I see your point though about the non-contribution of children towards elderly parents needs.

[DJKillaQueen]

No because the comaparable rent in the private sector is not affordable....that's the problem. If you look at the rise of private sectors rents compared to the control rise (as it is by governemnt legislation and law) of social rents there is an ever widening gap.

[silverfox]

So it is subsidised rent. It's not market value. Fair enough, there's nothing wrong with that for those on low pay, and there's plenty of low pay around.

But there's plenty of people in council property who probably, objectively, don't need to be there as they earn above average wages. Having said that I'm not suggesting all council homes/flats should be for those on benefits only as that would jeopardise a community and lead to ghettos.

As you've previously said about overcrowding, it's not acceptable to have a family of five in a one-bedroom flat. Is it acceptable to have two old people in a three bedroom house while five are in a one-bedroom flat, even if they've lived there for years and raised their family there? Where would you move the old couple to?

These are delicate questions that most people would prefer to shy away from.

[DJKillaQueen]

Just to illustrate that....

Take SE15 for example. The average rental price in the private sector (accross all residential size properties) per month is (August 2010) is ?1181 (figures linked to RRPI can be seen at rentright.co.uk).

For a one bedroomed flat it is ?986. The average one bedroomed council flat is around ?360 per month. So you can see the problem.

Apparently 60% of council tenants nationally are unemployed, elderly, disabled. Of the rest, the majority are low-waged, some of whom may need HB to help with rent.

In the private sector, there are millions of low waged people also - who need significant top ups of HB.

The solution to a shortage of affordable rents is not to reward private landlords with even more HB (or even the hard earned wages of others...you can see how big the gap is). We need to slow the housing market down..so that salaries at the lower end can catch up (I've mentioned before how one third of all workers need some kind of additional benefit to make ends meet). We need to raise the minimum wage and we need more affordable social housing in the interim.

All of these things should be geared to making for a happier and more productive society where everyone feels rewarded for work and inclusive. What Cameron believes in is those at the top getting richer and hoping that with a few tweaks the poor can help themselves. It's folly.

[sophiesofa]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> A very small majority simply do not need large

> flats at cheap rents.

>

> I think your boyfriend is unusual. The vast

> majority of council tenants have nothing like that

> income or those savings.

>

> His council already has the power to have moved

> him after his mother died (which they must do no

> earlier than six months after death and no later

> than a year after) under ground 16 of the Housing

> Act 1997. So there is no need for legislation in

> your boyfriends case to free up large properties

> as it already exists. Some councils though do not

> act on it.

>

> What he earns should neither be here nor there (he

> could easily lose his job). Private Landlords

> cannot evict a tenant because the property is too

> big for them, nor can they evict someone because

> they earn a certain salary. Plus it would be a bad

> idea to reduce council areas to ghettos for the

> unemployed and low waged. We've been there before.

>

>

> I'm guessing the 100k may in part be inheritted

> money which he may well choose to use to buy the

> house. I'd argue that stopping the sale of coucil

> homes would do more good than evicting the small

> numbers most likely to affected by these proposals

> (most of who would appeal and cost tax payers who

> knows what in legal fees).

>

> The only benefit a council tenant has is the lower

> rent. Trust me, the condition and size of many

> council properties wouldn't get much higher rented

> in the private sector anyway. It's a myth to think

> that council tenants enjoy some kind of luxurious

> housing for the price.

>

> There may something to look at as to why some

> councils don't use existing legislation to free up

> property on sucession by forcing the downsizing of

> tenants but there really is no need to for change

> in the law. That being said, changing the law is

> exactly what Cameron would have to get through

> parliament and the House of Lords if he wants to

> do any of this (and it would apply to new tenants

> only so most of the housing stock will continue to

> remain as secure and succeeded tenancies).

>

> We need more affordable homes....along with use of

> existing legislation. A change in the law in what

> defines overcrowding (which hasn't been reformed

> in more than 100 years) would also be welcome.

> Landlord's, be they social or private, get away

> with overcrowding because the law says that

> children under a certain age can sleep in the

> bathroom or Kitchen - so there's no legal

> obligaton to rehouse a faily of five living in a

> one or two bedroom flat. Those are the things

> Cameron should be looking at - not ways to force

> people out of their homes.

I just want to clarify that it is my boyfriend's friend (as stated) not my boyfriend. The friend lives in Bermondsey (where I guess, only a guess though, housing in in high demand). He did not inherit the money he's just earnt it from working for the same council for the past 20 years or so. He simply is not interested in buying a flat even though if he saved up for a year or two he could probably afford to buy one mortgage free. There was an assessment after his mother died saying he could stay but that is what I have the problem with. Yes, it is his home but he does not need it and he admits that.

I lived in a privately rented council flat in greenwhich for 2 years and there was a man who boasted about how he paid about a third of the rent we did for his 3 bed flat (just him, about 24 yrs old) than we did (4 people) for a 2 bed and he said (although I'm sure he grossly exaggerated) that he earnt a grand a week as a plasterer which he was saving up so he could buy a house with no mortgage.

As I said though I believe these to be rare cases but neither of these men need council flats and if the new system helps with that but protects/helps those who do actually need them then great. Nothing is flawless though and I do take your points about the possible negatives.