Swindon AdvertiserFears grant will raise home rents (From Swindon Advertiser)

Get involved! Send photos, video, news & views. Text SWINDON NEWS to 80360 or email us

Fears grant will raise home rents

Swindon Advertiser: A Government grant meant to help build affordable homes in the town would actually mean higher rents, a tenants’ group claims A Government grant meant to help build affordable homes in the town would actually mean higher rents, a tenants’ group claims

SWINDON Tenants’ Campaign Group have urged Swindon Council not to bid for a grant to build affordable new homes in the town, branding the terms ‘unacceptable’.

In January the Government made a pot of £1.7bn available for local authorities to bid for.

The money is to go on schemes to increase the stock of affordable housing.

And proposals to apply for almost £3.5m to build 150 new homes will go before cabinet tonight.

These would be built in the next four years and made available for just 80 per cent of market-rate rents, but the tenants’ group say this would still be a substantial increase above council rents.

Swindon Advertiser:

Martin Wicks, Swindon Tenants’ Campaign Group secretary, above, said: “The introduction of so-called affordable rent will mean that the council ends up with 203 less genuinely affordable homes for rent than it currently does.

“If the council really wants to tackle the housing crisis then we need more social rent homes, but with this proposal we would have less.

“The affordable rent would be up to £61 higher than council rent.

“This means that most of those people who would get tenancies would be those receiving full housing benefit.

“Low wage workers are unlikely to be able to afford the higher rents.

“Affordable rent will increase year on year by an amount greater than the rest of the council's housing stock.

“Instead of supporting the Government's policy of driving up social housing rent towards private market levels Swindon Council should be defending the principle of council rents for council homes.

“We need to build new council homes but if we use the borrowing cap available we can charge council rents and not have conditions imposed on us by the Government.

“To build the number of homes on a sufficient scale to cut numbers on the waiting list requires a change of national policy.

“However, the council can borrow from the Government's Public Works Loan Board at cheaper rates of interest, and charge council rents.

“At least we would be able to counteract the loss of homes resulting from the Government's right to buy policy.”

The report prepared for councillors ahead of tonight’s meeting says: “The additional grant funding that will be provided by affordable rents will be of direct benefit to all tenants enabling the benefits of the capital programme to reach more tenants.

“It will also assist the most vulnerable households at the top of the waiting list who are waiting for housing.

“It is up to each bidder to negotiate terms to their business plans.

“The level of grant required will be the most important factor that will give Swindon’s bid a competitive edge.

“The guidance says that rents should be set up to 80 per cent. “Setting rents below 80 per cent will generate less income and will have an effect on financial viability.”

Comments (20)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:23am Wed 23 Apr 14

Wildwestener says...

So people like my son who has to rent privately at full market rent because he has no chance of getting a Council House (you know because he's employed and hasn't knocked anyone up) should have no chance of getting a place like this because existing tenants want to ensure their own rents stay lower.
Sorry, this just smacks of current tenants saying "I'm all right Jack,*** the others"
So people like my son who has to rent privately at full market rent because he has no chance of getting a Council House (you know because he's employed and hasn't knocked anyone up) should have no chance of getting a place like this because existing tenants want to ensure their own rents stay lower. Sorry, this just smacks of current tenants saying "I'm all right Jack,*** the others" Wildwestener
  • Score: 25

7:35am Wed 23 Apr 14

Always Grumpy says...

If all the tenants who could afford their own homes, ie Wicks etc, moved out, then that would free up plenty of housing for more deserving cases.
If all the tenants who could afford their own homes, ie Wicks etc, moved out, then that would free up plenty of housing for more deserving cases. Always Grumpy
  • Score: 26

7:40am Wed 23 Apr 14

stfcdod says...

I'm getting rather fed with these communists being given all this press coverage.
I'm getting rather fed with these communists being given all this press coverage. stfcdod
  • Score: 13

8:07am Wed 23 Apr 14

LordAshOfTheBrake says...

Allocation of social housing should be based on need and not be something that can be abused by those no longer needing the support. The lifetime ability to have subsidised (to market rate) rents when people can well afford to support themselves is ridiculous when genuine cases of hardship and need exist.

The right to buy scheme should be abolished, its had its day and served its purpose of the time. Until that happens there is no incentive for councils to build new social houses as they will get bought at knock down rates.
Allocation of social housing should be based on need and not be something that can be abused by those no longer needing the support. The lifetime ability to have subsidised (to market rate) rents when people can well afford to support themselves is ridiculous when genuine cases of hardship and need exist. The right to buy scheme should be abolished, its had its day and served its purpose of the time. Until that happens there is no incentive for councils to build new social houses as they will get bought at knock down rates. LordAshOfTheBrake
  • Score: 15

8:25am Wed 23 Apr 14

house on the hill says...

Always Grumpy wrote:
If all the tenants who could afford their own homes, ie Wicks etc, moved out, then that would free up plenty of housing for more deserving cases.
Absolutely spot on, People likes Wickes and his ilk are more the cause of the problems in social housing than any Govt could ever be. They are selfish and arrogant in the extreme expecting others to subsidise their housing endlessly while contributing nothing back and just house blocking for those in real need.

Social housing should only be for those truly unable to look after themselves and as a temporary solution for those whose circumstances change, it should never be a permanent solution for anyone who doesn't "need" it and that also applies to the irresponsible who breed endlessly knowing full well they cant support their kids but don't care and expect others to support them, what sort of parents are you and you wonder why so many kids are the way they are with role models like that!

If you constantly support people where is the incentive to work harder and take responsibility for yourself and actually contribute more to society instead of just taking as the majority now do. If people wont be responsible by themselves then eventually others will just stop caring about you and you will find yourselves being made to grow up and take responsibility. We are becoming a lazy, weak, expectation society and is it any surprise when other cultures despise us the way they do.
[quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: If all the tenants who could afford their own homes, ie Wicks etc, moved out, then that would free up plenty of housing for more deserving cases.[/p][/quote]Absolutely spot on, People likes Wickes and his ilk are more the cause of the problems in social housing than any Govt could ever be. They are selfish and arrogant in the extreme expecting others to subsidise their housing endlessly while contributing nothing back and just house blocking for those in real need. Social housing should only be for those truly unable to look after themselves and as a temporary solution for those whose circumstances change, it should never be a permanent solution for anyone who doesn't "need" it and that also applies to the irresponsible who breed endlessly knowing full well they cant support their kids but don't care and expect others to support them, what sort of parents are you and you wonder why so many kids are the way they are with role models like that! If you constantly support people where is the incentive to work harder and take responsibility for yourself and actually contribute more to society instead of just taking as the majority now do. If people wont be responsible by themselves then eventually others will just stop caring about you and you will find yourselves being made to grow up and take responsibility. We are becoming a lazy, weak, expectation society and is it any surprise when other cultures despise us the way they do. house on the hill
  • Score: 19

8:43am Wed 23 Apr 14

beach1e says...

its great isnt it that people who enjoy living in housing that is subsidised by decent hardworking taxpaying people have the gall to say they dont want more subsidised housing because they dont think its fair that they may have to pay a more realistic rent. Its about time that people who are not in genuine need of subsidised housing were charged full rent.Its also about time that those in subsidised housing either worked or did unpaid work for the community that pays for them to live in subsidised housing.If those in subsidised housing choose not to pay their rent , they should be evicted and have to fend for themselves so that decent people in need of some temporary help are given that instead of the same old scroungers.
its great isnt it that people who enjoy living in housing that is subsidised by decent hardworking taxpaying people have the gall to say they dont want more subsidised housing because they dont think its fair that they may have to pay a more realistic rent. Its about time that people who are not in genuine need of subsidised housing were charged full rent.Its also about time that those in subsidised housing either worked or did unpaid work for the community that pays for them to live in subsidised housing.If those in subsidised housing choose not to pay their rent , they should be evicted and have to fend for themselves so that decent people in need of some temporary help are given that instead of the same old scroungers. beach1e
  • Score: 14

10:37am Wed 23 Apr 14

Russell Holland says...

It's important to separate eligibility for housing benefit from eligibility for Council housing.

People who rent privately can claim housing benefit and private rents will be higher than social rents.

Eligibility for Council housing is becoming more needs based through fixed term tenancies and other changes to the allocations policy.

But the real issue is the disparity between housing costs and incomes. Housing benefit, Council housing, affordable housing, help to buy all are different policy responses to this issue.

Some of the older tenants moved to Council housing in Swindon from places like London and for them having a Council house represented a big improvement from private renting conditions. So I do understand their passion for Council housing.

However, the approach of Council housing only and only Council housing controlled by the Council, represents a very restricted view and one that has not been followed by any Government since the 1980s. This for a variety of reasons.

It is correct that Council rents are lower than affordable rents which in turn are lower than private rents. But the point about rent is that the rental income is used to improve the housing stock. So more rent means more income to spend on housing.

In Swindon we have disproportionate numbers of pre-fab and social housing schemes which in turn require disproportionate amount of investment which in turn limits the amounts to spend on things like building new houses. This is exactly why we had the housing ballot. By staying with the Council tenants voted to take on £138.6million of debt which went straight to the Government. Now Martin Wicks wants the Council to borrow even more money.

Borrowing more money, while having lower rents simply means a greater proportion of rents goes in interest over the long run which is less to invest in the housing stock. If there had been a housing transfer then the housing association would have been able to borrow more money without already being saddled with the £138.6million. Ultimately in about 15 years we will eventually get to a similar position but essentially until then we are going to be restricted.

The situation now is that we have an opportunity to bid for a grant which may bring in £3million of funding for homes with affordable rents. This is additional investment in the Borough which will benefit people by providing lower than market rents and while the rent will be higher that additional income will be used to benefit the housing stock.

I did write to the Adver to point out that Martin Wicks and Swindon Labour (interesting to see Mark Dempsey stood alongside Mr Wicks - will he be opposing affordable housing?) do the majority of tenants a disservice by opposing everything the Council does. Labour voted against having a ballot at all. They voted against having a housing specific hardship fund to assist tenants effected by benefits reform. They have also voted against every budget which has delivered no increase in Council tax.
It's important to separate eligibility for housing benefit from eligibility for Council housing. People who rent privately can claim housing benefit and private rents will be higher than social rents. Eligibility for Council housing is becoming more needs based through fixed term tenancies and other changes to the allocations policy. But the real issue is the disparity between housing costs and incomes. Housing benefit, Council housing, affordable housing, help to buy all are different policy responses to this issue. Some of the older tenants moved to Council housing in Swindon from places like London and for them having a Council house represented a big improvement from private renting conditions. So I do understand their passion for Council housing. However, the approach of Council housing only and only Council housing controlled by the Council, represents a very restricted view and one that has not been followed by any Government since the 1980s. This for a variety of reasons. It is correct that Council rents are lower than affordable rents which in turn are lower than private rents. But the point about rent is that the rental income is used to improve the housing stock. So more rent means more income to spend on housing. In Swindon we have disproportionate numbers of pre-fab and social housing schemes which in turn require disproportionate amount of investment which in turn limits the amounts to spend on things like building new houses. This is exactly why we had the housing ballot. By staying with the Council tenants voted to take on £138.6million of debt which went straight to the Government. Now Martin Wicks wants the Council to borrow even more money. Borrowing more money, while having lower rents simply means a greater proportion of rents goes in interest over the long run which is less to invest in the housing stock. If there had been a housing transfer then the housing association would have been able to borrow more money without already being saddled with the £138.6million. Ultimately in about 15 years we will eventually get to a similar position but essentially until then we are going to be restricted. The situation now is that we have an opportunity to bid for a grant which may bring in £3million of funding for homes with affordable rents. This is additional investment in the Borough which will benefit people by providing lower than market rents and while the rent will be higher that additional income will be used to benefit the housing stock. I did write to the Adver to point out that Martin Wicks and Swindon Labour (interesting to see Mark Dempsey stood alongside Mr Wicks - will he be opposing affordable housing?) do the majority of tenants a disservice by opposing everything the Council does. Labour voted against having a ballot at all. They voted against having a housing specific hardship fund to assist tenants effected by benefits reform. They have also voted against every budget which has delivered no increase in Council tax. Russell Holland
  • Score: 7

11:33am Wed 23 Apr 14

swindondad says...

IF using this money to build new affordable housing was going to cause existing social housing rents to rise then the protestors "might" have a point but it does not affect those so what is the problem.

If the plan goes ahead there will be 150 homes available to the people of this town at 20% below "market rate" rents, how is that not a good thing for the "Low Waged Workers" they claim to be worried about.
IF using this money to build new affordable housing was going to cause existing social housing rents to rise then the protestors "might" have a point but it does not affect those so what is the problem. If the plan goes ahead there will be 150 homes available to the people of this town at 20% below "market rate" rents, how is that not a good thing for the "Low Waged Workers" they claim to be worried about. swindondad
  • Score: 8

12:27pm Wed 23 Apr 14

Davey Gravey says...

I am sure there will be plenty of interest in the new homes. As long as hardworking families get them them what is the problem?
Cut price rents abused by people who shouldn't have it needs stamping out.
I am sure there will be plenty of interest in the new homes. As long as hardworking families get them them what is the problem? Cut price rents abused by people who shouldn't have it needs stamping out. Davey Gravey
  • Score: 5

12:38pm Wed 23 Apr 14

A.Baron-Cohen says...

rents go up, that is the real life, this is non news.
rents go up, that is the real life, this is non news. A.Baron-Cohen
  • Score: -1

12:48pm Wed 23 Apr 14

house on the hill says...

swindondad wrote:
IF using this money to build new affordable housing was going to cause existing social housing rents to rise then the protestors "might" have a point but it does not affect those so what is the problem.

If the plan goes ahead there will be 150 homes available to the people of this town at 20% below "market rate" rents, how is that not a good thing for the "Low Waged Workers" they claim to be worried about.
I think they are concerned that their rents might be increased in line with the new ones. As two thirds of council tenants are on full or part benefit, any change in rents wont affect them in the slightest as their benefit just gets increased to cover the increase. And most of those who pay full rent can well afford to pay more anyway so not sure what their problem is.

The real problem is that the system is broken and it needs changing and fast. We cannot continue this grossly unfair 2 tier system where some are helped and some are not nor can we as a nation afford it. We all have different definitions of "poor" and "vulnerable" anyway.

And the other question no one seems to want to answer is how some young couples and individuals can afford to save and buy their own homes and some seemingly cant. For me it isn't so much about how much they earn but what they choose to spend it on. You cant do everything at once as so many seem to want to.

Social housing and the welfare state needs a complete overhaul and get away from one that encourages complacency and expectation, after all why bother to work harder or get a second job or really make an effort to save and go without things when you can have it all handed to you on a plate. I am sure there are thousands in Swindon alone who would love a 3 bed house at £80 a week thanks very much, why should only some have it and not others then (excluding those in "real need"!)? Get those out who clearly no longer do.

Change the system, another example of broken Britain.
[quote][p][bold]swindondad[/bold] wrote: IF using this money to build new affordable housing was going to cause existing social housing rents to rise then the protestors "might" have a point but it does not affect those so what is the problem. If the plan goes ahead there will be 150 homes available to the people of this town at 20% below "market rate" rents, how is that not a good thing for the "Low Waged Workers" they claim to be worried about.[/p][/quote]I think they are concerned that their rents might be increased in line with the new ones. As two thirds of council tenants are on full or part benefit, any change in rents wont affect them in the slightest as their benefit just gets increased to cover the increase. And most of those who pay full rent can well afford to pay more anyway so not sure what their problem is. The real problem is that the system is broken and it needs changing and fast. We cannot continue this grossly unfair 2 tier system where some are helped and some are not nor can we as a nation afford it. We all have different definitions of "poor" and "vulnerable" anyway. And the other question no one seems to want to answer is how some young couples and individuals can afford to save and buy their own homes and some seemingly cant. For me it isn't so much about how much they earn but what they choose to spend it on. You cant do everything at once as so many seem to want to. Social housing and the welfare state needs a complete overhaul and get away from one that encourages complacency and expectation, after all why bother to work harder or get a second job or really make an effort to save and go without things when you can have it all handed to you on a plate. I am sure there are thousands in Swindon alone who would love a 3 bed house at £80 a week thanks very much, why should only some have it and not others then (excluding those in "real need"!)? Get those out who clearly no longer do. Change the system, another example of broken Britain. house on the hill
  • Score: 1

3:09pm Wed 23 Apr 14

Rainsborough says...

Always Grumpy wrote:
If all the tenants who could afford their own homes, ie Wicks etc, moved out, then that would free up plenty of housing for more deserving cases.
Making a bit of an assumption there aren't you?
Personal attacks on a local campaigner don't change the facts that there aren't enough smaller homes in the social housing sector, and that so called affordable rents just aren't affordable. All this sort of scheme achieves is forcing up the housing benefit bill.
If some of the regular posters to this site could actually see past their visceral hatred of council and social housing tenants it might be possible to have a sensible discussion on such topics
[quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: If all the tenants who could afford their own homes, ie Wicks etc, moved out, then that would free up plenty of housing for more deserving cases.[/p][/quote]Making a bit of an assumption there aren't you? Personal attacks on a local campaigner don't change the facts that there aren't enough smaller homes in the social housing sector, and that so called affordable rents just aren't affordable. All this sort of scheme achieves is forcing up the housing benefit bill. If some of the regular posters to this site could actually see past their visceral hatred of council and social housing tenants it might be possible to have a sensible discussion on such topics Rainsborough
  • Score: 2

4:20pm Wed 23 Apr 14

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man says...

According to rightmove there are around 167 2 bed properties in Swindon, starting from around £500 PCM. There's a number of 1 bed properties for well under £400 (most around £300) per month. That seems pretty affordable to me, perhaps people should just learn to stand on their own two feet a bit more?
According to rightmove there are around 167 2 bed properties in Swindon, starting from around £500 PCM. There's a number of 1 bed properties for well under £400 (most around £300) per month. That seems pretty affordable to me, perhaps people should just learn to stand on their own two feet a bit more? The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man
  • Score: 2

4:26pm Wed 23 Apr 14

Always Grumpy says...

Rainsborough wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
If all the tenants who could afford their own homes, ie Wicks etc, moved out, then that would free up plenty of housing for more deserving cases.
Making a bit of an assumption there aren't you?
Personal attacks on a local campaigner don't change the facts that there aren't enough smaller homes in the social housing sector, and that so called affordable rents just aren't affordable. All this sort of scheme achieves is forcing up the housing benefit bill.
If some of the regular posters to this site could actually see past their visceral hatred of council and social housing tenants it might be possible to have a sensible discussion on such topics
"If some of the regular posters to this site could actually see past their visceral hatred of council and social housing tenants it might be possible to have a sensible discussion on such topics".

In your opinion of course!

Just point out to me where I have shown 'hatred' towards social housing tenants?
[quote][p][bold]Rainsborough[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: If all the tenants who could afford their own homes, ie Wicks etc, moved out, then that would free up plenty of housing for more deserving cases.[/p][/quote]Making a bit of an assumption there aren't you? Personal attacks on a local campaigner don't change the facts that there aren't enough smaller homes in the social housing sector, and that so called affordable rents just aren't affordable. All this sort of scheme achieves is forcing up the housing benefit bill. If some of the regular posters to this site could actually see past their visceral hatred of council and social housing tenants it might be possible to have a sensible discussion on such topics[/p][/quote]"If some of the regular posters to this site could actually see past their visceral hatred of council and social housing tenants it might be possible to have a sensible discussion on such topics". In your opinion of course! Just point out to me where I have shown 'hatred' towards social housing tenants? Always Grumpy
  • Score: 0

4:54pm Wed 23 Apr 14

house on the hill says...

Rainsborough wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
If all the tenants who could afford their own homes, ie Wicks etc, moved out, then that would free up plenty of housing for more deserving cases.
Making a bit of an assumption there aren't you?
Personal attacks on a local campaigner don't change the facts that there aren't enough smaller homes in the social housing sector, and that so called affordable rents just aren't affordable. All this sort of scheme achieves is forcing up the housing benefit bill.
If some of the regular posters to this site could actually see past their visceral hatred of council and social housing tenants it might be possible to have a sensible discussion on such topics
Not sure if you have ever worked in social housing or have been involved in the costs of keeping people in houses they no longer need, but if you had then you maybe would understand better. No one "hates" council housing tenants, they just dislike the system which encourages complacency and expectation. Why should everyone that can provide for themselves not be expected to, why are we so soft on people who cant be bothered to get off their backsides or have kids they know they can never afford but who expect others to pick up the tabs. We don't have a 2 tier society we have a 3 tier, the haves, the have nots and the cant be bothereds and the world owes me a living so give me some of yours!
[quote][p][bold]Rainsborough[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: If all the tenants who could afford their own homes, ie Wicks etc, moved out, then that would free up plenty of housing for more deserving cases.[/p][/quote]Making a bit of an assumption there aren't you? Personal attacks on a local campaigner don't change the facts that there aren't enough smaller homes in the social housing sector, and that so called affordable rents just aren't affordable. All this sort of scheme achieves is forcing up the housing benefit bill. If some of the regular posters to this site could actually see past their visceral hatred of council and social housing tenants it might be possible to have a sensible discussion on such topics[/p][/quote]Not sure if you have ever worked in social housing or have been involved in the costs of keeping people in houses they no longer need, but if you had then you maybe would understand better. No one "hates" council housing tenants, they just dislike the system which encourages complacency and expectation. Why should everyone that can provide for themselves not be expected to, why are we so soft on people who cant be bothered to get off their backsides or have kids they know they can never afford but who expect others to pick up the tabs. We don't have a 2 tier society we have a 3 tier, the haves, the have nots and the cant be bothereds and the world owes me a living so give me some of yours! house on the hill
  • Score: 0

5:48pm Wed 23 Apr 14

Rainsborough says...

house on the hill wrote:
Rainsborough wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
If all the tenants who could afford their own homes, ie Wicks etc, moved out, then that would free up plenty of housing for more deserving cases.
Making a bit of an assumption there aren't you?
Personal attacks on a local campaigner don't change the facts that there aren't enough smaller homes in the social housing sector, and that so called affordable rents just aren't affordable. All this sort of scheme achieves is forcing up the housing benefit bill.
If some of the regular posters to this site could actually see past their visceral hatred of council and social housing tenants it might be possible to have a sensible discussion on such topics
Not sure if you have ever worked in social housing or have been involved in the costs of keeping people in houses they no longer need, but if you had then you maybe would understand better. No one "hates" council housing tenants, they just dislike the system which encourages complacency and expectation. Why should everyone that can provide for themselves not be expected to, why are we so soft on people who cant be bothered to get off their backsides or have kids they know they can never afford but who expect others to pick up the tabs. We don't have a 2 tier society we have a 3 tier, the haves, the have nots and the cant be bothereds and the world owes me a living so give me some of yours!
Lots of generalisations there. The stereotypes come out every time this topic is mentioned. The usual generalisations about laziness and big families. That`s what I meant earlier about visceral hatred, its as if you all see the words council housing and start foaming at the mouth. How do you know whether or not someone can afford to buy housing or pay private sector rents without being privy to their personal finances?
As for the system encouraging complacency and expectation, given how hard it is to get council or social housing since right to buy cut the numbers of properties significantly, I think its more vain hope than expectation.
Lets be honest can any of the people posting on here really say they would rather be living in social housing than where they are at present?
If so I bet you are renting in the private sector.
[quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rainsborough[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: If all the tenants who could afford their own homes, ie Wicks etc, moved out, then that would free up plenty of housing for more deserving cases.[/p][/quote]Making a bit of an assumption there aren't you? Personal attacks on a local campaigner don't change the facts that there aren't enough smaller homes in the social housing sector, and that so called affordable rents just aren't affordable. All this sort of scheme achieves is forcing up the housing benefit bill. If some of the regular posters to this site could actually see past their visceral hatred of council and social housing tenants it might be possible to have a sensible discussion on such topics[/p][/quote]Not sure if you have ever worked in social housing or have been involved in the costs of keeping people in houses they no longer need, but if you had then you maybe would understand better. No one "hates" council housing tenants, they just dislike the system which encourages complacency and expectation. Why should everyone that can provide for themselves not be expected to, why are we so soft on people who cant be bothered to get off their backsides or have kids they know they can never afford but who expect others to pick up the tabs. We don't have a 2 tier society we have a 3 tier, the haves, the have nots and the cant be bothereds and the world owes me a living so give me some of yours![/p][/quote]Lots of generalisations there. The stereotypes come out every time this topic is mentioned. The usual generalisations about laziness and big families. That`s what I meant earlier about visceral hatred, its as if you all see the words council housing and start foaming at the mouth. How do you know whether or not someone can afford to buy housing or pay private sector rents without being privy to their personal finances? As for the system encouraging complacency and expectation, given how hard it is to get council or social housing since right to buy cut the numbers of properties significantly, I think its more vain hope than expectation. Lets be honest can any of the people posting on here really say they would rather be living in social housing than where they are at present? If so I bet you are renting in the private sector. Rainsborough
  • Score: -1

6:22pm Wed 23 Apr 14

Always Grumpy says...

Rainsborough wrote:
house on the hill wrote:
Rainsborough wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
If all the tenants who could afford their own homes, ie Wicks etc, moved out, then that would free up plenty of housing for more deserving cases.
Making a bit of an assumption there aren't you?
Personal attacks on a local campaigner don't change the facts that there aren't enough smaller homes in the social housing sector, and that so called affordable rents just aren't affordable. All this sort of scheme achieves is forcing up the housing benefit bill.
If some of the regular posters to this site could actually see past their visceral hatred of council and social housing tenants it might be possible to have a sensible discussion on such topics
Not sure if you have ever worked in social housing or have been involved in the costs of keeping people in houses they no longer need, but if you had then you maybe would understand better. No one "hates" council housing tenants, they just dislike the system which encourages complacency and expectation. Why should everyone that can provide for themselves not be expected to, why are we so soft on people who cant be bothered to get off their backsides or have kids they know they can never afford but who expect others to pick up the tabs. We don't have a 2 tier society we have a 3 tier, the haves, the have nots and the cant be bothereds and the world owes me a living so give me some of yours!
Lots of generalisations there. The stereotypes come out every time this topic is mentioned. The usual generalisations about laziness and big families. That`s what I meant earlier about visceral hatred, its as if you all see the words council housing and start foaming at the mouth. How do you know whether or not someone can afford to buy housing or pay private sector rents without being privy to their personal finances?
As for the system encouraging complacency and expectation, given how hard it is to get council or social housing since right to buy cut the numbers of properties significantly, I think its more vain hope than expectation.
Lets be honest can any of the people posting on here really say they would rather be living in social housing than where they are at present?
If so I bet you are renting in the private sector.
Lots of generalisations there.
[quote][p][bold]Rainsborough[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rainsborough[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: If all the tenants who could afford their own homes, ie Wicks etc, moved out, then that would free up plenty of housing for more deserving cases.[/p][/quote]Making a bit of an assumption there aren't you? Personal attacks on a local campaigner don't change the facts that there aren't enough smaller homes in the social housing sector, and that so called affordable rents just aren't affordable. All this sort of scheme achieves is forcing up the housing benefit bill. If some of the regular posters to this site could actually see past their visceral hatred of council and social housing tenants it might be possible to have a sensible discussion on such topics[/p][/quote]Not sure if you have ever worked in social housing or have been involved in the costs of keeping people in houses they no longer need, but if you had then you maybe would understand better. No one "hates" council housing tenants, they just dislike the system which encourages complacency and expectation. Why should everyone that can provide for themselves not be expected to, why are we so soft on people who cant be bothered to get off their backsides or have kids they know they can never afford but who expect others to pick up the tabs. We don't have a 2 tier society we have a 3 tier, the haves, the have nots and the cant be bothereds and the world owes me a living so give me some of yours![/p][/quote]Lots of generalisations there. The stereotypes come out every time this topic is mentioned. The usual generalisations about laziness and big families. That`s what I meant earlier about visceral hatred, its as if you all see the words council housing and start foaming at the mouth. How do you know whether or not someone can afford to buy housing or pay private sector rents without being privy to their personal finances? As for the system encouraging complacency and expectation, given how hard it is to get council or social housing since right to buy cut the numbers of properties significantly, I think its more vain hope than expectation. Lets be honest can any of the people posting on here really say they would rather be living in social housing than where they are at present? If so I bet you are renting in the private sector.[/p][/quote]Lots of generalisations there. Always Grumpy
  • Score: 4

7:05am Thu 24 Apr 14

house on the hill says...

Rainsborough wrote:
house on the hill wrote:
Rainsborough wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
If all the tenants who could afford their own homes, ie Wicks etc, moved out, then that would free up plenty of housing for more deserving cases.
Making a bit of an assumption there aren't you?
Personal attacks on a local campaigner don't change the facts that there aren't enough smaller homes in the social housing sector, and that so called affordable rents just aren't affordable. All this sort of scheme achieves is forcing up the housing benefit bill.
If some of the regular posters to this site could actually see past their visceral hatred of council and social housing tenants it might be possible to have a sensible discussion on such topics
Not sure if you have ever worked in social housing or have been involved in the costs of keeping people in houses they no longer need, but if you had then you maybe would understand better. No one "hates" council housing tenants, they just dislike the system which encourages complacency and expectation. Why should everyone that can provide for themselves not be expected to, why are we so soft on people who cant be bothered to get off their backsides or have kids they know they can never afford but who expect others to pick up the tabs. We don't have a 2 tier society we have a 3 tier, the haves, the have nots and the cant be bothereds and the world owes me a living so give me some of yours!
Lots of generalisations there. The stereotypes come out every time this topic is mentioned. The usual generalisations about laziness and big families. That`s what I meant earlier about visceral hatred, its as if you all see the words council housing and start foaming at the mouth. How do you know whether or not someone can afford to buy housing or pay private sector rents without being privy to their personal finances?
As for the system encouraging complacency and expectation, given how hard it is to get council or social housing since right to buy cut the numbers of properties significantly, I think its more vain hope than expectation.
Lets be honest can any of the people posting on here really say they would rather be living in social housing than where they are at present?
If so I bet you are renting in the private sector.
As I said I bet you have never worked in social housing and seen the reality. Some of us have first hand experience of it and I bet you that if you worked as a housing officer for 10 years you would have a far more realistic view on on the system and the people taking advantage of it. 53% of the adult population take more from the state (taxpayer) than they contribute. If you think that is fair or sustainable I suggest you take some economics classes. The system creates this 2 tier system which people embrace with open arms. The haves look down on the have nots and the have nots look down on the haves. Why should people who are fit and able not be expected to pay for their own lives then? Why should I work hard so that others don't have to? All these soft lefty rose tinted spectacles "experts" have no clue of reality. The welfare state will bankrupt this country if we don't radically change it quickly!
[quote][p][bold]Rainsborough[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rainsborough[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: If all the tenants who could afford their own homes, ie Wicks etc, moved out, then that would free up plenty of housing for more deserving cases.[/p][/quote]Making a bit of an assumption there aren't you? Personal attacks on a local campaigner don't change the facts that there aren't enough smaller homes in the social housing sector, and that so called affordable rents just aren't affordable. All this sort of scheme achieves is forcing up the housing benefit bill. If some of the regular posters to this site could actually see past their visceral hatred of council and social housing tenants it might be possible to have a sensible discussion on such topics[/p][/quote]Not sure if you have ever worked in social housing or have been involved in the costs of keeping people in houses they no longer need, but if you had then you maybe would understand better. No one "hates" council housing tenants, they just dislike the system which encourages complacency and expectation. Why should everyone that can provide for themselves not be expected to, why are we so soft on people who cant be bothered to get off their backsides or have kids they know they can never afford but who expect others to pick up the tabs. We don't have a 2 tier society we have a 3 tier, the haves, the have nots and the cant be bothereds and the world owes me a living so give me some of yours![/p][/quote]Lots of generalisations there. The stereotypes come out every time this topic is mentioned. The usual generalisations about laziness and big families. That`s what I meant earlier about visceral hatred, its as if you all see the words council housing and start foaming at the mouth. How do you know whether or not someone can afford to buy housing or pay private sector rents without being privy to their personal finances? As for the system encouraging complacency and expectation, given how hard it is to get council or social housing since right to buy cut the numbers of properties significantly, I think its more vain hope than expectation. Lets be honest can any of the people posting on here really say they would rather be living in social housing than where they are at present? If so I bet you are renting in the private sector.[/p][/quote]As I said I bet you have never worked in social housing and seen the reality. Some of us have first hand experience of it and I bet you that if you worked as a housing officer for 10 years you would have a far more realistic view on on the system and the people taking advantage of it. 53% of the adult population take more from the state (taxpayer) than they contribute. If you think that is fair or sustainable I suggest you take some economics classes. The system creates this 2 tier system which people embrace with open arms. The haves look down on the have nots and the have nots look down on the haves. Why should people who are fit and able not be expected to pay for their own lives then? Why should I work hard so that others don't have to? All these soft lefty rose tinted spectacles "experts" have no clue of reality. The welfare state will bankrupt this country if we don't radically change it quickly! house on the hill
  • Score: 0

9:02am Thu 24 Apr 14

Rainsborough says...

house on the hill wrote:
Rainsborough wrote:
house on the hill wrote:
Rainsborough wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
If all the tenants who could afford their own homes, ie Wicks etc, moved out, then that would free up plenty of housing for more deserving cases.
Making a bit of an assumption there aren't you?
Personal attacks on a local campaigner don't change the facts that there aren't enough smaller homes in the social housing sector, and that so called affordable rents just aren't affordable. All this sort of scheme achieves is forcing up the housing benefit bill.
If some of the regular posters to this site could actually see past their visceral hatred of council and social housing tenants it might be possible to have a sensible discussion on such topics
Not sure if you have ever worked in social housing or have been involved in the costs of keeping people in houses they no longer need, but if you had then you maybe would understand better. No one "hates" council housing tenants, they just dislike the system which encourages complacency and expectation. Why should everyone that can provide for themselves not be expected to, why are we so soft on people who cant be bothered to get off their backsides or have kids they know they can never afford but who expect others to pick up the tabs. We don't have a 2 tier society we have a 3 tier, the haves, the have nots and the cant be bothereds and the world owes me a living so give me some of yours!
Lots of generalisations there. The stereotypes come out every time this topic is mentioned. The usual generalisations about laziness and big families. That`s what I meant earlier about visceral hatred, its as if you all see the words council housing and start foaming at the mouth. How do you know whether or not someone can afford to buy housing or pay private sector rents without being privy to their personal finances?
As for the system encouraging complacency and expectation, given how hard it is to get council or social housing since right to buy cut the numbers of properties significantly, I think its more vain hope than expectation.
Lets be honest can any of the people posting on here really say they would rather be living in social housing than where they are at present?
If so I bet you are renting in the private sector.
As I said I bet you have never worked in social housing and seen the reality. Some of us have first hand experience of it and I bet you that if you worked as a housing officer for 10 years you would have a far more realistic view on on the system and the people taking advantage of it. 53% of the adult population take more from the state (taxpayer) than they contribute. If you think that is fair or sustainable I suggest you take some economics classes. The system creates this 2 tier system which people embrace with open arms. The haves look down on the have nots and the have nots look down on the haves. Why should people who are fit and able not be expected to pay for their own lives then? Why should I work hard so that others don't have to? All these soft lefty rose tinted spectacles "experts" have no clue of reality. The welfare state will bankrupt this country if we don't radically change it quickly!
Well, you are right that there is a two tier system: those who are very well fixed financially can do everything they can to avoid paying taxes whilst enjoying a superprivileged lifestyle. The remaining 80% are encouraged to blame each other for their falling (or at the bottom never risen) living standards. If this or preceding governments had put as much effort into dealing with tax avoidance by individuals and large companies as has been put into crushing the poor we would all see some improvements in the public finances.
[quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rainsborough[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rainsborough[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: If all the tenants who could afford their own homes, ie Wicks etc, moved out, then that would free up plenty of housing for more deserving cases.[/p][/quote]Making a bit of an assumption there aren't you? Personal attacks on a local campaigner don't change the facts that there aren't enough smaller homes in the social housing sector, and that so called affordable rents just aren't affordable. All this sort of scheme achieves is forcing up the housing benefit bill. If some of the regular posters to this site could actually see past their visceral hatred of council and social housing tenants it might be possible to have a sensible discussion on such topics[/p][/quote]Not sure if you have ever worked in social housing or have been involved in the costs of keeping people in houses they no longer need, but if you had then you maybe would understand better. No one "hates" council housing tenants, they just dislike the system which encourages complacency and expectation. Why should everyone that can provide for themselves not be expected to, why are we so soft on people who cant be bothered to get off their backsides or have kids they know they can never afford but who expect others to pick up the tabs. We don't have a 2 tier society we have a 3 tier, the haves, the have nots and the cant be bothereds and the world owes me a living so give me some of yours![/p][/quote]Lots of generalisations there. The stereotypes come out every time this topic is mentioned. The usual generalisations about laziness and big families. That`s what I meant earlier about visceral hatred, its as if you all see the words council housing and start foaming at the mouth. How do you know whether or not someone can afford to buy housing or pay private sector rents without being privy to their personal finances? As for the system encouraging complacency and expectation, given how hard it is to get council or social housing since right to buy cut the numbers of properties significantly, I think its more vain hope than expectation. Lets be honest can any of the people posting on here really say they would rather be living in social housing than where they are at present? If so I bet you are renting in the private sector.[/p][/quote]As I said I bet you have never worked in social housing and seen the reality. Some of us have first hand experience of it and I bet you that if you worked as a housing officer for 10 years you would have a far more realistic view on on the system and the people taking advantage of it. 53% of the adult population take more from the state (taxpayer) than they contribute. If you think that is fair or sustainable I suggest you take some economics classes. The system creates this 2 tier system which people embrace with open arms. The haves look down on the have nots and the have nots look down on the haves. Why should people who are fit and able not be expected to pay for their own lives then? Why should I work hard so that others don't have to? All these soft lefty rose tinted spectacles "experts" have no clue of reality. The welfare state will bankrupt this country if we don't radically change it quickly![/p][/quote]Well, you are right that there is a two tier system: those who are very well fixed financially can do everything they can to avoid paying taxes whilst enjoying a superprivileged lifestyle. The remaining 80% are encouraged to blame each other for their falling (or at the bottom never risen) living standards. If this or preceding governments had put as much effort into dealing with tax avoidance by individuals and large companies as has been put into crushing the poor we would all see some improvements in the public finances. Rainsborough
  • Score: 0

11:32am Thu 24 Apr 14

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man says...

Rainsborough wrote:
house on the hill wrote:
Rainsborough wrote:
house on the hill wrote:
Rainsborough wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
If all the tenants who could afford their own homes, ie Wicks etc, moved out, then that would free up plenty of housing for more deserving cases.
Making a bit of an assumption there aren't you?
Personal attacks on a local campaigner don't change the facts that there aren't enough smaller homes in the social housing sector, and that so called affordable rents just aren't affordable. All this sort of scheme achieves is forcing up the housing benefit bill.
If some of the regular posters to this site could actually see past their visceral hatred of council and social housing tenants it might be possible to have a sensible discussion on such topics
Not sure if you have ever worked in social housing or have been involved in the costs of keeping people in houses they no longer need, but if you had then you maybe would understand better. No one "hates" council housing tenants, they just dislike the system which encourages complacency and expectation. Why should everyone that can provide for themselves not be expected to, why are we so soft on people who cant be bothered to get off their backsides or have kids they know they can never afford but who expect others to pick up the tabs. We don't have a 2 tier society we have a 3 tier, the haves, the have nots and the cant be bothereds and the world owes me a living so give me some of yours!
Lots of generalisations there. The stereotypes come out every time this topic is mentioned. The usual generalisations about laziness and big families. That`s what I meant earlier about visceral hatred, its as if you all see the words council housing and start foaming at the mouth. How do you know whether or not someone can afford to buy housing or pay private sector rents without being privy to their personal finances?
As for the system encouraging complacency and expectation, given how hard it is to get council or social housing since right to buy cut the numbers of properties significantly, I think its more vain hope than expectation.
Lets be honest can any of the people posting on here really say they would rather be living in social housing than where they are at present?
If so I bet you are renting in the private sector.
As I said I bet you have never worked in social housing and seen the reality. Some of us have first hand experience of it and I bet you that if you worked as a housing officer for 10 years you would have a far more realistic view on on the system and the people taking advantage of it. 53% of the adult population take more from the state (taxpayer) than they contribute. If you think that is fair or sustainable I suggest you take some economics classes. The system creates this 2 tier system which people embrace with open arms. The haves look down on the have nots and the have nots look down on the haves. Why should people who are fit and able not be expected to pay for their own lives then? Why should I work hard so that others don't have to? All these soft lefty rose tinted spectacles "experts" have no clue of reality. The welfare state will bankrupt this country if we don't radically change it quickly!
Well, you are right that there is a two tier system: those who are very well fixed financially can do everything they can to avoid paying taxes whilst enjoying a superprivileged lifestyle. The remaining 80% are encouraged to blame each other for their falling (or at the bottom never risen) living standards. If this or preceding governments had put as much effort into dealing with tax avoidance by individuals and large companies as has been put into crushing the poor we would all see some improvements in the public finances.
Lots more generalisations there too. You do know that the top 1% of earners pay 1/3 of all income tax don't you? And that the bottom 35% of the adult population pay no income tax at all? And you do know that most of these lower earners claim significant amounts of benefit from the state?

Meanwhile higher earners take far far less on average from the benefits, health, and tax credits systems.

Similarly people blame the banks, and big business for not paying enough tax. Most of these businesses are London-centric. London business and individuals contribute more to the tax system than the next 9 largest contributing towns and cities combined. So I'm also not sure where this idea of big business and bankers destroying the economy come from - without them the welfare state would be screwed!
[quote][p][bold]Rainsborough[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rainsborough[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rainsborough[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: If all the tenants who could afford their own homes, ie Wicks etc, moved out, then that would free up plenty of housing for more deserving cases.[/p][/quote]Making a bit of an assumption there aren't you? Personal attacks on a local campaigner don't change the facts that there aren't enough smaller homes in the social housing sector, and that so called affordable rents just aren't affordable. All this sort of scheme achieves is forcing up the housing benefit bill. If some of the regular posters to this site could actually see past their visceral hatred of council and social housing tenants it might be possible to have a sensible discussion on such topics[/p][/quote]Not sure if you have ever worked in social housing or have been involved in the costs of keeping people in houses they no longer need, but if you had then you maybe would understand better. No one "hates" council housing tenants, they just dislike the system which encourages complacency and expectation. Why should everyone that can provide for themselves not be expected to, why are we so soft on people who cant be bothered to get off their backsides or have kids they know they can never afford but who expect others to pick up the tabs. We don't have a 2 tier society we have a 3 tier, the haves, the have nots and the cant be bothereds and the world owes me a living so give me some of yours![/p][/quote]Lots of generalisations there. The stereotypes come out every time this topic is mentioned. The usual generalisations about laziness and big families. That`s what I meant earlier about visceral hatred, its as if you all see the words council housing and start foaming at the mouth. How do you know whether or not someone can afford to buy housing or pay private sector rents without being privy to their personal finances? As for the system encouraging complacency and expectation, given how hard it is to get council or social housing since right to buy cut the numbers of properties significantly, I think its more vain hope than expectation. Lets be honest can any of the people posting on here really say they would rather be living in social housing than where they are at present? If so I bet you are renting in the private sector.[/p][/quote]As I said I bet you have never worked in social housing and seen the reality. Some of us have first hand experience of it and I bet you that if you worked as a housing officer for 10 years you would have a far more realistic view on on the system and the people taking advantage of it. 53% of the adult population take more from the state (taxpayer) than they contribute. If you think that is fair or sustainable I suggest you take some economics classes. The system creates this 2 tier system which people embrace with open arms. The haves look down on the have nots and the have nots look down on the haves. Why should people who are fit and able not be expected to pay for their own lives then? Why should I work hard so that others don't have to? All these soft lefty rose tinted spectacles "experts" have no clue of reality. The welfare state will bankrupt this country if we don't radically change it quickly![/p][/quote]Well, you are right that there is a two tier system: those who are very well fixed financially can do everything they can to avoid paying taxes whilst enjoying a superprivileged lifestyle. The remaining 80% are encouraged to blame each other for their falling (or at the bottom never risen) living standards. If this or preceding governments had put as much effort into dealing with tax avoidance by individuals and large companies as has been put into crushing the poor we would all see some improvements in the public finances.[/p][/quote]Lots more generalisations there too. You do know that the top 1% of earners pay 1/3 of all income tax don't you? And that the bottom 35% of the adult population pay no income tax at all? And you do know that most of these lower earners claim significant amounts of benefit from the state? Meanwhile higher earners take far far less on average from the benefits, health, and tax credits systems. Similarly people blame the banks, and big business for not paying enough tax. Most of these businesses are London-centric. London business and individuals contribute more to the tax system than the next 9 largest contributing towns and cities combined. So I'm also not sure where this idea of big business and bankers destroying the economy come from - without them the welfare state would be screwed! The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man
  • Score: -2

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree