NEW LABOUR CLOSES DOORS FOR COUNCIL TENANTS

grimupnorth Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 11:32:19 AM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

This  was   in yesterday's  Daily Mirror. AMICUS today launched a  campaign against this draconian  proposal.

3 MILLION TENANTS FACE BOOT
EXCLUSIVE: KELLY SHAKE-UP PLAN
By Bob Roberts Deputy Political Editor 19/02/2007
THREE million council house tenants face losing the right to stay in their homes for life.




A Government report out tomorrow is expected to say the current system of social housing is out of date.

And it looks likely to pave the way for major reforms including time limits on how long someone can remain in their council home.

Economist Will Hutton, who advises Tony Blair, said: "Council housing is a living tomb.

"You dare not give the house up because you may never get another. But staying is to be trapped in a ghetto."

But Adam Sampson, of Shelter, said the plans were "terrifying".

He added: "People in social housing are often poor families, single parents and the longterm sick and disabled.

"They need and deserve security and affordable rents, not the fear and uncertainty of homelessness." Communities Secretary Ruth Kelly will unveil the report by housing expert Professor John Hill of the London School of Economics.

It is expected to call for oldfashioned estates where tenants settle for life to be broken up.

And children will no longer have the right to take over their parents' tenancy.

Tenants could be meanstested and lose their cheap rents if their income goes up.

But there are fears that the measures could give added ammunition to right-wing groups such as the BNP.

Left-winger Jon Cruddas, MP for Dagenham in Essex, said: "Access to housing is becoming racialised because of a lack of supply.

It's feeding extremist political forms."


tags: , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
NEW LABOUR CLOSES DOORS FOR COUNCIL TENANTS | 25 comments (25 topical)

Re: NEW LABOUR CLOSES DOORS FOR COUNCIL TENANTS (#1)

by JR on Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 12:24:03 PM GMT

Councils shouldn't own housing anyway. All housing should either be private or belong to a housing association.

I agree that it's not right to kick someone out if it makes them homeless, but I very much doubt this would happen.


Re: NEW LABOUR CLOSES DOORS FOR COUNCIL TENANTS (#6)

by alsoleeds on Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 08:27:26 PM GMT

Over the last 27 years there has been this cultural change where council rented housing is housing for the poor and actually the aspirant working class will all live in their own homes one day and this will be a sign of a healthy society.

On the other hand there are many that live in council housing who view their houses as owned collectively by the citizens of their local authority and like the idea of this collective ownership and democratic governance through their local councillors.

The housing owned by the local authority used to be amongst the best in the country and housed large amounts of our key workers, this all changed in 1979.

What we need is to look at practical solutions for people who want to rent or share ownership and would like their landlord to be a body accountable to them through the ballot box. Private Rented Sector or Registered Social Landlords do not meet this criteria and a balanced mix of provision is needed to meet the needs of many who are without housing or are living in overcrowded conditions.

I am a director of an RSL and deal with people's housing issues in my constituency on a daily basis.

The solutions for our housing problems are not going to be solved without a great expansion of social rented housing which is suitable for people's needs, mainly 2-3 bed terrace, mews or semi-detached housing which could be built on Brownfield sites (outside London and the South East).

I am deeply saddened by JR's comments as a member of the Labour Movement and hope that JR looks more deeply into the issue and I also feel that Jon Cruddas's comments have been taken out of context as he is one of the most thoughtful Labour commentators on housing.


[ Parent ]

Re: NEW LABOUR CLOSES DOORS FOR COUNCIL TENANTS (#10)

by JR on Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 08:54:17 PM GMT

Sorry, but I have to disagree.

All council housing does is get poor people to pay rent to the council but get nothing at the end of it to show for all they've paid in. It's robbing the poor at best.

Councils should encourage people to own as larger proportion of their house as possible - even if it's only 5%. Then at least when they die, they can pass on at least some inheritance to their children and hopefully they won't end up as poverty stricken as their parents.

I too have much personal experience when it comes to council housing, so I think I'm in an equally good position to argue about it.


[ Parent ]

Re: NEW LABOUR CLOSES DOORS FOR COUNCIL TENANTS (#7)

by alsoleeds on Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 08:29:25 PM GMT

Over the last 27 years there has been this cultural change where council rented housing is housing for the poor and the belief that the aspirant working class will all live in their own homes one day and this will be a sign of a healthy society.

On the other hand there are many that live in council housing who view their houses as owned collectively by the citizens of their local authority and like the idea of this collective ownership and democratic governance through their local councillors.

The housing owned by the local authority used to be amongst the best in the country and housed large amounts of our key workers, this all changed in 1979.

What we need is to look at practical solutions for people who want to rent or share ownership and would like their landlord to be a body accountable to them through the ballot box. Private Rented Sector or Registered Social Landlords do not meet this criteria and a balanced mix of provision is needed to meet the needs of many who are without housing or are living in overcrowded conditions.

I am a director of an RSL and deal with people's housing issues in my constituency on a daily basis.

The solutions for our housing problems are not going to be solved without a great expansion of social rented housing which is suitable for people's needs, mainly 2-3 bed terrace, mews or semi-detached housing which could be built on Brownfield sites (outside London and the South East).

I am deeply saddened by JR's comments as a member of the Labour Movement and hope that JR looks more deeply into the issue and I also feel that Jon Cruddas's comments have been taken out of context as he is one of the most thoughtful Labour commentators on housing.


[ Parent ]

Re: NEW LABOUR CLOSES DOORS FOR COUNCIL TENANTS (#11)

by doctordunc on Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 09:07:40 PM GMT

Why do you prefer Housing Association?


[ Parent ]

Re: NEW LABOUR CLOSES DOORS FOR COUNCIL TENANTS (#13)

by JR on Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 11:28:56 PM GMT

I believe, and from experience, that they are better at running social housing than councils. Councils are generally inept and greedy with these kind of things.


[ Parent ]

Re: NEW LABOUR CLOSES DOORS FOR COUNCIL TENANTS (#15)

by doctordunc on Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 11:35:55 PM GMT

Do you include Labour-run councils in this description?


[ Parent ]

Re: NEW LABOUR CLOSES DOORS FOR COUNCIL TENANTS (#18)

by JR on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 04:48:27 PM GMT

I'm sure some of them are. At the end of the day - all councils want more money don't they.


[ Parent ]

Re: NEW LABOUR CLOSES DOORS FOR COUNCIL TENANTS (#23)

by doctordunc on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 10:09:41 PM GMT

Private landlords and housing associations want more money too.

Please, as the local elections come closer, try and avoid saying that our councils are inept and greedy in public places, won't you? :o)


[ Parent ]

Re: NEW LABOUR CLOSES DOORS FOR COUNCIL TENANTS (#24)

by JR on Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 01:20:57 AM GMT

Well if people had more of a chance to own their own homes then they wouldn't need to pay private landlords. The only payments would go to pay off the mortgage which allows them to have an asset for the future.


[ Parent ]

Re: NEW LABOUR CLOSES DOORS FOR COUNCIL TENANTS (#12)

by otware on Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 10:47:46 PM GMT

Why shouldn't council's own houses? Council housing is in theory an excellent idea - a great way of helping the poorest members of society by providing them with housing maintained by people who are accountable to the public. The problem is that Thatcher stuffed it all up, and it just hasn't been put right!

You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself. I know I would be.


[ Parent ]

Re: NEW LABOUR CLOSES DOORS FOR COUNCIL TENANTS (#14)

by JR on Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 11:32:10 PM GMT

Yawn.

So Thatcher stuffed it up by actually allowing people to own their own homes did she?

So 'to put it right' you would take the houses back off those people would you and put it in to the hands of greedy councils who take money off residents and give little in return. I think it's you who needs to be ashamed of yourself.


[ Parent ]

Re: NEW LABOUR CLOSES DOORS FOR COUNCIL TENANTS (#16)

by otware on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 12:24:04 AM GMT

The problem is not so much in letting long-tern tennants buy the houses they have been living in, but not building new ones to compensate. There is demand for housing, council houses are being sold, not enough new ones are being built. Do the maths.

And calling all local authorities 'greedy' is a sweeping generalisation. Just because local authorities don't do the right thing and look after their tennants as much as they should doesn't mean the whole concept is bad.

I quite agree that local authorities don't do enough. That's why the government needs to do something. But just selling all the houses isn't going to solve anything really. Sure, some of the tennants would love to own their houses, but what about all the people on the waiting list who want a council house, but find that they've all been sold? But I forgot that they should look after themselves should't they. Every man for himself. Cut throat free market capitalism. Survival of the fittest. That's what the Labour Movement is all about, isn't it?


[ Parent ]

Re: NEW LABOUR CLOSES DOORS FOR COUNCIL TENANTS (#19)

by JR on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 04:51:43 PM GMT

That's what the Labour Movement is all about, isn't it?

Who cares? I only care about the Labour Party and it's policies.

There has to be a balance between society and individualism and you don't seem to understand that. By owning there own houses, those people will be better off than pointlessly paying rent to a council that gives little to nothing back in return. What will have to show for it when they die? Nothing - no inheritance to pass on to the children to lift them out of poverty.


[ Parent ]

Re: NEW LABOUR CLOSES DOORS FOR COUNCIL TENANTS (#21)

by otware on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 07:19:31 PM GMT

Don't you listen?

I'm not denying it's good to own your own house. I'm not a communist ogre who wants to nationalise private property! But if they want to sell council houses to longterm council tennants then they need to build new houses to replace the ones they've sold.


[ Parent ]

Re: NEW LABOUR CLOSES DOORS FOR COUNCIL TENANTS (#25)

by JR on Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 01:24:04 AM GMT

I've got no problem with building more houses - just as long as their not turned into council houses. Thankfully, the government thinks this too.


[ Parent ]

Re: NEW LABOUR CLOSES DOORS FOR COUNCIL TENANTS (#2)

by Glass House on Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 01:30:22 PM GMT

I'll wait for the report. I doubt the government is going to kick people onto the street.


Re: NEW LABOUR CLOSES DOORS FOR COUNCIL TENANTS (#3)

by Mark Wadsworth on Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 01:41:12 PM GMT

Before we get carried away, let's look at the facts.

There are 1.5 million people on council house waiting lists (I heard on the radio this morning, not sure of source but it seems about right), presumably renting privately, which costs the State an absolute fortune in Housing & Council Tax benefit.

Out of 5 million households in social housing (i.e. one in five of all households), a heck of a lot are well over any sort of threshold where they would still qualify for council housing were they re-apply. I have no idea what sort of proportion I am afraid, but as a guide, about one-quarter of social tenants do not qualify for housing benefit.

So it seems fair enough for the "better off poor" to be gently shuffled out to make room for people right at the bottom of the ladder.

In the interests of simplifying this all, one of my sparring partners suggested that housing and council tax benefit (means tested and withdrawn at 85% of net income) be scrapped and social rents be set at 20% of a household's gross earned income.

Result?

Those on no or very low incomes will pay nothing or a few £ a week and their marginal benefit withdrawal rate comes down a bit (this is all best seen in context of a Citizen's Income style welfare state). The better off poor will pay £100-plus a week for a council flat, so will they "sod this for a game of soldiers, I'll rent or buy privately". So more really desparate people get a council flat that much quicker AND the State will save a lot money on what it currently has to pay out to slum landlords.

And don't get me started on housing associations, they are pure taxpayer funded evil answerable to nobody. Their properties should be taken straight back into local authority control.


Re: NEW LABOUR CLOSES DOORS FOR COUNCIL TENANTS (#4)

by grimupnorth on Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 02:29:38 PM GMT

 it seems fair enough for the "better off poor" to be gently shuffled out to make room for people right at the bottom of the ladder.

What  do you mean by better-off poor? Who decides what the benchmark  is?  Yet  more means-testing, I assume.
How do you "gently  shuffle  out" people  from their homes into the private sector, where presunably  they will be paying throuygh the nose  for private accommodation. Excellent  idea -not.

People on  low  incomes  should have access to decent social housing.The reason  waiting-lists are so  long is that councils   have stopped building homes for rent. They are desperately needed .


[ Parent ]

Re: NEW LABOUR CLOSES DOORS FOR COUNCIL TENANTS (#5)

by Mark Wadsworth on Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 02:56:33 PM GMT

The better off poor can decide for themselves. I am totally against means testing. I am in favour of a Citizen's Income-type welfare system. As to paying through the nose, on the whole on average people pay about twenty per cent of their gross income in housing costs, it is not a made up figure.

Under my suggestions:

  1. Headline social rents will be scrapped.
  2. Council Tax for social tenants will be scrapped.
  3. Housing Benefit and Council Tax benefits will be scrapped.

Instead, social tenants will just pay ONE bill and have ONE set of forms to fill in, declaring their household income. They pay twenty percent of their gross household income in rent.

Those with no earned income will pay nothing, as now, so fine.

Those with a little bit of earned income  will pay LESS than now, so again, fine. Please have a look at DWP's tax and benefit model tables. Those on small earned incomes (e.g. NMW jobs) pay around 35% of their gross income in housing costs (i.e. headline social rent plus council tax less housing benefit less council tax benefit).

Those at the upper end will pay more (they currently pay around 15% of their gross earned income in rent plus council tax less associated benefits).

  • If they are happy to pay more but want to retain their council housing, then fine. More money for the local council for improvements or building new social housing.
  • If they choose to move out, then there's more social housing available for those right at the bottom of the ladder.

And don't just say "waiting lists are so long because they've stopped building council housing". I think if there is enough social housing for the poorest one-fifth of households, that seems about right. A lot of it is being hogged by the better off poor.

BTW, I put this scheme to two of my local (Labour) councillors and they thought it was pretty neat.


[ Parent ]

Re: NEW LABOUR CLOSES DOORS FOR COUNCIL TENANTS (#8)

by doctordunc on Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 08:41:04 PM GMT

And don't just say "waiting lists are so long because they've stopped building council housing".

Unfortunately - combined with the sale of council homes, both to tenants and to housing associations - it's true, so has to be said.


[ Parent ]

Six of one, half a dozen of the other (#17)

by Mark Wadsworth on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 10:22:35 AM GMT

yes, but it is only true with the caveat "combined with the sale of council homes" there seem to be two contradictory opinions here:
  1. That tenants should have the right to buy, i.e. council housing is sold off.
  2. That more council housing should be built.

I can see the merits of both arguments, but surely they cancel out? I am instinctively against selling of council housing, but similarly, wary of building any more. So how about we leave things as they are and try to make sure that it's the poorest fifth that have first dibs on what we've got?


[ Parent ]

Re: Six of one, half a dozen of the other (#20)

by Mark Wadsworth on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 06:31:07 PM GMT

Having read the summary, it appears that of council tenants only one-third are in the poorest two income deciles, i.e. the poorest fifth.

Given that there is enough council housing to house the poorest fifth, presumably the other two thirds of the poorest fifth are either pensioners who own their own homes (fair enough) or stuck in private rented accommodation? Does this seem right or fair to anybody?

Anyway, I recommend you all read at least the summary. JH has a graph at S6 of the effects of tax and benefit withdrawal on a household's net income, noting, without trace of irony "...a couple with two children paying a typical private rent of £120 per week would gain only £23 if their earnings rose from £100 to £400 per week (as a result of reduced benefits and tax credits and higher tax and national insurance".

Time for a Citizen's Income/flat tax-style welfare system, methinks.


[ Parent ]

Re: Six of one, half a dozen of the other (#22)

by doctordunc on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 10:08:08 PM GMT

Well I don't think the government should subsidise 'right to buy' schemes, nor encourage the sale of housing stock to housing associations.


[ Parent ]

Re: NEW LABOUR CLOSES DOORS FOR COUNCIL TENANTS (#9)

by grimupnorth on Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 08:46:05 PM GMT

So  we  only  help what the Victorians called  "the deserving  poor" now, do we?
More social  housing  is needed.Now.


[ Parent ]

NEW LABOUR CLOSES DOORS FOR COUNCIL TENANTS | 25 comments (25 topical)