The only thing highlighted by the whole right-to-buy scheme is that it was very badly planned without any regard for the long term repercussions or indeed any planned replacement for the low cost rental sector.

Then again we're talking about five year term politicians.

I disagree.

There was never any intention of replacing low-cost housing. It was about creating a stimulus to the banking sector and creating a whole new phalanx of mortgage slaves. Once the low folk signed on the dotted line for a mortgage, they were far less likely to strike or cause other disruption that may result in them missing a mortgage payment.

The saddest thing is that New Labour never took the opportunity to encourage councils to build more affordable homes

Are governments allowed to say to councils, here's a certain amount of money, you will build low cost housing?

I blame it all on god.
If he hadn't whispered into Phoney's ear there would have been no need for that war on terror and everybody in need of social housing could practically have got a brand spanking new one.

Now wouldn't that have been more purposeful?
I'm sure Dubya's army could have gone and killed them hundreds of thousands of civilians off their own back.

just a thought like.

Its how it used to be, or seemed to be, but probably the other way around.

Local authorities had a requirement (as they still do) to provide social housing, housing for rent at what some would say was subsidised prices albeit that the ones who say it is subsidised are usually the ones who prefer to charge as high a price as possible in their own rental properties.

Anyhoo, back in the day when I was working in construction we would always tender to the local authorities on new developments or for refurbs so it was they who commissioned the sites and they who ultimately were the paymasters, presumably that money had come from central government in the first place so that they could fulfil their requirement to provide a certain level of affordable rental properties.

It all sounds very socialist now but Tory governments worked the same way too albeit that occasionally there was friction with some very far left councils, I seem to recall some Tory Minister mentioning that Derek Hattons Liverpool would be defeated by starving of investment but all in all I worked on many social housing schemes through at least the early years of Thatchers reign.

what this story shows is how messed up Social Housing is, and has increasingly become under successive governments (of all colours). He has a tenancy agreement and that agreement will have been made when he was initially assessed and deemed to be "in need", it was an open ended tenancy with no review period or clauses (see Fixed Term tenancies, which are now used widely for examples of the clauses for re-assessment). It's the same as when you have an elderly person, living in a 3 bedroom property, that chances are they can only afford to heat three rooms (invariably the "living" room, the bedroom and the kitchen) they cannot use the other rooms (and have no need of them), but they either wont move "because this is where I brought my family up" or the local area has no suitable smaller stock to move them into. At the same time there'll be a family of 6, who could use the property to it's maximum, being accommodated in inadequate temporary accommodation at increased expense, it's a mess, and nobody has the appetite or will to actually address the issue, because they'd become unelectable overnight.

I think you're spot on.



What you say is right, but it's always coming back to the core lack of social housing. One trade union leader – or even some elderly people – are not the cause of the problem.

You cannot treat human beings as chattels or ignore the fact that what most desire is a place to call a home rather than a house - what is actually wrong in a person settling and investing in an area and then wanting to stay put - why should they instead regard this dwelling house as a mere transition point in their life that they have to surrender when their children grow up and move away, or a family member (maybe even a child) dies and they don't need three bedrooms any longer - what housing officer is going to call around and tell a family "I'm really sorry that your husband has left you and the kids and all that, but can we have the keys on my desk by 9am tomorrow please and we'll have a small flat ready for you in the next town as soon as we can".

Are we playing Monopoly or something ?

any of my team doing their job properly, so long as the tenancy provides for it.

Social Housing isn't meant to be a lifelong answer for those who no longer need it.

I reckon any party that proposes a massive house building programme would sweep to victory with a landslide.

But I have a feeling that building more houses is not the solution you would prefer

So basically you're running a very large hotel where bodies check in and are checked out when you think that you can utilise them more profitably elsewhere ?

I'd like more housing to be built, yes, and for it to be more appropriately utilised.

It's not about profitability, it's about appropriateness, there are people trapped in Social housing because there isn't the encouragement to move on, a little like benefits. But hey, I've been a housing professional for 15 years, what do I know.

You have a very polarised view that social housing is a temporary stopping point for any person or family, somewhere that they shouldn't linger too long in while they throw a six or buy a winning scratch card, or something.

What "encouragement" do you give your tenants to move on and avoid getting "trapped" ?