Spare room changes: 'I won't go quietly'
Discussion
blugnu said:
I find it absolutely appalling that this government would be telling my nana that she would have to choose between being unable to afford heating, or moving out of her home of 50 years.
How would you feel if your nana needed somewhere to live but couldn't have anywhere because single people living in 4 bedroomed social housing refused to move?blugnu said:
No. Being as she had lived through the depression in the 30's and been brought up in a stone house with no water, gas or electricity on the side of a hill in Shropshire, in which her father used to keep the animals at night for warmth she was rather taken with the post-war idea of the state using it's resources to redistribute wealth and provide affordable, comfortable modern homes for those that survived the war to live in - and she was intensely proud of hers. She viewed it as hers, as you would having lived there for over 50 years.
So I expect she rather hoped that her home would continue to be used in that manner. Sadly it looks like it has been bought since and so another family home has been lost to the stock that the council has to offer, so the shortages are worse.
It doesn't make sense to me.
I love how you conveniently ignore the decades your nan spent living in a house with room surplus to requirements meaning people who actually need something that large stand less chance of getting one as everyone with the mentality of your nan refuses to give those properties up.So I expect she rather hoped that her home would continue to be used in that manner. Sadly it looks like it has been bought since and so another family home has been lost to the stock that the council has to offer, so the shortages are worse.
It doesn't make sense to me.
Happy82 said:
A shame it is not possible to sterilise them in return for benefits, the benefits burden in the future is going to be astronomical with the way that the underclass are breeding 
Hey hey, we're the Nazis; people say we implement eugenics programmes that fall into the definition of crimes against humanity. Around.davepoth said:
My Nan is pretty much the same. I'd be intrigued to find out where the "homes for life" mindset came from. Certainly it's not healthy.
Well moving is stressful. People attach emotions to houses, some are good, some are bad.It is a tricky one, are we going to have people shuffling around the country frequently moving house. What do we do if a child moves out, perhaps in with a Girlfriend, but then splits up and six months later needs to move back in with his mother?!!? What if in the meantime she has moved elsewhere? Does he then get a single house of his own?
blugnu said:
My grandmother lived in a council house until she died. After the wa. she lived with my grandad, my dad and my aunt in a small flat while the government built a large council housing estate over the (then also new) road.
It was a three bedroom house. One for my grandparents, one for my dad, and one for my aunt. They raised their family there, and it was their home.
Obviously the kids grew up and moved out, so it was just my grandparents and two spare rooms. One was done as a 'kids' room for when the grandchildren came to stay, and one was an 'adult' room for when my grandparent's siblings came to stay, as they lived quite a long way away.
And so it came to pass that my grandad died and so, the house that was once home to a family of 4 was now home to one person, my nana, who lived there alone for over 20 years. It was still her home - the home she'd brought her kids up in, the home she had shared with her husband. The home she had cleaned and polished to within an inch of it's life for 50 years.
I find it absolutely appalling that this government would be telling my nana that she would have to choose between being unable to afford heating, or moving out of her home of 50 years.
That is my nan down to a tee. 50 years. 4 bed LA house. Everyone grew up or died. It was a three bedroom house. One for my grandparents, one for my dad, and one for my aunt. They raised their family there, and it was their home.
Obviously the kids grew up and moved out, so it was just my grandparents and two spare rooms. One was done as a 'kids' room for when the grandchildren came to stay, and one was an 'adult' room for when my grandparent's siblings came to stay, as they lived quite a long way away.
And so it came to pass that my grandad died and so, the house that was once home to a family of 4 was now home to one person, my nana, who lived there alone for over 20 years. It was still her home - the home she'd brought her kids up in, the home she had shared with her husband. The home she had cleaned and polished to within an inch of it's life for 50 years.
I find it absolutely appalling that this government would be telling my nana that she would have to choose between being unable to afford heating, or moving out of her home of 50 years.
When she died the council gave us a week to clear the house. lived there since new 50 years worth of stuff!
Jasandjules said:
Well moving is stressful. People attach emotions to houses, some are good, some are bad.
It is a tricky one, are we going to have people shuffling around the country frequently moving house. What do we do if a child moves out, perhaps in with a Girlfriend, but then splits up and six months later needs to move back in with his mother?!!? What if in the meantime she has moved elsewhere? Does he then get a single house of his own?
Yes, we should. It is a tricky one, are we going to have people shuffling around the country frequently moving house. What do we do if a child moves out, perhaps in with a Girlfriend, but then splits up and six months later needs to move back in with his mother?!!? What if in the meantime she has moved elsewhere? Does he then get a single house of his own?
As a worker in the private sector I have moved 5 times in 10 years according to what I can afford, my circumstances and where my job is.
When I was starting my business, I decided I could no longer justify living in London because of cost. Why can those in council houses not be subject to the same common sense requirements?
Those who make emotional arguments against trying to encourage those with unused bedrooms to downsize always ignore the basic fact that it is extremely selfish to hog a publicly provided resource for yourself when others need that resource so much more. It is wrong that those who no longer need the house they live in can deprive others in greater need from living there.
Jasandjules said:
davepoth said:
My Nan is pretty much the same. I'd be intrigued to find out where the "homes for life" mindset came from. Certainly it's not healthy.
Well moving is stressful. People attach emotions to houses, some are good, some are bad.It is a tricky one, are we going to have people shuffling around the country frequently moving house. What do we do if a child moves out, perhaps in with a Girlfriend, but then splits up and six months later needs to move back in with his mother?!!? What if in the meantime she has moved elsewhere? Does he then get a single house of his own?
By 'frequently' do you mean once when their baby is born, and once again 18 years later when the lad moves out, then that doesn't sound too terrible.
Don't forget - they can stay put if they wish - they just won't be subsidised for the space they don't need. It's not really a draconian policy.
SpeckledJim said:
Well, that's what people do for jobs.
By 'frequently' do you mean once when their baby is born, and once again 18 years later when the lad moves out, then that doesn't sound too terrible.
Don't forget - they can stay put if they wish - they just won't be subsidised for the space they don't need. It's not really a draconian policy.
Indeed, and I have moved a number of times (and paid way rather a lot of stamp duty too).By 'frequently' do you mean once when their baby is born, and once again 18 years later when the lad moves out, then that doesn't sound too terrible.
Don't forget - they can stay put if they wish - they just won't be subsidised for the space they don't need. It's not really a draconian policy.
However, I was thinking of the more transient nature of some people, let's say 2-3 children who all are around similar ages say 15-19. One leaves home for a period. Then perhaps another does to move in with their boyfriend/girlfriend. But that doesn't work out so one of them comes back. Then a different one moves out. Then one of the other ones moves back in as their relationship didn't work out. I may not be making much sense but I know what I have in mind here and just how difficult I think this could be.
Jasandjules said:
SpeckledJim said:
Well, that's what people do for jobs.
By 'frequently' do you mean once when their baby is born, and once again 18 years later when the lad moves out, then that doesn't sound too terrible.
Don't forget - they can stay put if they wish - they just won't be subsidised for the space they don't need. It's not really a draconian policy.
Indeed, and I have moved a number of times (and paid way rather a lot of stamp duty too).By 'frequently' do you mean once when their baby is born, and once again 18 years later when the lad moves out, then that doesn't sound too terrible.
Don't forget - they can stay put if they wish - they just won't be subsidised for the space they don't need. It's not really a draconian policy.
However, I was thinking of the more transient nature of some people, let's say 2-3 children who all are around similar ages say 15-19. One leaves home for a period. Then perhaps another does to move in with their boyfriend/girlfriend. But that doesn't work out so one of them comes back. Then a different one moves out. Then one of the other ones moves back in as their relationship didn't work out. I may not be making much sense but I know what I have in mind here and just how difficult I think this could be.
blugnu said:
Dimbo said:
Did she think it would be knocked down after she died if she had bought it?
No. Being as she had lived through the depression in the 30's and been brought up in a stone house with no water, gas or electricity on the side of a hill in Shropshire, in which her father used to keep the animals at night for warmth she was rather taken with the post-war idea of the state using it's resources to redistribute wealth and provide affordable, comfortable modern homes for those that survived the war to live in - and she was intensely proud of hers. She viewed it as hers, as you would having lived there for over 50 years.So I expect she rather hoped that her home would continue to be used in that manner. Sadly it looks like it has been bought since and so another family home has been lost to the stock that the council has to offer, so the shortages are worse.
It doesn't make sense to me.
I'd prefer to concentrate more on:
cutting the expense of benefits expenditure on those who could work but refuse (and there are enough of them around)
people who have never contributed NI and taxes but expect to share the benefits those things pay for, including the supposed economic migrants who come here with no job and yet access services - if you've no job you're not an economic migrant in my book - you are a chancer or a beggar
those who knowingly ruin their own health but then demand the services of the NHS; fly in 'health tourists' ditto
the ludicrous spend on aspects of the legal and related systems (the allowing of career criminals and unremediated scum being in and out - or just out - as they continue to steal, assault etc.) prisons, probation services
tax avoidance and the govt's apparent inability to claim back missed tax and ill gotten gains, including for convicted criminal beneficiaries of crime
and the cost and inefficiencies - and internal, self-directed spending largess - of so many public sector organisations inc, Govt departments.
We could save/claw back more from these and other areas and target the real piss takers and wasters rather than the likes of blugnu's nan.
Edited by AnonSpoilSport on Wednesday 27th March 22:16
BoRED S2upid said:
I agree with everything said on here but do councils have a selection of 1 and 2 bed properties to downsize these people to and I imagine upsize the ones still producing offspring? I imagine this has not been thought through, yes they should be downsized but in reality can the local council do this, do it efficiently and quickly?
this is a highly valid point. The majority of council houses that I am aware of in our region(towerblocks not counted) are 3 bedroom semis.. they outnumber the 1 and 2 bed places by a very large margin
Kermit power said:
Blugnu, do you really not see the glaring flaw in your argument???
Setting aside for a moment the question of whether or not people should actually receive subsidised housing, a three bedroom house costs more to maintain than a 1 bedroom flat, regardless of who owns it.
By continuing to occupy a 3-bedroom house which she no longer needed, your Nan was depriving someone else of that property, thus forcing the council to either build another one or pay for one through private provision. The council's property maintenance bill increases, and the housing stock model becomes completely skewed as well, because they've had to create more larger properties than are needed at the expense of smaller ones.
It's easy to understand why the generation who lived through two world wars and a depression voted themselves the benefits they did, and to an extent it might even have been viable if people had carried on conveniently dying 2 years after they retired, but they didn't, and they also didn't rework the system to take this into account, and from there comes the problem. It's no longer just one extra generation requiring a house larger than they need, but often two generations. The system which was designed in lots of ways to see people paying in for 45+ years and then taking out for maybe 5 is having to try and pay out for 15+ years.
The biggest problem with your Nan's affordable housing is that it wasn't affordable! Yes, it was affordable to her in terms of a direct cost, but it wasn't affordable to society at a macro-economic level.
You say your Nan was a cleaner. You don't say what your granddad did, but if his wife worked as a cleaner, then I assume he also had a working class occupation? Think back to what their grandparents' lives would've been like, assuming they had similar jobs in the Victorian era. They would've considered themselves pretty lucky just to have a home of their own when they had kids. Many working class families would've had to share! The notion of having the luxury of extra bedrooms you didn't need would've been absolutely insane!
Nobody wants to return to the Victorian era, but surely you have to recognise that letting people stay in accommodation they can't afford and no longer need is a step too far? It doesn't matter whether the council had kept the housing stock, or whether it's in private hands, it's all just degrees of how much we can't afford it!
The biggest problem to my mind is the provision of housing benefit at absurd levels. There are people living in properties in Central London receiving £28k in housing benefit every year! It takes the entire income tax yield of four average taxpayers to meet that bill!
OK, so you might say it's unfair that people can't afford to live in the area they've grown up in if housing benefit is capped to a sensible level. That's sad, but why is it any more unfair than the taxpayers footing the bill not being able to live there because they can't afford the rent, due in no small part to the ever-increasing spiral of housing benefit levels.
What should've happened, in my opinion, is that housing benefit should've been capped at a rate equivalent to the rent on a council property of a similar size, to increase by no more than the rate of inflation, and to be paid based directly on the number of people in the household. Yes, private landlords could've demanded sky-high rents, but without housing benefit rates ballooning to meet those absurd demands, they wouldn't have been able to fill their properties, so would've been forced to rent out their properties at rates which tenants could afford, plus people like your Nan would've known from day one that they had a choice between budgeting over the 16+ years they had dependent children for the day when they'd need to pay more to stay in their home (and of course, their other costs would've decreased when their kids left home anyway), or been able to reconcile themselves to the fact that they would have to relocate to somewhere smaller.
Bottom line - the system is unaffordable, and has to change. It's sad for people like your Nan, but not half as sad as it will be if there's a disorderly collapse of the system.
Setting aside for a moment the question of whether or not people should actually receive subsidised housing, a three bedroom house costs more to maintain than a 1 bedroom flat, regardless of who owns it.
By continuing to occupy a 3-bedroom house which she no longer needed, your Nan was depriving someone else of that property, thus forcing the council to either build another one or pay for one through private provision. The council's property maintenance bill increases, and the housing stock model becomes completely skewed as well, because they've had to create more larger properties than are needed at the expense of smaller ones.
It's easy to understand why the generation who lived through two world wars and a depression voted themselves the benefits they did, and to an extent it might even have been viable if people had carried on conveniently dying 2 years after they retired, but they didn't, and they also didn't rework the system to take this into account, and from there comes the problem. It's no longer just one extra generation requiring a house larger than they need, but often two generations. The system which was designed in lots of ways to see people paying in for 45+ years and then taking out for maybe 5 is having to try and pay out for 15+ years.
The biggest problem with your Nan's affordable housing is that it wasn't affordable! Yes, it was affordable to her in terms of a direct cost, but it wasn't affordable to society at a macro-economic level.
You say your Nan was a cleaner. You don't say what your granddad did, but if his wife worked as a cleaner, then I assume he also had a working class occupation? Think back to what their grandparents' lives would've been like, assuming they had similar jobs in the Victorian era. They would've considered themselves pretty lucky just to have a home of their own when they had kids. Many working class families would've had to share! The notion of having the luxury of extra bedrooms you didn't need would've been absolutely insane!
Nobody wants to return to the Victorian era, but surely you have to recognise that letting people stay in accommodation they can't afford and no longer need is a step too far? It doesn't matter whether the council had kept the housing stock, or whether it's in private hands, it's all just degrees of how much we can't afford it!
The biggest problem to my mind is the provision of housing benefit at absurd levels. There are people living in properties in Central London receiving £28k in housing benefit every year! It takes the entire income tax yield of four average taxpayers to meet that bill!
OK, so you might say it's unfair that people can't afford to live in the area they've grown up in if housing benefit is capped to a sensible level. That's sad, but why is it any more unfair than the taxpayers footing the bill not being able to live there because they can't afford the rent, due in no small part to the ever-increasing spiral of housing benefit levels.
What should've happened, in my opinion, is that housing benefit should've been capped at a rate equivalent to the rent on a council property of a similar size, to increase by no more than the rate of inflation, and to be paid based directly on the number of people in the household. Yes, private landlords could've demanded sky-high rents, but without housing benefit rates ballooning to meet those absurd demands, they wouldn't have been able to fill their properties, so would've been forced to rent out their properties at rates which tenants could afford, plus people like your Nan would've known from day one that they had a choice between budgeting over the 16+ years they had dependent children for the day when they'd need to pay more to stay in their home (and of course, their other costs would've decreased when their kids left home anyway), or been able to reconcile themselves to the fact that they would have to relocate to somewhere smaller.
Bottom line - the system is unaffordable, and has to change. It's sad for people like your Nan, but not half as sad as it will be if there's a disorderly collapse of the system.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff