Debate - Council Housing in SE1

YNB79 wrote:

Ivanhoe wrote:

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/duncan-smith-models-bright-red-benefits-cap-2012111949528

Haha, finally some humour on this forum some of this was getting too serious…

Oh, so you left 10+ posts on this topic, but all you were after was a bit of satire? Right.

Is YNB79 and Orione one of the same? Their grammar, punctuation and sentence structure is very similar.

eDWaRD WooDWaRD wrote:

YNB79 wrote:

Ivanhoe wrote:

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/duncan-smith-models-bright-red-benefits-cap-2012111949528

Haha, finally some humour on this forum some of this was getting too serious…

Oh, so you left 10+ posts on this topic, but all you were after was a bit of satire? Right.

Lighten up. You can have a debate and not take it so personally. I appreciated Ivanhoe post, I thought it was good. That’s has nothing to do with my motives to participate in this forum.

Eileen wrote:

Is YNB79 and Orione one of the same? Their grammar, punctuation and sentence structure is very similar.

Not sure about Orion but is he as dyslectic as me?

i saw in the Southwark news that Southwark Council are going to give 50% of all new builds to local residents where possible-you would still need to go through the bidding proceedure but there will be an extra category for people living in the immediate area or on an estate where new build has taken place. The idea is to try and keep families and communities together so back to a similar scheme to the past!!!

WEll let's see if that works out....

Debate on affordable housing and mixed communities from last night's Southwark council assembly:

Following requests the Debate on Council Housing is now back in its proper home.

The outline of my proposition is as follows:

Reform of Council Housing Allocation to favour Local Working People

Background:

- London needs Council Housing to function socially and economically - but the reasons and principles under which it was established were perverted and distorted by the Labour Government in the 1960s. The result is that Council Estates have slowly but steadily been transformed from places where working people once aspired to live into islands of predominantly welfare-dependent tenants.

- The result is that London has become a patchwork of homes either for the very wealthy or the very poor. There is nothing available for the middle-ground - for working people on low to middle incomes. This group have effectively had to move out of London. This wrong and un-just, given that they are paying taxes to support Council Housing which in the pre-1960s allocation system they would have been eligible for.

- Central London is an area of high employment - it makes no social or economic sense nor for Council Estates to exist as islands of workless benefits recipients when the workers have to travel miles to get into London.

- There have always been rich and poor in London - but Local Councils should not be distorting these differences by allocating Council Homes by default preference to the poorest welfare classes in society.

The Proposition:

- The allocation of Council Housing would favour people who are in work and who have resided in the local area for a number of years or who have close family ties to the local area.

- Retired, disabled, long-term sick, carers, ex-armed forces would also be prioritised for Council Homes.

- 2 years plus unemployed Council Tenants of working age and who are not disabled or dealing with long-term illness, would be given a choice: A: Work. B: Accept re-housing in areas of low employment outside London.

- Tenants earning below the London Living Wage would pay a lower rent than those earning above the LLW.

The Benefits:

- Those in society who work and contribute tax and who have a long-term stake in the local area would be rewarded with a Council Home. The injustices with the current allocation system would be removed.

- Those who choose not to work and exist on benefits would be incentivised to find work.

- The reforms would also serve the dual purpose of flushing-out illegal tenancies as Councils would be forced to audit all existing tenancies.

- Rent receipts and Council tax receipts overall would rise, giving the Council more funding to undertake repairs and energy upgrades - possibly even providing some funding to build more Council Homes. The increased revenue would act as an incentive for Councils to get on with the reforms.

Floodplain wrote:

The allocation of Council Housing would favour people who are in work and who have resided in the local area for a number of years or who have close family ties to the local area.

- Retired, disabled, long-term sick, carers, ex-armed forces would also be prioritised for Council Homes.

Floodplain, here are my initial thoughts/questions.

How would you define "in work"? In these days of zero-hours contracts and increasing numbers of self-employed (many out of necessity rather than choice, and with varying patterns of activity v inactivity) this is less and less straightforward. Simplest definition is probably "not receiving unemployment benefit", but I'm not sure how well that aligns with your idea of "working people".

What would constitute "a number of years"?

How to define "close family ties"?

I raise these questions not really to nit-pick, but to emphasise the point that all these criteria have to be defined so that any individual decision to give or withhold prioritisation can be objectively validated if challenged. We have to be sure it's possible to derive defined criteria from these broad brush principles, otherwise the proposition's not viable.

When you say "favour people" and "prioritised", what do you have in mind? Is it a binary thing, either you go on the favoured/prioritised list (and thus have a chance of getting a council property) or you don't (and thus have no chance)? Or somehow points-based, and factored together with other measures of need/entitlement?

Why favour ex-armed forces uniquely amongst all (ex-)occupations? Do you think they're necessarily more deserving than e.g. ex-teachers, ex-health service, ex-emergency services workers?

Dave raises some very valid points. It's so difficult to set criteria that enables a fair appraisal of competing applications for limited housing. I agree with the "not receiving unemployment benefit" criterion as being one that should mean people are prioritised. It's the people who earn pittance, paying exorbitant private sector rents, that I really feel sorry for.

As for ex forces, I think they are in a bit of a unique position - not only do they provide a service to the country, but they are dumped out at the end of it, especially those serving in the lower ranks.