SE23.com - The Official Forum for Forest Hill & Honor Oak, London SE23
Online since 2002  -  10,000+ members

Home | SE23 Topics | Local Businesses | Wider Topics | Offered/Wanted/Lost/Found | Site Feedback | Advertising | Contact
Geddes Hairdressing & Barbering Studio One Armstrong & Co Solicitors


Post Reply  Post Topic 
Pages (3): « First [1] 2 3 Next > Last »
High Paid Council Tennants should be evicted
Author Message
brian


Posts: 2,002
Joined: Apr 2005
Post: #1
04-06-2011 08:39 PM

Looking at the article in todays Daily Telegraph I was amazed that households with income of over 100,000 pounds pa should have council houses.
I am glad the Government are thinking of evicting them but with the governments record we want action not words.
Surely figure should be 50,000 pounds , the higher figure seems very high.
They are depriving needy cases of much needed social housing.

Find all posts by this user Reply
Londondrz


Posts: 1,538
Joined: Apr 2006
Post: #2
04-06-2011 11:05 PM

Look up how much our good friend Bob Crowe makes a year and yet he lives in a council house. Come the revolution my friends, come the revolution.....

Find all posts by this user Reply
roz


Posts: 1,793
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #3
05-06-2011 11:26 AM

Surely you wouldn't want our Council estates to house only the very destitute and become areas of total unemployment and benefit dependence?

Does your figure of £100k or even £50k include benefit entitlements, Brian?

Tell me why we should be subsidising the very rich by not taxing them what we should be. And how many billions are going/have gone on the Royal Wedding and next years Jubilee?

Its difficult to get subsidised accommodation when you have a good salary even if it does mean you are still not in a position to buy your own home so many families are in limbo ( especially now with tightened rules) but there are no rules about what happens if you do well and get a good salary, however I suspect that most people would get out of the Council home as soon as they are able.

Just how many high rollers are there living in Council houses at present then?

Find all posts by this user Reply
brian


Posts: 2,002
Joined: Apr 2005
Post: #4
05-06-2011 12:08 PM

Roz
As Londondrz said that union gentleman lives in a council house and his salary is well over GBP 100k.
I daresay he has a free first class nationwide travel pass as well.

I do not believe you can be arguing for us to continue to subsidise the affluent while the needy require homes. I though you were a socialist .

Find all posts by this user Reply
roz


Posts: 1,793
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #5
05-06-2011 02:38 PM

This is however an argument taken out of context and scale. I very much doubt whether there are many people on that salary who are currently living in council accommodation if they can afford alternatives. If you can produce evidence of hundreds of thousands of people doing so I'd like to see it.
This is really just a bash at Bob Crowe I think. The bigger questions should be about enabling more people to access affordable housing and accessing finance for mortgages. The current scenario is that for reasons which are well known to us, mortgage lending is at a low and is extremely expensive to get with admin costs of around £3k. I'm not advocating reckless lending but it is very hard for people on middle incomes generally, who have families and consequently high outgoings, to access alternatives.

This government therefore needs to produce a policy that addresses all these issues before targeting a small group of people and blaming union activists for the nations' ills.

Incidentally, when MIRAS existed it was effectively subsidised by families on Housing benefit.

Find all posts by this user Reply
brian


Posts: 2,002
Joined: Apr 2005
Post: #6
05-06-2011 04:11 PM

I think I read about 5,000 nationwide. Not a great deal but could help 5,000 needy families.
I agree will far from solve the problem but every little bit helps I guess.
So called union activists certainly do not aid recovery but cannot believe this is a personal vendetta against Sir Bob. I am however surpised he does not feel embarrassed living in subsidised housing with a salary of well over 100 k.

Find all posts by this user Reply
Londondrz


Posts: 1,538
Joined: Apr 2006
Post: #7
05-06-2011 06:21 PM

I didnt put that to bash Bob but thinking about it he is taking the ****

Fittingly from the Daily Mail in 2010 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...s-10k.html

Please tell me why he deserves a council house whilst I struggle to pay my mortgage?

Find all posts by this user Reply
brian


Posts: 2,002
Joined: Apr 2005
Post: #8
05-06-2011 07:23 PM

The answer is he does not deserve a council house and it is a disgrace that he is not shown the door.

Find all posts by this user Reply
jgdoherty


Posts: 297
Joined: Nov 2007
Post: #9
05-06-2011 07:34 PM

Numbers always help - at least a little.

Brian says he reads about "..5,000 nationwide. Not a great deal but could help 5,000 needy families.." It might be assumed he means this number of housholds that collectively earn over the £100k mark.

National bodies cannot agree how many English council homes lie empty.

This seems to vary between 390,000 and 580,00 dependant on how the numbers are reported by individual local authorities. Indeed, what constitutes an empty house is not always consistently applied (this against a backdrop of over 900,000 homes when you add in privately owned properties).

As many as 65-80% of these numbers could be deemed to be long-term empty. Interestingly houses that are beyond repair ar not included.

No matter how you look at it this range of numbers, they dwarf the 5,000 or so occupied nationally by high earners.

Some political mischief is at work here. Why should our focus not be on how we restore and fund the return of the greater number of empty properties to full occupation ?

The effort and resource required to identify, stigmatise and evict these individuals would be massive.

It is hard to believe that reasonable people believe this to be fair and just - but then again if it is to be held that this dogma is right and this political will is to prevail, we are only one step away from insisting that the evicted wear a mark to prevent them re-applying for a home.

Find all posts by this user Reply
roz


Posts: 1,793
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #10
05-06-2011 09:09 PM

Why do we insist on subsidising these ridiculously expensive Royal events when we are all having trouble paying everything? I think that puts Bob Crow into context.

jgdoherty's post hits the nails on the head.

A lot of traditional council housing stock is hard to let and on the way to becoming obselete. Much is considered inappropriate for families. I think there are better ways to focus on a better housing policy rather than to pick on certain and few individuals - to do so is to avoid dealing with the real problem.

Find all posts by this user Reply
robin orton


Posts: 716
Joined: Feb 2009
Post: #11
06-06-2011 08:07 AM

Quote:
And how many billions are going/have gone on the Royal Wedding and next years Jubilee?.....Why do we insist on subsidising these ridiculously expensive Royal events when we are all having trouble paying everything?


Same old story from Roz. Let's not let her wind us up. God save the Queen.

Find all posts by this user Reply
brian


Posts: 2,002
Joined: Apr 2005
Post: #12
06-06-2011 09:06 AM

Yes Roz your anti Royal comments are taken as read.

I guess you would rather have a political appointee like Sir Steve as head of state.

Thankfully your views on not in the majority.

Re highly paid council tennants. I am not suggesting that this is the answer to the waiting list but it is obscene that people with a very high income live in house subsidised by the rest of us.

The empty house scenerio in the public sector usually is in run down houses or areas where people do not really want to live , like minimg villages in Yorkshire.

Find all posts by this user Reply
jgdoherty


Posts: 297
Joined: Nov 2007
Post: #13
06-06-2011 10:08 AM

I think the application of the term obscene to these 5000 or so households is disproportionate and borders on the extreme.

Council housing always served many purposes including assisting in economic and social mobility and there are many people who could not get their foot on the bottom rung of the property ladder (a problem that is not just a contemporary issue) and were grateful for the presence of good quality housing provided by local authorities.

On the obscenity point - is it also obscene that more than 50% of UK mortgages are currently with banks or building societies who in turn received bail-out deals funded by HMG (ie the taxpayer) and thereby saved morgagees who otherwise would have had their lending arrangements foreclosed ?

Of course, the answer is no - and that moral position is not so different from those of the tenants. However the the costs of the subsidised mortgage position is substantially greater.

Any evaluation of what is obscene by reasonable people can better be exampled by the large scale incompetence and greed of bankers and building societies led by people who believed that they had an entitlement to be bailed out in the order of billions if not trillions of pounds in the event of their catastrophic failure.

This posture and belief led to untrammeled. misunderstood and corrupt dealing which caused the biggest banking and building society bail out ever.

I suspect that for the majority of reasonable people, this will be viewed as a realistic application of the term obscene.

Judge not, that ye be not judged.

Find all posts by this user Reply
jon14


Posts: 145
Joined: Sep 2007
Post: #14
06-06-2011 10:10 AM

jgdoherty - I think that's a bit of a spurious argument. How much total housing stock is available is irrelevant to whether or not people earning over 100k should have a council house.

I agree that removing them wouldn't necessarily mean others are worse off (as not all housing is filled, as you say). But I wouldn't mind knowing which houses are empty - I bet they're not the most desirable ones.

Find all posts by this user Reply
michael


Posts: 3,215
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #15
06-06-2011 01:51 PM

When families on incomes above £42k are losing their right to child benefit, when public sector workers are getting made redundant in their thousands, and when too many council owned homes do not meet Decent Homes standards, I cannot see a valid argument for providing some of the best of the council housing stock to a few people in the richest 1% of the population.

It is the majority of people, middle-income earners, who support this subsidised housing. It is important for the government to assist some people on low incomes, but not the highest income earners. And this is not one of those universal benefits like child benefit used to be, it is meant to be targeted, and as such the rules should be tightened.

If we were debating whether it is right for people on £20k or £40k to have a subsidised house, then I think there are many more considerations that need to be taken into account, but once we go above £100k the situation is pretty clear, there is no need for these people to benefit from subsidised housing.

Even if this were not about cutting public expenditure, there is a fairness issue that the government would be right to address.

Find all posts by this user Reply
roz


Posts: 1,793
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #16
06-06-2011 03:17 PM

I don't think its cost effective to focus on a handful of people and pursue expensive legal action to evict them once they earn over a certain sum. I don't actually like the idea of rich people taking council housing per se, but 'rich people' won't get access to it; they rarely did in the past and don't do so now. I worked for Lewisham Council in the 80's and recall hefty limits placed on peoples income levels before they were eligible to apply for Council housing as well as a cap on savings of £16k. This extended to housing association accommodation when this also was allocated through local authorities.

There are currently no upper limits on income for existing tenants. There probably should be in the longer term, but as I said before, we don't also want council estates to be sink estates which house only those on low incomes and on benefit. Mixed communities have always been on the agenda of most governments and I think thats a good thing. It might make sense to impose new limits for future tenants but I do suggest that the few existing ones are left alone as it would cost a lot to remove them. I understand also that without housing benefit subsidy, Council and housing association rents are actually fairly high in any case and it takes a certain salary to support these. Its some time since I worked in the lettings field but I do recall in the early 90's letting a newbuild family house for £400 per month in Southwark amidst discussions of placing people in the poverty trap.

robin orton and brian clearly want to deflect the argument away from the Royal Family without attempting to justify why on earth we should be funding these events and bank rolling these people. Please can they do so as you simply cannot berate people on £100k on milking the system whilst there are multi milliionaires around who've been doing it for years. If its the 'same old story' from me, its the same old silence from them.

If people want to live their lives through a soap opera there's always Coronation Street. No pun intended. My preferred outcome in respect of royalty is that they exist but cost us substantially less and that people take a more hardened view of them as they tend to do in most European countries that still have a monarchy. Its a matter of national subservience here that seems to fit in with and shape the British character.

That to me is realistic and a starting point. There persists in the country a view that these people have a moral right to have financial and societal superiority over us. Save your moral indignation for them and those bankers that jgdoherty reminds us about.

Michael, I agree that fairness ought to be the focus of this government but not just on this issue. They seem to have neglected this aspect on everything else.

Find all posts by this user Reply
rbmartin


Posts: 795
Joined: Nov 2007
Post: #17
06-06-2011 03:41 PM

Do we really want a sink estate such as Kidbrooke or Thamesmead in FH? Look at what happens where the poorest of the poor are all stuck on one estate and then you have the problems associated with that.

The current situation is far from perfect, however I'd rather have a neighbour who respects their flat and surroundings regardless of financial means than ASBO Jimmy.

Find all posts by this user Reply
brian


Posts: 2,002
Joined: Apr 2005
Post: #18
06-06-2011 05:06 PM

Of course we do not only want the poor on council estates but we are not talking about evicting those below 100k. The eviction of over 100k will not much change the average estate and I would suggest most of these few people are living in detached or semi detached houses in areas where everybody else has purchased.
If a law is passed cannot see how it would be a problem evicting them , if they have not left through shame beforehand. They will have no recourse to legal aid so may want to not risk a lot of legal fees.

Roz You again go on about The Royal Family. The OP was not about the Royal Family.
I for one would rather my taxes go to Her Majesty than benefit scroungers.

Find all posts by this user Reply
jgdoherty


Posts: 297
Joined: Nov 2007
Post: #19
07-06-2011 04:26 PM

Ubiquitous Political Fallacies of Policy Wonks vs Democratic Priorities

Policy wonks should conduct their debates away in a policy caves and be reminded that some politicos and journos are only fair-weather friends who climb to these policy caves on slow news days to acquire snippets of information about ubiquitous Political Fallacies that will enhance their own vacuous and doctrinaire positions.

Inevitably, the often mis-reported information is intended to highlight and prop up the individuals making the report. They frequently utilise a brew of self-promoting half truths and political mischief making. Not infrequently issues are inflated way above the actuallite and given credence and priority above many more important, high impact issues. Thus mice are made elephants and the real elephants are diminished.

And so to the political mischief published by the DT, copied from some Policy Wonk debate and discussed on this board. The tones of some of these condemnatory remarks made here, would appear to any reasoned person, to portray a sinful and profligate 5000-strong group of people whom it is essential we stigmatise immediately as they broke some as-yet un-defined rule of “How to Manage Social Housing “.

In some circles, these events would be celebrated as successes when measured against the tenets of those mandate-less adherents to Thatcherite/Cameronian Dogma. Oh what nightmares Margaret must be having given that her holy grail of universal home ownership has broken down to the extent that first-time owners are condemned to not being able get on the ladder in their twenties and may now reach their mid-to-late-30’s before their dreams can be realised. (On a side note perhaps some of these high earner homes may fall into that class because of the salaried contributions of children who cannot afford to flee the nest and buy their own homes – but I digress and I do not really know).

Some perspective, some touch of common sense should be brought to bear. Not least would be the case that Michael makes that democratic society is entitled to examine such issues. It is perfectly acceptable that if the position of high earners renting LA housing needs some better degree of control, it could be important enough that new legislation be scrutinised and enacted.

That is the British way.

What is wholly un-British, is to unfairly accuse, find guilty and punish (eg evict) individuals who have not broken any enacted law. Even in circumstances where revisions to the law are enacted, our democratic legislature has almost never attempted to make a new law apply retrospectively. It may be the case that many of us may be left with doubts about both how this situation came about and the potential effectiveness of legislative change.

Just as importantly, before we all fall in and out of the moral equivalence argument, we cannot judge or condemn the individual tenants of these high earner homes as we know nothing about them or their circumstances.

Debate is good, this is an eclectic board well defended by its members, but the attempted defamation and stigmatisation of people about whom we know nothing are what remain obscene.

There is a long list of mice type issues that are propagated in every democracy; however the sign of a strong democracy is one that recognises its elephants too and can keep a balanced perspective about what priorities will be applied. I have articulated a few such elephants earlier in this thread and will refrain from listing more.

Find all posts by this user Reply
DerbyHillTop


Posts: 120
Joined: Aug 2008
Post: #20
08-06-2011 12:44 PM

jgdoherty,
thanks for your last post. Couldn't agree more.

Find all posts by this user Reply
Pages (3): « First [1] 2 3 Next > Last »

Friends of Blythe Hill Fields