WHY?

[number 6]

My friend has lived in her council house for 25 years, she has recently had a career boost and is earning a little more money(we are not talking a kings ransom here). She has received a letter from the council asking her to think about moving to the private sector,and she will have visitors from the council to talk this over. So this is the tory mindset,uproot people from the houses they have had for years purely because they dont own them and they think they may be earning too much. Pure scum.

[pornoshop]

I don't understand the problem here

[randyandy]

pornoshop wrote:

> I don't understand the problem here

Snap

[Jonone]

Isn't the issue (or 'problem' if you frame it in such a way) one of choice ? If a local Govt representative is visiting just to ensure that the tenant is fully aware of the range of housing options then that's a service - the provision of information. If they have an agenda and a preferred outcome then I think that's wrong.

It may be that because of an increase in earnings which she's reported her entitlement to a reduction in council tax or other benefits has been affected and the visit is just to establish that she's receiving what she's due ?

Often communication from Gov't departments is very vague.

[Webby Pops]

Surely council houses are for people with no other option but to seek housing from the government... if she's not in that position any longer, and could rent privately/buy a home herself, then why should she occupy a house that another family could be in desperate need of?

[Jonone]

You say 'surely' - that suggests that your mind is made up. You say you're playing Devil's Advocate but it seems like you're pretty invested in being 'right' ?

[David Johnson]

I have to say I agree with Number 6 here. I think an understanding of the history of council housing helps.

1.Council housing started mainly in 1919 after the government responded to a campaign for Homes fit for Heroes at the end of the First World War. Enshrined in the Housing Act of 1919 was a responsibility for local councils to provide housing.

2. At the end of the Second World War, a huge rebuilding project was required since so many houses had been destroyed in bombing raids. The Attlee Labour government introduced housing legislation that removed explicit references to housing for the working class and introduced the concept of 'general needs' construction (i.e., that council housing should aim to fill needs for a wide range of society). In particular, the Minister for Health & Housing (Aneurin Bevan) promoted a vision of new estates where "the working man, the doctor and the clergyman will live in close proximity to each other". This concept was dispensed with by the Tory government at the end of the fifties.

3. Margaret Thatcher espoused the idea to paraphrase "successes in life buy their own houses, failures live in council houses which we as a government want as little to do with as possible" THe result of this policy was that council house building slumped and people were encouraged to buy their own council houses under the right to buy scheme at up to 60% discounts depending on how long they had lived in them. Councils were forbidden to put the proceeds back into building replacement council houses.

So in short, the Tory party completely undermined the concept of government housing available for all which in truth, subsequent Labour governments have done little or nothing to rectify. And now there is a huge problem in the absence of council housing availability.

In general, nowadays, the commonly held media view is that chavs live in council houses i.e. they are only there for the really desperate in society. So if someone like Number 6's mate gets a pay rise, in Tory terms she is no longer a chav, but one of us and should move out of chav land to make way for more chavs.

This setting of one sector against another i.e. Tory argument "Why should people in the private sector housing pay taxes to subsidise people in council houses etc etc." is evil. It is a similar argument that the Tories are using for reducing public sector pensions so that dinner ladies work longer, pay more and get less in their pensions i.e "Look the private sector workers get ripped off left right and centre by their employers and get crap pensions, why shouldnt you?"

What the Tories do not mention is that house owners overall have had huge subsidies paid for by the tax payer over the years. For instance mortgage tax relief was available from the sixties until 2000. And although there is a slump in house prices at the moment, many people have made huge profits without any capital gains tax on selling their assets.

So in summary, by setting one group of the population against another, you can see an underlying logic in Tory thinking but on closer analysis it's the same old shite.

Give it 5 years and we will have Tories trotting out "HOw can it be right for a healthy 22 year old to pay taxes to support health treatments for an 80 year old pensioner when she is so much more likely to need treatment than he is?" Cue the abolishment of all standard benefits and the end of state involvement in anything. The NHS becomes a brand name behing which KPMG and a host of multinationals sit.

Cheers
D

[RoddersUK]

So how did the local council discover her pay rise? Is she a council employee?
Just because someone gets a pay rise doesn't automatically mean that they can afford to pay private sector rents. If she was on a pittance to start with and a small increase takes her out of of it but not enough to pay an increased rent or satisfy a mortgage lender to lend her a mortgage what gives the council the right to say move out of your home that isn't yours but ours just because of a small increase.
I aint a tory but at the same time I aint Labour any longer, Thatcher and fucking Blair did that for me, and no I aint a fucking useless idiotic liberal either. Nor am I a BNP fucking nazi.

[pornoshop]

what a totally unnecessary long winded post David. Totally missing the point of the current situation in debate

[Webby Pops]

Couldn't care less to be honest (make love not war brigade here lol), but for the sake of argument, please feel free to exchange 'surely' with any of the following; clearly; presumably; theoretically; supposedly or any other word that will fit (and offend your position most, of course - that's the devil's advocate part!).