OVLOV JAY:
I’m in the same boat as the op, although I have a family to support. I think there’s a few myths to dispel about social housing. Firstly it’s not subsidised rent, or below market rent, as social and private are two different markets. Take my place, built in the 60s, and even with inflation it’s been bought and paid for about 4 times over. It’s all a vicious circle. Council housing used to be for the working families who couldn’t afford a mortgage, to give them half a chance at living a decent life. Nowadays it seems societies view is only the pond scum should have them. What’s my alternative then? I can’t buy as the cheapest 3 bed house in within 50 miles of me is 140k. The biggest mortgage I can get is 110, so I’d need a pretty big sofa to find 30k behind it. And I was in private accommodation, and our landlord died, his son sold the house, and we ended up in social housing. Now I have an assured tenancy and I wouldn’t give it up for anything
If it isn’t subsidised then who pays for the difference between the private market value rental v the obviously cheaper council rental.
As for ‘what’s the alternative’ that is what many of those so called militant enemy within were fighting people like Callaghan and Thatcher about.IE sufficient wages to look after themselves and not be reliant on state subsidies in the form of social ( socialist ) housing.Who were in large part defeated by those working class council tenants who supported Thatcher’s low wage economy ideas because they preferred the idea of state handouts in the form of a state subsidised discount council house sale. 
As the bumper stickers say-
Work harder, those on benefits depend on you!
And
Born free, taxed to death.
OVLOV JAY:
I’m in the same boat as the op, although I have a family to support. I think there’s a few myths to dispel about social housing. Firstly it’s not subsidised rent, or below market rent, as social and private are two different markets. Take my place, built in the 60s, and even with inflation it’s been bought and paid for about 4 times over. It’s all a vicious circle. Council housing used to be for the working families who couldn’t afford a mortgage, to give them half a chance at living a decent life. Nowadays it seems societies view is only the pond scum should have them. What’s my alternative then? I can’t buy as the cheapest 3 bed house in within 50 miles of me is 140k. The biggest mortgage I can get is 110, so I’d need a pretty big sofa to find 30k behind it. And I was in private accommodation, and our landlord died, his son sold the house, and we ended up in social housing. Now I have an assured tenancy and I wouldn’t give it up for anything
Well, even Shelter (england.shelter.org.uk/) appear to disagree with you there:
“Social housing is let at low rents on a secure basis to those who are most in need or struggling with their housing costs. Normally councils and not-for-profit organisations (such as housing associations) are the ones to provide social housing.” They go on to say that rent increases are controlled by law, specifically to keep them “affordable” (i.e. lower than the open market). And it is subsidised (even though you may not be directly receiving e.g. Housing Benefit). e.g. in my area a fifth of the local council’s spending goes on Housing - the vast majority of it directly to the Housing Associations who operate the social housing.
I remember an old pal of mine who passed away about two years ago in his nineties still living in the same rented house that he had when he married in 1946, the original landlord had kept his rent roughly the same from 1946 until 1993 when the landlord died. The son then owned the property and wanted to increase the rent to around £50 per week and my pal took him to a tribunal to complain about the increase as he was a ‘poor pensioner’, unfortunately they checked his bank account which was around the 28 grand mark and his case collapsed! I asked him why he had never bought the house as he had been offered it several times over the 50+ years, his comment was “why should I buy it and then have to pay for repairs etc when I can get it all done for free”?
We never intended buying but did in the end, our mortgage finishes next year when I will be 66, but it isn’t a large one. The house cost £19.500 and we borrowed 17 grand, I couldn’t get a mortgage easily as my wage was low and made up with bonus payments which of course don’t impress lenders! If I had my time again I would buy asap even if I was single. 
Pete.
I’ll be buying a house in the next few years under this new government scheme where first time buyers under 40 can get a 20% discount on a new build. It’s to help young(ish) people get a foot on the property ladder.
And I’ll be paying cash ta very much 
Carryfast:
OVLOV JAY:
I’m in the same boat as the op, although I have a family to support. I think there’s a few myths to dispel about social housing. Firstly it’s not subsidised rent, or below market rent, as social and private are two different markets. Take my place, built in the 60s, and even with inflation it’s been bought and paid for about 4 times over. It’s all a vicious circle. Council housing used to be for the working families who couldn’t afford a mortgage, to give them half a chance at living a decent life. Nowadays it seems societies view is only the pond scum should have them. What’s my alternative then? I can’t buy as the cheapest 3 bed house in within 50 miles of me is 140k. The biggest mortgage I can get is 110, so I’d need a pretty big sofa to find 30k behind it. And I was in private accommodation, and our landlord died, his son sold the house, and we ended up in social housing. Now I have an assured tenancy and I wouldn’t give it up for anything
If it isn’t subsidised then who pays for the difference between the private market value rental v the obviously cheaper council rental.
As for ‘what’s the alternative’ that is what many of those so called militant enemy within were fighting people like Callaghan and Thatcher about.IE sufficient wages to look after themselves and not be reliant on state subsidies in the form of social ( socialist ) housing.Who were in large part defeated by those working class council tenants who supported Thatcher’s low wage economy ideas because they preferred the idea of state handouts in the form of a state subsidised discount council house sale.
Carryfast mate, move on, let it go man it appears to stick in your crop quite badly, that a lot of people have bought a council house ( or as you prefer it a hovel) for a lot less than market value, and even more ■■■■■■ because us council house tenants (or as you prefer ‘spongers’) are paying rent that is less than the private sector rate.
Is the real reason that you think you may have missed out on something, is that why it bothers you so much.
I’ll tell you what I’ll do mate, I’ll tell them that our mate Carryfast , who’s specialist subject is …well just about every ■■■■■■ thing, reckons I should be charged more for my rent than the going rate, that rate is set, not negotiable, but I will volunteer to pay more than everybody else. Would that make you feel better?
I am sure if you found yourself in my situation many years ago, where things had gone ■■■■ up, and you were totally on your arse with 4 kids to house and feed, as I was, that you would not have lowered yourself to move into a mere council house …or would you?
Or is it just that you would have done exactly the ■■■■■■ same, and in reality it is that you are just all wind and ■■■■.
robroy:
Carryfast mate, move on, let it go man it appears to stick in your crop quite badly, that a lot of people have bought a council house ( or as you prefer it a hovel) for a lot less than market value, and even more ■■■■■■ because us council house tenants (or as you prefer ‘spongers’) are paying rent that is less than the private sector rate.
Is the real reason that you think you may have missed out on something, is that why it bothers you so much.
I’ll tell you what I’ll do mate, I’ll tell them that our mate Carryfast , who’s specialist subject is …well just about every [zb] thing, reckons I should be charged more for my rent than the going rate, that rate is set, not negotiable, but I will volunteer to pay more than everybody else. Would that make you feel better?
I am sure if you found yourself in my situation many years ago, where things had gone ■■■■ up, and you were totally on your arse with 4 kids to house and feed, as I was, that you would not have lowered yourself to move into a mere council house …or would you?
Or is it just that you would have done exactly the [zb] same, and in reality it is that you are just all wind and ■■■■.
‘The going rate’ being the accepted private rental’ cost with no state aid or subsidy whatsoever at least for anyone in work.As for the rest I couldn’t care less about all your ifs and buts about that simple issue.If anyone is working then its their guvnor’s responsibility to pay for their housing costs not the state and taxpayers.Many of those taxpayers already struggling to pay for their own housing costs with no help from the state.That struggle obviously being a lot easier if those Thatcher supporting social housing claimants had decided to help to kick her and her banker cronies out in favour of a better jobs and wage environment.Instead of voting for handouts in the form of a cheap taxpayer subsidised housing sell off.
Terry T:
I’ll be buying a house in the next few years under this new government scheme where first time buyers under 40 can get a 20% discount on a new build. It’s to help young(ish) people get a foot on the property ladder.
And I’ll be paying cash ta very much
And who pays for the missing 20%.While define exactly what you mean by ‘property ladder’.Im guessing that doesn’t mean a condition that you can’t sell the place for more than you’ve actually paid for it.
Carryfast:
robroy:
Carryfast mate, move on, let it go man it appears to stick in your crop quite badly, that a lot of people have bought a council house ( or as you prefer it a hovel) for a lot less than market value, and even more ■■■■■■ because us council house tenants (or as you prefer ‘spongers’) are paying rent that is less than the private sector rate.
Is the real reason that you think you may have missed out on something, is that why it bothers you so much.
I’ll tell you what I’ll do mate, I’ll tell them that our mate Carryfast , who’s specialist subject is …well just about every [zb] thing, reckons I should be charged more for my rent than the going rate, that rate is set, not negotiable, but I will volunteer to pay more than everybody else. Would that make you feel better?
I am sure if you found yourself in my situation many years ago, where things had gone ■■■■ up, and you were totally on your arse with 4 kids to house and feed, as I was, that you would not have lowered yourself to move into a mere council house …or would you?
Or is it just that you would have done exactly the [zb] same, and in reality it is that you are just all wind and ■■■■.
‘The going rate’ being the accepted private rental’ cost with no state aid or subsidy whatsoever at least for anyone in work.As for the rest I couldn’t care less about all your ifs and buts about that simple issue.If anyone is working then its their guvnor’s responsibility to pay for their housing costs not the state and taxpayers.Many of those taxpayers already struggling to pay for their own housing costs with no help from the state.That struggle obviously being a lot easier if those Thatcher supporting social housing claimants had decided to help to kick her and her banker cronies out in favour of a better jobs and wage environment.Instead of voting for handouts in the form of a cheap taxpayer subsidised housing sell off.
So you refuse to answer my hypothetical question, but instead (and true to form) deflect it, and throw around your ‘Political history according to Carryfast’ rants, which are a mixture and concoction of fact, unsubstantiated personal opinion and total drivel.
robroy:
So you refuse to answer my hypothetical question, but instead (and true to form) deflect it, and throw around your ‘Political history according to Carryfast’ rants, which are a mixture and concoction of fact, unsubstantiated personal opinion and total drivel.
Firstly I’m guessing that you do know that you’re arguing with a reformed disillusioned ex Socialist in my case ?.
To answer your question just like the NHS ‘if’/‘when’ I ever have to resort to Socialist provision by necessity yes I’d obviously have to take it.
However the difference is ‘if’/‘when’ that provision is ever inevitably cut or removed or dished out on a face fits basis etc etc I’m long since a realist who understands that goes with the territory.In which case my complaints are now directed where they belong at the system in which it isn’t more Socialism which is the answer.But sufficient incomes which allow people to look after themselves.In which case as I said,like all the other Socialist bs,the social housing budget should be abolished,at least regards anyone currently in employment,putting the responsibility onto employers instead in the form of sufficient incomes and jobs.The difficult bit is obviously going to be how the government manage the issue of how to make,and who pays for the costs of,the changeover.However it seems obvious that changeover by definition means that it’s at least the employers’ responsibility to pay for the social costs of all those who are employed.Not the state.
On that basis when I found myself in a similar/worse situation to yourself because of Thatcher’s economic policies no I didn’t bother with asking the council for somewhere to live.I chose to stay in the parental home thereby helping to clear the mortgage faster and at least thereby providing a more secure refuge in the long term.Having also reduced my dependency on the state in the form of private income protection which did eventually make the difference between the mercy of the JSA rules in the case of being put out of the job on medical grounds.As opposed to at least a better measure of financial security.
On that note let me guess you’re going to try to re write history to show that Thatcher wasn’t helped into power in large part by the socialist housing vote looking for an even better state subsidised house offer.
I own my own home in a nice country village. Paid for by long hours and not wasting income on trash.
As one psychology lecturer once said “double the working mans wages and it would be another packet of ■■■■ and another sierra engine on the front garden”. The amusing thing was, I knew just how true that statement was. 
LIBERTY_GUY:
I own my own home in a nice country village. Paid for by long hours and not wasting income on trash.
As one psychology lecturer once said “double the working mans wages and it would be another packet of ■■■■ and another sierra engine on the front garden”. The amusing thing was, I knew just how true that statement was.
Sounds more like a typical Con Party supporter.You do realise that being able to pay the mortgage is dependent on sufficient disposable incomes to keep a modern industrial economy moving.IE the measure of how good the economy is doing is how much money is being spent on things like cars etc etc etc.Just so long as the cars in question are actually made here.Ironically considering the mention of the Sierra it’s called Fordist Capitalism.Anything else is just bs.
Carryfast:
LIBERTY_GUY:
I own my own home in a nice country village. Paid for by long hours and not wasting income on trash.
As one psychology lecturer once said “double the working mans wages and it would be another packet of ■■■■ and another sierra engine on the front garden”. The amusing thing was, I knew just how true that statement was.
Sounds more like a typical Con Party supporter.You do realise that being able to pay the mortgage is dependent on sufficient disposable incomes to keep a modern industrial economy moving.IE the measure of how good the economy is doing is how much money is being spent on things like cars etc etc etc.Just so long as the cars in question are actually made here.Ironically considering the mention of the Sierra it’s called Fordist Capitalism.Anything else is just bs.
Whatever it is, I am just grateful I only pass through the ethnic crapholes in the daytime and go home to a different England away from it all.
To get a better life you either work longer hours or go to evening classes and get a better paid job. Only help you can truly rely upon is self help.
Carryfast:
Terry T:
I’ll be buying a house in the next few years under this new government scheme where first time buyers under 40 can get a 20% discount on a new build. It’s to help young(ish) people get a foot on the property ladder.
And I’ll be paying cash ta very much
And who pays for the missing 20%.While define exactly what you mean by ‘property ladder’.Im guessing that doesn’t mean a condition that you can’t sell the place for more than you’ve actually paid for it.
Here, read it for yourself.
Carryfast:
robroy:
So you refuse to answer my hypothetical question, but instead (and true to form) deflect it, and throw around your ‘Political history according to Carryfast’ rants, which are a mixture and concoction of fact, unsubstantiated personal opinion and total drivel.
Firstly I’m guessing that you do know that you’re arguing with a reformed disillusioned ex Socialist in my case ?.
To answer your question just like the NHS ‘if’/‘when’ I ever have to resort to Socialist provision by necessity yes I’d obviously have to take it.
However the difference is ‘if’/‘when’ that provision is ever inevitably cut or removed or dished out on a face fits basis etc etc I’m long since a realist who understands that goes with the territory.In which case my complaints are now directed where they belong at the system in which it isn’t more Socialism which is the answer.But sufficient incomes which allow people to look after themselves.In which case as I said,like all the other Socialist bs,the social housing budget should be abolished,at least regards anyone currently in employment,putting the responsibility onto employers instead in the form of sufficient incomes and jobs.The difficult bit is obviously going to be how the government manage the issue of how to make,and who pays for the costs of,the changeover.However it seems obvious that changeover by definition means that it’s at least the employers’ responsibility to pay for the social costs of all those who are employed.Not the state.
On that basis when I found myself in a similar/worse situation to yourself because of Thatcher’s economic policies no I didn’t bother with asking the council for somewhere to live.I chose to stay in the parental home thereby helping to clear the mortgage faster and at least thereby providing a more secure refuge in the long term.Having also reduced my dependency on the state in the form of private income protection which did eventually make the difference between the mercy of the JSA rules in the case of being put out of the job on medical grounds.As opposed to at least a better measure of financial security.
On that note let me guess you’re going to try to re write history to show that Thatcher wasn’t helped into power in large part by the socialist housing vote looking for an even better state subsidised house offer.
Well I did not have the option of moving back in with my parents in their Council house, (sorry hovel) with my wife and 4 kids. If I had still been single things would have been different. So again, in my situation, not yours, (and given your admirable strict principles) hypothetically what would you have done, council house or cardboard box?
Oh, hang on, I have just noticed the other part of your post. I see…, so in effect you are now telling us that you are a bit selective with your principles, you don’t mind utilising and taking advantage of the socialist based NHS. I would have thought that a man who does not approve of anything that Socialism stands for, would have went private every time. 
Do I detect a bit of hypocrisy here.
Can I just warn you that by admitting to this, that some may label you as a sponger,… and that would never do Carryfast me old mate, would it.
Terry T:
Carryfast:
Terry T:
I’ll be buying a house in the next few years under this new government scheme where first time buyers under 40 can get a 20% discount on a new build. It’s to help young(ish) people get a foot on the property ladder.
And I’ll be paying cash ta very much
And who pays for the missing 20%.While define exactly what you mean by ‘property ladder’.Im guessing that doesn’t mean a condition that you can’t sell the place for more than you’ve actually paid for it.
Here, read it for yourself.
It seems to say that the saving to developers is around £15,000 which is what the ‘discount’ is supposedly based on.Assuming that is supposedly a 20% discount that would obviously mean a house with a market value of only £75,000.
As for the resale condition that obviously isn’t permanent.
So the reality is a 20% discount created by a subsidy in whatever form representing around £30,000 per buyer assuming a house value of £150,000 x around 100,000 buyers.Although those figures will be way out assuming anywhere in the South East.
While the definition of ‘housing ladder’ obviously means they’ll put a limited no resale at a profit time period in to make it look good.Then after that the new first time buyer can flog the place for a state subsidised profit in the hope of a free upgrade to somewhere better at the next buyer’s expense.Or in other words yet another example of the Con version of ‘Capitalism’ in action.
robroy:
Well I did not have the option of moving back in with my parents in their Council house, (sorry hovel) with my wife and 4 kids. If I had still been single things would have been different. So again, in my situation, not yours, (and given your admirable strict principles) hypothetically what would you have done, council house or cardboard box?
Oh, hang on, I have just noticed the other part of your post. I see…, so in effect you are now telling us that you are a bit selective with your principles, you don’t mind utilising and taking advantage of the socialist based NHS. I would have thought that a man who does not approve of anything that Socialism stands for, would have went private every time.
Do I detect a bit of hypocrisy here.
Can I just warn you that by admitting to this, that some may label you as a sponger,… and that would never do Carryfast me old mate, would it.
Firstly in my case no I didn’t move back in with my parents I never moved out because as I said my wages,just like the whingers keep on complaining about now,wouldn’t pay for the cost of a house.Even the price of a massively discounted quick sale from a neighbour who needed a quick sale to buy an even better deal that he’d found.
As for being a supposed Hypocrite because,like most others,I’m dependent on the NHS the difference is I know that the whole bs socialist answer to a low wage problem is doomed to failure sooner or later.Be it the NHS,social security system,state pension or social housing.
The idea of dealing with that in the form of yet more socialism,as opposed to at least making a start on transferring as much of that burden as possible to the wage regime,so that people can afford to look after themselves instead of relying on the state,being the point.
Carryfast:
robroy:
Well I did not have the option of moving back in with my parents in their Council house, (sorry hovel) with my wife and 4 kids. If I had still been single things would have been different. So again, in my situation, not yours, (and given your admirable strict principles) hypothetically what would you have done, council house or cardboard box?
Oh, hang on, I have just noticed the other part of your post. I see…, so in effect you are now telling us that you are a bit selective with your principles, you don’t mind utilising and taking advantage of the socialist based NHS. I would have thought that a man who does not approve of anything that Socialism stands for, would have went private every time.
Do I detect a bit of hypocrisy here.
Can I just warn you that by admitting to this, that some may label you as a sponger,… and that would never do Carryfast me old mate, would it.
Firstly in my case no I didn’t move back in with my parents I never moved out because as I said my wages,just like the whingers keep on complaining about now,wouldn’t pay for the cost of a house.Even the price of a massively discounted quick sale from a neighbour who needed a quick sale to buy an even better deal that he’d found.
As for being a supposed Hypocrite because,like most others,I’m dependent on the NHS the difference is I know that the whole bs socialist answer to a low wage problem is doomed to failure sooner or later.Be it the NHS,social security system,state pension or social housing.
The idea of dealing with that in the form of yet more socialism,as opposed to at least making a start on transferring as much of that burden as possible to the wage regime,so that people can afford to look after themselves instead of relying on the state,being the point.
As I said mate,… In my situation, Council house or cardboard box■■?
robroy:
As I said mate,… In my situation, Council house or cardboard box■■?
Or train driver’s type wages but like them no one will get that unless they fight for it. 
Carryfast:
robroy:
As I said mate,… In my situation, Council house or cardboard box■■?
Or train driver’s type wages but like them no one will get that unless they fight for it.
What’s wrong Carryfast, is it really so hard to answer the question in a direct way, that I have posed to you 3 times. Admit it, that given the circumstances to deal with, as I did, that you would have done exactly the bloody same , when handed a lifeline by the dreaded Socialist society.
Is it really too much of a conflict with your conscience?..surely not, I mean you have already admitted to being (as you would probably say) a serial sponger off the Socialist Health service, so what is another small confession between friends.
So come on let’s hear it, or are even you running out of smokescreen gobbldegook/bullcrap to evade the question , I find that hard to believe in your case.