Gillingham FC Forum

Concentrate on creating truly affordable housing for the lower paid worker.

Or a decent system of Social Housing that people were not stigmatised to raise a family in and then sell them to people who in reality couldn't afford to buy them and then not replace the ones you sell.

I am not getting into the social housing debate as it is too open to people who are the "undeserving poor" to quote Mr Doolittle. As for being for life; not sure that should be the case either. Affordable should mean someone who earns £8.00 an hour (average rate offered locally at the moment) can afford to rent something that gives them a bit of self respect, but not necessarily a traditional brick and slate property!

But surely the rise of private rental housing is a direct result of market forces. That trite catch-phrase that is used by every Tory I've ever known. The fact that the average working person now cannot afford to rent a decent house now is because we (rightly or wrongly) sold off our stock of council housing. I grew up in a council house as did many of my friends. It was not looked down on. We were not marginalised. It just was that way. As soon as the decision was made to sell them then the free market economy was always going to fill the gap in the market. Unfortunately the limited social housing that we do have now is not for the average working person it is for the less unpleasant elements of society and that automatically precludes a lot of decent people moving into those areas and forces them into the private market.

"it is too open to people who are the "undeserving poor" to quote Mr Doolittle"

What does this mean - what is "undeserving poor" in relation to "poor"

I think Posh described them well. The more unpleasant of society. When I was married my stepgaughter was a housing officer and she once told me how "Social" housing was allocated. 1. Benefits with children; 2 drug offenders released from rehab, 3.released prisoners; 4 Asylum seekers and then those on the list who are in work.
As for the free market; there is no reason why government can't look outside the box. Change of use for empty office blocks; refurb the thousands of empty houses left after the failure of the regional regeneration schemes, prefabs, static caravans etc. If a maximum returned applied to state backed developments (5%) there are lots of ways rents for single / double occupation properties could be kept below £250 per month. It is possible to create properties of 40 m2 that are comfortable and offer ample living space, but we continue to construct properties in the most expensive way possible.
If we could create these affordable homes people could afford to take many of the jobs being offered and still have a life, not just an existence.

Yeah, yeah, yeah , all the "unpleasant" in our society should have nice housing ,just not anywhere near me thank you. They tell me the Outer Hebrides is very nice at this time of year, give them some sticks and a bit of canvas tell them to go build a tent and enjoy their stinking lives .
Time to employ more "do gooders", doing good for those that don't deserve it or appreciate it.

You obviously have'nt read this thread have or if you have, then you have not understood it!

Anyway, back to the discussion: Agree with what you say Elg. Social Housing is now stigmatised because councils and housing authorities have misguided rules about who they allocate to. No doubt some will blame Lefties in the council, but the point is, the demise of proper council housing is to blame. Not only the housing, but the rules of allocation. Proper waiting lists with means testing. I remember council estates that the peole were proud to live in. Tidy gardens, sense of community. Thats all gone now!

You're right Posh, we too lived in a council house as a family of five and it was seen as a sensible and respectable option for working class people. Appalling policies like creating 'people dumps' with all the problem families deposited in the same estate contributed towards the problem you now describe and, I'm afraid, a succession of photo-opps for Tory politicians smugly handing over the keys of sold-off housing stock. Places , incidentally, that they would n't have lived in if they had been paid to .

The ownership of land is a major issue here but of course when such a lot of it belongs to those nice people like the Royal family, The Duke of Westminster and the church commissioners it is all too delicate to broach.

The construction industry is in dire straits, the ownership of land is preposterously skewed towards inherited estates and there are lots of people out of work. There are answers here so glaringly obvious that even a fool could see them. What's lacking is any kind of political will to challenge the status quo. While we retain the monarchy and the trailing entrails of aristocracy which survives upon the same arcane premise that there is a natural 'ruling class' , nothing will change.

Most property ownership, historically, is the product of theft, invasion and war, later legitimised by the victor's judiciary.

Sorry rimmer that is a bit of a rant. There was less social housing built during the Nu labour boom years than at any time since its inception. The biggest problem is the unregulated price boom that happened from 1998 - 2008. If "cheap" properties were now built many homeowners would scream blue murder because there house values would fall as well. The continuance of this countries obsession with building with the most expensive, least cost effective materials, the supposed stigma of living in high rise flats and the ridiculous size of properties that are built for single / couples causes most of the problems. I am working with a friend of mine on a presentation on "how to provide affordable homes" using available land and properties and it is quite scary how cheaply it could be done. One of the biggest problems is the "snobbery" around alternative housing options.