Abu Hamster

Off-topic
21

Just when you thought this muppet wasn’t gonna be winding you up further…

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/9596251/Abu-Hamzas-wife-asked-to-leave-1m-council-house.html

The children now have their own council houses. She can refuse to leave??? I swear, sometimes I feel like stopping working because I don’t want to pay my taxes so that bullshit like this can carry on. Get the F out the house!

I’m glad we live in a caring society that protects people in need, but this sort of shite really pisses me off…

22

What kind of dumbfuck Council gives a large publicly funded property to a family with no right to reclaim it if they dont need such a big place any more ??? Huh? is this right?

23

All of them.

It is a secure tenancy for a reason. The problem with changing the rules is that it effects everyone, and that doesn’t really seem right given the way that this Government and previous Government’s have behaved towards social tenants.

For instance.

In a secure tenancy you are entitled to make modifications and improvements, you are also expected to maintain the property and to decorate it.

Why should anyone make any improvements to their home, if the Council has the right to turn around at a later date and demand that property back? Why should you even bother decorating or maintaining a property, that effectively is not yours to live in, but is instead taking your hard earned money and improving a property for someone else that the Council will house there?

I think people should be offered the choice to move, but if they wish to stay in a social home that the Council has granted them on a secure tenancy, then they should have that right to remain. Regardless of who their husband is.

24

Its the people who drew up the original tenancy agreement I am having a go at. Give them a council house, fair enough. But for life, no matter what ? No review, no rights for the taxpayer? No rights to rehouse them to something smaller ? Hardly efficient is it ? It doesnt matter that its Hamza’s family. Although that chokes a lot of people.

25

Yes but I have given you good reasons why that is the case, and you have not really addressed them.

To summarise:

Improvement to property, maintainance of property; decoration of property.

I find it difficult to reconcile the idea that people get a “subsidised” rent (even though that is debatable) and yet if they pay to maintain the property, decorate the property, and make improvements to the property, there is no guarantee that the money they spend will be result in any benefit to them.

Since under the implied proposal you are making, the Council can come along at certain periods and decide that they no longer have the right to live there.

Unless you can show some good reason why these concerns are invalid, I can’t see me changing my mind, and would continue to defend the right of social tenants to have a lifelong unassailable right to live in the property, so long as they abide by the rules of their tenancy.

26

amen. if we HAVE to house that family it should be done on the cheap - really cheap imo

27

Double face palm

28
29

“they rarely do most of them simply”

Based on what empirical evidence?

And even if you can prove this point, you are only talking about some. What about the rest?

£142 for a 3 bedroom house in London, you want to call that subsidised.

I would point out that a gucci bag costs £1,200, does that mean the bag I bought the other day for £35 was subsidised? Could you let me in on who it was that subsidised it, I like to thank them for subsidising my purchases.

Just because something is cheap, does not mean that someone else is subsidising it.

Whether it is a regular review or whatever semantic wording you wish to use.

You “suggest” that most don’t do that now, but in reality, if what you propose became reality, NO ONE would do it. No one would improve a property, and my parents put in central heating LONG before the Council deemed it necessary. I know people with garages that they have built, lead glass windows, bannisters, every conceivable change and improvement you can think of.

No matter what way you cut the cake, you will be saying to those people, despite spending money on this property, you are now required to hand over that property to someone else.

You remove any incentive for anyone to every improve, decorate or maintain a social home property.

Yes a guy who was down on his luck and is now earning £100,000 should have a social home, a safe protected tenancy.

The problem is this.

You want to suggest that a lack of social housing should be cured by punishing those in social housing, should their situation change.

I suggest we provide more social housing.

30

It wouldn’t even be a bad idea to have more housing.

Lots of think tanks at the moment are promoting the idea of a massive housing building project.

Here is a snippet from one of them, I know nothing about them, just did a search for the terms after hearing about it on Radio 4 while sitting in traffic the other day, so knew what to search for.

"We have made an assessment of the potential economic impact of raising the annual supply of new houses from the 2010 level of 95,000 to 300,000 by 2015.

We estimate that this would reduce housing rents by 2015 by nearly 11%, with potentially larger effects later. This would increase the affordability of housing especially for young people. We estimate that the potential impact on the rents paid by people under the age of 35 would be to boost their standards of living by 4% by 2015 and by more thereafter.

Not only would increased housebuilding improve living standards, and hence boost spending power, but it would also have a direct impact on GDP"

Why not simply make them social housing?

That fixes your problems Kevsta, and attempts to fix problem elsewhere in our economy and society, without punishing people because they happen to have a secure roof over their heads.

31

F*ck more social housing. Some of us work hard for what we have. Its all this bollocks that leads to people not knowing the true value of money.

32

I don’t understand that level of thinking.

You sound a little like Attoinette saying “let them eat cake”…

You don’t seem to understand that housing has barely any inherent value, its value stems from its scarcity.

Bit like arguing at a time of starvation “f*ck more food, some of us work hard for what we have.”

It is, in my opinion, entirely illogical.

If there was more housing YOUR costs would be reduced.

YOU would benefit.

YOU not someone else, but you.

Unless for some reason you enjoy spending anything from 1/3rd to 1/2th of your income on providing a roof over your head?

33

I don’t mind paying for my own house because I don’t see why others should have to. Also, the satisfaction of standing outside my home and knowing its mine makes it worthwhile.

34

[quote]
Kaos (09/10/2012)

All of them.

[quote]

Not True in my experience as a Council Flat tenant

35

In case anyone else wants one : http://www.kith-kin.co.uk/shop/abu-hanger/

36

“housing has barely anyinherent value, its value stems from its scarcity.”

Sorry Kaos but that is simply not true. Building cost money to build (replacementcost), the land is inherently valuable and so on. They are only partly valueddue to their scarcity. Provision of houses is a free market economy, so themarket finds a level with appropriate supply and demand. A council suddenlybuilding a huge number of houses won’t dessimate the resale value of houses andmake cheap housing available to all, but it might affect private rents to someextent.

Then the argument you seem to be making that that a massive buildingprogram would ultimately make financial sense to everyone is a bit farcical.The costs of constructing all those houses would be borne by taxpayers. Sincemost people in this country are already net receivers, not payers, that means a minority of people (the higherpaid) would have to fund building houses for the poor at subsidised rents . Thecountry already has a spending deficit so where is this money going to comefrom?

Then you’ll run into the incentive problem. Most people areoutraged by stories of families living on benefits being much better off thanworking families. The same thing goes for a working family struggling tosqueeze into small accommodation because it’s what they can afford and they seefamilies in council homes demanding and receiving larger homes because that istheir “right”. Well I’m sorry but I think there should be a benefit and housingsafety net BUT the conditions of that safety net should provide an incentive toget out of that situation. So – benefits should be at a very basic level, andso should housing. It should be basicliving, nothing more. If people want more from life they need to work for it.

Finally the point about someone rattling around in a councilhouse when the kids have left home. During their council house “life” thatfamily probably qualified for increases in the size of house because of theincrease in family size. There are probably rules and equations that areapplied and (subject to a waiting list) I’m sure people can “demand” to berehoused as their family grows. It is only fair that that process is a two waystreet. The council should have a review process that (after a notice/waitingperiod) gives people a fair review and requires them to re-house later on. Make the larger houses available for thosethat need it. Want to keep the 5 bedroom house – fine – then the kids cancontinue to live there – not get their own F’ing council houses – so the familycan make a choice. Downsize and live in separate council houses OR don’t downsize and don’t get another council house.That’s fair – isn’t it?

37

I am glad you can afford to buy your own home, but with the current housing market, that isn’t a possibility for everyone.

Unless you support a massive rise in wages across the lower end of the scale, or somehow support the idea that people shouldn’t go to work unless they can afford to buy their own home.

The only other option left by your premise is that unless people can earn a decent wage and afford their own home, they should be forced to live in temporary accommodation, regardless of their situation, and face being evicted at the drop of a hat by a private or social landlord.

Seems a bit harsh.

Who will lower end jobs in our society? Who will serve you your cheap coffee at a Starbucks rip off, or put your clothes through the till at the shop, or do any of the jobs that don’t actually pay enough to buy a house in the current market?

To be fair Dan, your ideas seem short sighted and biased to your own position, without recognising that the world can’t all afford to buy their own home, and the thought that we should punish people who are earning the least, probably doing the shittiest jobs of all, just because, seems downright mean spirited.

38

Yes land has inherent value as does building materials.

However, I would point you to the Government scheme (previous Government) whereby the idea was to set aside the land and build homes.

The cost of those homes under that scheme?

Supposed to be £30,000.

In reality, the Government didn’t set aside the land, and put those homes on the open market…sale price? £250,000.

12% of the value of the home was the building cost.

Plus a home lasts for 50-150 years realistically. The building cost of a home, if spread out over the lifetime of the home, is miniscule.

Yes land is an issue, but instead of selling off publicly owned land to private developers (google the sell off of playing fields after the Olympics for an idea of how much land is available) why not simply build social homes on it?

Pretending that building costs and land are the reason for high house prices is delusional.

Slipper, you going to have to quote more than 3 words to offer some context to what I said.

39

Kaos, I’ve valued and sold houses, I’ve built houses and been involved in many building projects. The 12% figure you are talking about is what is really delusional.

Roughly speaking the split of costs when a builder builds a house is three thirds. One third of the value is the land cost, one third is the build costs and one third should be gross profit (before fixed costs admin etc). Pop down to B&Q and price up materials. Price up bricks, kitchens, windows, plumbing. £30k doesn’t buy anything!

You might be able to provide a prefab pod home for £30k - but that won’t have a life of 50 to 150 years.

40

Let me answer all of your points.

1, Building Programme will cost money.

Yes, but it also offers a return on the investment. Even social housing has a return on the investment. Not to mention that by moving lower earners into social housing you would reduce the Housing Benefit bill significantly. A bill currently going into private pockets, rather than private hands.

You could also sell off the social homes to those working families to help them get onto the housing ladder. At reduced prices, but at prices above the cost. Again replacing the money and/or creating more money for investment.

  1. Incentive.

Being a social tenant is not a right, it is based on means and you are given what you are given. You have no choice. You can’t move to another place simply because you like that area, that house, that school. These are the incentives to buying your own home.

Which, if there was a building programme, would reduce in price, because there would be less demand. So those that could buy their own home would be able to do so at a cheaper price, and would have the choices that social tenants do not have.

Plus, if we had a massive building programme, we might not be forced to only give social homes to those with the highest need, and may even once more be in a position where we can offer social homes to those who want them. Thus offering another choice to those people who could afford to buy their home, but may not want to, but feel forced to simply to have some sort of tenancy security.

  1. Under Filled Homes.

My argument to you would simply be that if social homes were not the scarcity they are now, then it wouldn’t matter so much. If social homes were once again returned to the point where they were not provided merely to those with the most dire need, and were actually provided to those that wanted it, it wouldn’t matter whether a home remained under filled for a few more years.

The biggest argument seems to be that other people who are paying will be upset.

Half of the problem with benefits and housing at the moment is that those that do go to work, struggle so much that they find it appalling that they are struggling the same as someone that does not go to work. If there was a clear advantage, a clear gain from going to work, I believe, that those people that go to work would care a lot less about the fact that those who do not go to work are struggling as much as they are.

I can understand the irritation. I just think that kicking the poor doesn’t help, it doesn’t change the situation for those that are going to work. If we can better their situation, I am sure they would be far less bothered about the benefit scrounger living in a crappy council flat scraping by, but when all you are doing while working 40-48 hours a week is scraping buy paying private rent, I can see how that would be annoying.