How to Get a Council House - Ch4 TV

[opel80uk]

But the numbers are tiny.

But that's to miss the point. It doesn't matter that the numbers are tiny, or that the overwhelming majority use the benefits system entirely as it was intended; people need a bogeyman or pantomime villain to explain why their lives are not better, and the target is always those least able to defend themselves. Once upon a time it was immigrants, till they eventually found a voice in strength in numbers and said they wouldn’t stand for it. What would once have passed as political debate, using the exact same tactic of focusing on the most extreme examples of that group, would now, rightly, be deemed racism, pure and simple. So we move on to another group ill able to defend themselves against the charges, this time those on benefits.

Look at what spud1 said as to why it bothers people so much:

I think it's because it's in your face, every single day. A lot of people feel an injustice too - there are people who contribute absolutely nothing to society who just take and take and take. Then there are tax dodgers who may be avoiding millions of £ of taxes, but they are still actually paying tax, working, and contributing. That's the difference and why I say it's a moral thing.

Even though Spud acknowledges that benefit misuse is ‘minor’ compared to the cost of tax fraud, and it would therefore follow that the tax fraud would affect him/her individually far more than benefit misuse, it’s the benefit misuse what galls him/her the most. Interestingly, he/she seems to define benefit misuse as a moral issue, but illegally avoiding tax is not, because they contribute something, albeit not what they are legally obliged to. For every person who does misuse the benefits system, there will be x amount of people who use it to improve their circumstances and, in time, remove themselves from the benefits system, or at least provide an environment whereby their children won’t need to avail of it. On the flip side, how does tax fraud in any way benefit wider society? It doesn’t, of course, and yet it is benefit misuse that is the ‘moral issue’.

But that is, of course, entirely predictable because he/she, like all of us, has been bombarded with the demonisation of these people through media and by the political classes, themselves quick to tap in to any popular theme for their own gain. A quick glance through history shows that this is a recurring theme. What is also interesting to note is the proposals as to how to solve the housing crisis, with the most obvious one being to expand affordable & social housing in the South East, which although complex, is by no means unachievable. And yet instead we have more extreme solutions such as pack them off to Birmingham being proposed on here as a more realistic solution. When you are dealing with that level of debate, with people and media appealing to the base human instinct of selfishness & envy, what else can you expect?

[Spud1]

. Interestingly, he/she seems to define benefit misuse as a moral issue, but illegally avoiding tax is not, because they contribute something, albeit not what they are legally obliged to

Just to clarify - tax fraud is also morally wrong, but in my opinion it's not as bad as misusing the benefits system, as you are still contributing to society. Obviously you can look at it both ways and there is a case for each though.

Ultimately there are people taking the michael on both topics, and they are not related and really shouldn't be. Both topics justifiably upset people, and both are issues that should be dealt with (and attempts are being made on both counts).

Sadly though we're unlikely to see much real change as doing the "right" thing on either (restricting benefits further or getting tighter on tax laws) would be political suicide, and none of the major parties (or even the fruitcakes) would consider doing so. I don't have an answer other than a Government being willing to do that and take the drastic action we need. I doubt we'd see that without another large scale war though, which of course is not a viable option!

[jim]

I think it's primarily an emotional response to our typical struggles. Ask a random selection of people, "what's causing you stress", and a majority, I suspect, would answer either "my job" or "money".

If you're on the train commuting to a job you hate, or sitting down at a desk wishing you could be anywhere else, or wondering how you're going to get enough cash to pay for rent, then there's an obvious emotional lash-out against people who don't have any of those worries. There's a feeling that they're getting everything that you want, without having to try.

Now, obviously it's more complex than that, or everybody would be doing it, but I'm not saying that it's rational - just that it's a plausible emotional response.

Whilst you could make an argument for tax evasion, trident, military operations, and so on being far more important in terms of raw figures, none of those link into daily life.

[opel80uk]

Just to clarify - tax fraud is also morally wrong, but in my opinion it's not as bad as misusing the benefits system, as you are still contributing to society. Obviously you can look at it both ways and there is a case for each though.

Ultimately there are people taking the michael on both topics, and they are not related and really shouldn't be. Both topics justifiably upset people, and both are issues that should be dealt with (and attempts are being made on both counts).

Sadly though we're unlikely to see much real change as doing the "right" thing on either (restricting benefits further or getting tighter on tax laws) would be political suicide, and none of the major parties (or even the fruitcakes) would consider doing so. I don't have an answer other than a Government being willing to do that and take the drastic action we need. I doubt we'd see that without another large scale war though, which of course is not a viable option!

I obviously disagree with regards to which is worse, but thanks for your clarification.

I think what Kalniel's point was, and what I tried to elaborate on was, while I accept the 2 are unrelated issues, is that even though tax fraud (and tax avoidance) costs us far more as a society as opposed to benefit misuse, we don't have programmes following round the CEO's of companies as they use loopholes, or just plain fraud, to minimize their tax bill. Why is that?

Let me be clear, I happen to think benefit misuse in abhorrent, and it enables posters on threads like this to point to (albeit rare) examples as to why the benefit system is broken. But the attention and hysteria the issue generates is completely disproportionate to the actual cost to society.

[wasabi]

TV shows like this cause a problem in the same way MP expenses scandals do. We get upset about them claiming £20 or whatever it was for cable porn while ignoring the tens of millions wasted on the bureaucratic inefficient public sector boondoggles they are supposed to manage.

[TheAnimus]

What they should do for that show is go back to the Tory ministers who introduced the right-to-buy, with their promises that the money gained from selling off council stock would be re-invested into building more much needed council stock, and ask them why it never happened (to state it was simply because of environmental/NIMBY reasons is, at best, delusional).

You are missing the point entirely.

We've had a population growth, a really large one.

The idea of having council owned housing isn't the solution, the idea is having enough stock for everyone. The fact that private developers aren't building new houses in Tower Hamlets, is as significant as the lack of state owned ones.

It is frankly perverse that someone who does not work, can get a £52k per year job style life. The fact that council housing is cheaper doesn't change the notion that the resource is so contested, someone who is say earning £30k despite above median, will have a lower quality of life. The idea of scoring for a council house is not really just, it's a nepotistic process.

[TheAnimus]

Yay more benefits bashing.

Put it in perspective please. More tax payer money is wasted from tax fraud - we are subsidising people who are already extremely rich - that's way more shocking IMHO, but there's hardly a peep about it on Hexus compared to multiple threads about benefits. A very few people abuse the benefits system and are held up for the nations disgust, but don't get the scale of the problem wrong.

One is an opportunity cost, one is a real cost.

When running an organisation, you learn one bankrupts the entire thing. The other is an aspirational goal.

Housing benefits should not be needed at anything like this level. It is symptomatic of a lack of supply. This results in people being priced out by those who are subsidised by the state.

[kalniel]

Housing benefits should not be needed at anything like this level. It is symptomatic of a lack of supply. This results in people being priced out by those who are subsidised by the state.

Or vice versa the state needs to give ever increasing subsides if council housing is maintained at an equal level to private housing, in order to prevent further splitting the population into rich and poor.

But it seems there is genuine agreement among thread participants on the lack of housing supply.

[opel80uk]

You are missing the point entirely.

We've had a population growth, a really large one.

The idea of having council owned housing isn't the solution, the idea is having enough stock for everyone. The fact that private developers aren't building new houses in Tower Hamlets, is as significant as the lack of state owned ones.

It is frankly perverse that someone who does not work, can get a £52k per year job style life. The fact that council housing is cheaper doesn't change the notion that the resource is so contested, someone who is say earning £30k despite above median, will have a lower quality of life. The idea of scoring for a council house is not really just, it's a nepotistic process.

I'm not missing the point. The programme that you cited is about how difficult it is to get a council house. I can't be the only person to have think it entirely appropriate that it investigate why there is less social housing units now then there was 30 years ago. Of course, that is only part of a larger discussion, but it should be a part of it nonetheless.

And that's the crux of the problem, you, like others, want to turn the housing crisis into (yet another) thread that bashes those on benefits. In a show that evidenced that people were placed in rooms where they couldn't lock the door, and their bed was infested with bedbugs, for more than 6 months while they waited for a council house, what amazed you about it was 'how much we subsidise those who are contributing nothing to society'. In a way I envy you; I imagine it must make life rather enjoyable to have such a lack of empathy for other people.

[TheAnimus]

Or vice versa the state needs to give ever increasing subsides if council housing is maintained at an equal level to private housing, in order to prevent further splitting the population into rich and poor.

But why differentiate?

If people are needing £400 a week for rent, when the median wage for that area is say £22kpa, something has gone very wrong. This shouldn't be solved by council housing, but by either increasing supply or limiting demand. Increasing supply has environmental issues, often valid, few want the green belt destroyed. However few people want limiting of demand, such as migration or population controls.

These are the only ways to address the issue fairly.

[TheAnimus]

I'm not missing the point. The programme that you cited is about how difficult it is to get a council house. I can't be the only person to have think it entirely appropriate that it investigate why there is less social housing units now then there was 30 years ago. Of course, that is only part of a larger discussion, but it should be a part of it nonetheless.

Because that is ignoring the problem. Housing in general is far more expensive.

The idea of having 'council estates' is bad. It is much better to be more like the German system of social welfare. The last thing we want is for Paris, where the centre is unaffordable to most, and you have no go areas outside.

And that's the crux of the problem, you, like others, want to turn the housing crisis into (yet another) thread that bashes those on benefits. In a show that evidenced that people were placed in rooms where they couldn't lock the door, and their bed was infested with bedbugs, for more than 6 months while they waited for a council house

What about those less lucky? What about the people who have a job, yet maybe are male, and will not qualify even for that?

It is utterly, completely insane that we would subsidise someone to a level in-excess of twice median. That is like giving someone a lottery win. Why are they getting a top quartile lifestyle for no work? That is completely fair statement in this context.

Tower Hamlets is dense as is, I don't think it's possible to build much more there without serious environmental issues.

So how do you allocate what is not remotely a luxury area?

The solution to me is obvious, if supply is constrained and quality reduces in relation to the increase of this, we must reduce demand. One good way for that is mass transit systems, more cross rail etc. But look at the population growth of London:
http://www.london.gov.uk/thelondonpl...if/fig-1-1.gif
So what do we do? One thing for sure is those not economically productive have to give way to those who are. We should have population control, having 4 children is really environmentally irresponsible.

what amazed you about it was 'how much we subsidise those who are contributing nothing to society'. In a way I envy you; I imagine it must make life rather enjoyable to have such a lack of empathy for other people.

I envy how amazing you must feel to be able to have compassion without realising the futility and inherent hypocrisy of your actions. I live and behave front to back in-line with these views I have. I spent £10 on beer last night, yet knowing there are people dying for want of clean water, I choose to damage my body, rather than allocate resources to charity which would have helped someone live. I'm a monster, but I am aware of this, however I also have a sustainability at the core ethos of these values. History has shown that planned economies tend not to have worked well at all.

[opel80uk]

I think it's primarily an emotional response to our typical struggles. Ask a random selection of people, "what's causing you stress", and a majority, I suspect, would answer either "my job" or "money".

If you're on the train commuting to a job you hate, or sitting down at a desk wishing you could be anywhere else, or wondering how you're going to get enough cash to pay for rent, then there's an obvious emotional lash-out against people who don't have any of those worries. There's a feeling that they're getting everything that you want, without having to try.

Now, obviously it's more complex than that, or everybody would be doing it, but I'm not saying that it's rational - just that it's a plausible emotional response.

Much like the debate regarding the Windrush era and those immigrants. It wasn't actually based in any fact, nor did many of the arguments hold up to any scrutiny, yet they were popular because they preyed on peoples prejudices and fears of the time. We now dismiss that type of rhetoric as nothing more than racist nonsense, but somehow give credence to the notion that people claiming benefits are at the root of all our problems, even though those cited are the most extreme cases available. Patently ridiculous, and what amazes me is how so many, seemingly intelligent, people fall for it.

[kalniel]

But why differentiate?

If people are needing £400 a week for rent, when the median wage for that area is say £22kpa, something has gone very wrong.

Well it'd be far too simple to come to the conclusion of wrongness without further information. Take former council owned areas near where I live - they were bought on the right to own thingy and are all privately owned. Then house prices rocketed and while existing home owners were fine on their lowish median wage, anyone moving to the area faces the need for much higher income because house rents are now so high.

Or perhaps someone who is disabled actually has a higher cost of living, through no fault of their own.

If you're saying that housing benefit shouldn't be the cause of house price increases then I agree with you, but I don't think it should be the cause of exclusion from an area either - especially in the local case I'm talking about when the area was originally designed for social housing in the first place

This shouldn't be solved by council housing, but by either increasing supply or limiting demand.

Well I agree with one part, but I think there are two sides to the increasing supply - yes, we should increase the supply of able to be privately owned housing - but then we need to make sure that benefits payments can cover the cost of that so that claimants can compete fairly. If we cannot afford to make those kinds of payments then we need to look at alternatives, and it might well be that council housing is more cost effective in the long run than increasing benefits payments.

Increasing supply has environmental issues, often valid, few want the green belt destroyed. However few people want limiting of demand, such as migration or population controls.

Very few want the value of their own homes to go down. Rather fewer are actually genuinely concerned about greenbelt I expect in any kind of "would accept some self-sacrifice to support" - though they're happy to sacrifice someone else of course. Would people be prepared to accept a 50p a litre rise in petrol prices to support a reduction in climate change and help preserve the greenbelt? No.

Limiting population growth, well again I think people want that in so far as someone else is affected negatively, not them. Cue ridiculous claims about the harmful effects of immigration.

[jim]

Much like the debate regarding the Windrush era and those immigrants. It wasn't actually based in any fact, nor did many of the arguments hold up to any scrutiny, yet they were popular because they preyed on peoples prejudices and fears of the time. We now dismiss that type of rhetoric as nothing more than racist nonsense, but somehow give credence to the notion that people claiming benefits are at the root of all our problems, even though those cited are the most extreme cases available. Patently ridiculous, and what amazes me is how so many, seemingly intelligent, people fall for it.

Perhaps though, there is a difference between people being angry, and believing that it's the root of all our problems. I would expect a lot of people to fall into the first bucket, but not so many in the latter, and if you based your opinion on what people said then you could easily mistake the former for the latter.

[opel80uk]

Because that is ignoring the problem. Housing in general is far more expensive.

The idea of having 'council estates' is bad. It is much better to be more like the German system of social welfare. The last thing we want is for Paris, where the centre is unaffordable to most, and you have no go areas outside.

London had, by and large, a model that was far more comparable to the German model. Most areas in London had a mixture of council houses that were exactly the same as the privately owned ones, and council tenants would live cheek by jowl with homeowners. That was until the council owned houses were sold off. To try and airbrush that out of the debate is, frankly, bizarre.

What about those less lucky? What about the people who have a job, yet maybe are male, and will not qualify even for that?

It is utterly, completely insane that we would subsidise someone to a level in-excess of twice median. That is like giving someone a lottery win. Why are they getting a top quartile lifestyle for no work? That is completely fair statement in this context.

Tower Hamlets is dense as is, I don't think it's possible to build much more there without serious environmental issues.

So how do you allocate what is not remotely a luxury area?

The solution to me is obvious, if supply is constrained and quality reduces in relation to the increase of this, we must reduce demand. One good way for that is mass transit systems, more cross rail etc. But look at the population growth of London:
http://www.london.gov.uk/thelondonpl...if/fig-1-1.gif
So what do we do? One thing for sure is those not economically productive have to give way to those who are. We should have population control, having 4 children is really environmentally irresponsible.

You would be right if economic production was the only value we placed on people. Thankfully, it is not. And as for this rubbish about population control, like the last thread about benefits, I again ask how you would implement this.

I envy how amazing you must feel to be able to have compassion without realising the futility and inherent hypocrisy of your actions. I live and behave front to back in-line with these views I have. I spent £10 on beer last night, yet knowing there are people dying for want of clean water, I choose to damage my body, rather than allocate resources to charity which would have helped someone live. I'm a monster, but I am aware of this, however I also have a sustainability at the core ethos of these values. History has shown that planned economies tend not to have worked well at all.

Futility? Perhaps. And we are all hypocrites to an extent; don't presume to think that I am unaware of myself. The difference between you and me is that I don't come at every topic from the position of 'how does this effect me?'. You use words like 'sustainability', as if to somehow give the impression that it's really for the wider good that you are saying what you say, much like when someone starts a sentence with 'I'm not a racist but....', but in reality your views are determined by how you, usually monetarily, are affected as an individual.

[TheAnimus]

If you're saying that housing benefit shouldn't be the cause of house price increases then I agree with you, but I don't think it should be the cause of exclusion from an area either - especially in the local case I'm talking about when the area was originally designed for social housing in the first place

Exclusion is difficult. Does someone have a right to stay in an area just because they where born there? Even if there is no need for them to be there?

Does someone who's un-employed have the right to live there, but say a nurse has to deal with commuting from the suburbs? Despite the sole reason a nurse is needed is to serve the people who are resident there?

You can get some very tricky formulas for these things. Myself I don't think anyone who's been un-employed for a year has a right to choose where they will live, if they've been un-employed for 1+ year in London, they clearly don't want a job / have issues which need to be addressed.

The problem is we don't at the same time want to create a ghetto culture. There is no perfect solution. We can't give a better quality of life to someone who isn't working, than we do to those who are. As ultimately it is either unfair lottery or unsustainable universal allocation.

Well I agree with one part, but I think there are two sides to the increasing supply - yes, we should increase the supply of able to be privately owned housing - but then we need to make sure that benefits payments can cover the cost of that so that claimants can compete fairly. If we cannot afford to make those kinds of payments then we need to look at alternatives, and it might well be that council housing is more cost effective in the long run than increasing benefits payments.

But that is only the case if you allow house prices to rise out of control. I've posted a GLA graph of population increase. We aren't building new stock at that rate, understandably so. I like where I live, I like it because it has some green space near by. I think the impact of removing the small park near my old flat, for at most say 20 abodes, would have had a really detrimental effect on the quality of life of those near. It is a tricky solution. We could obviously solve it if everyone lived in just 6 sqm of space!

Very few want the value of their own homes to go down. Rather fewer are actually genuinely concerned about greenbelt I expect in any kind of "would accept some self-sacrifice to support" - though they're happy to sacrifice someone else of course. Would people be prepared to accept a 50p a litre rise in petrol prices to support a reduction in climate change and help preserve the greenbelt? No.

I don't think it's just peoples interest in their 'assets value' I think its more a case of people wanting to be a loving environmentalist!

Limiting population growth, well again I think people want that in so far as someone else is affected negatively, not them. Cue ridiculous claims about the harmful effects of immigration.

Why make it immigration. Why not migration.

Plenty of people in London (myself included!) are not born here. Plenty of people here have above replacement rate births.

I swear I would love to say I had humanist society beliefs, however I fear that they are negatively reducing the number of responsible parents compared to the irresponsible.