Here I am, sleepy and tired on a Monday morning.
I turn on the radio (about 7.20?) in the morning and I find the Today program is interviewing people about the coalition's plans to change the nature of council housing. (Aka, houses owned by the local council and rented out at reduced rates to "those in need" - typically about 50% of "market rates".)
These annoyed me.
The first example was a women who had a council house - they may have said why, but I didn't hear. She was studying to be a nurse; this would take 3-4 years, but she would be able to "better herself" without the council house, or so she says.
Lets call that four years in a place with the same commercial cost as mine. So that's a rent of £500/2 = £250 a month discount. So £250*12 = £3,000 a year. So, over the period of three to four years while studying that's £9,000 to £12,000.
Lets compare that to Little Johny, who's a good student, worked at school, lives with parents. Like huge numbers of students he'll have to take out loans and receive no actual support from the state - I didn't, and you don't need much in the way of "wealth" to do this. Bugger all, in fact.
Would little Johny get 9-12K in aid...?
Interview 2 was from a women who moved into a council house with her mother and family in 1984 - about 26 years ago. She's still living there.
She considers the council house "hers" - she's inherited it from her mother, effectively. Never moved out, has been subsidised for her entire adult life; almost certainly most of her life. Said that if they lost the place they would be expect to be paid for all the work they've done in the past - painting, cleaning, etc.
Total cost - half her housing costs for 26 years and administration+maintenance costs for the same.
Social housing is important... but I'm really having issues understanding why some parties are opposing the reforms.
Because they just seem fair - to those who pay for it all.
---
Edited because I first posted just a title
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Listened to the same thing on the way in this morning.
First example: I actually kind of understand how this could happen, and while, yeah, it's not ideal, it does mean that someone who would otherwise bop in and out of vairous council houses, friends houses etc, working low-paid uninspiring jobs has the chance to get themselves out of that cycle and have a better life. I would hope with the new reforms that once they do have a better life they stop being subsidised - just because you once needed a hand why does that mean you should have beneficial treatment the rest of your life?
The second example: yeah I've got no idea. I don't get why council houses should be life-long (and definitely not inherited!) just because the tenants like it better that way. A person in a private rented property can be kicked out whenever (with the right notice) pretty much regardless of how long they've lived there: why would council houses be any different?? I'm sure I'm missing something, but I can't see what...
Post a Comment