Rayner cleared.

Well said Monica!

I grew up in a lovely small modern council estate where young couples applied for a house to start them off then bought privately when they were better established. That left a house for the next lot…and so it went throughout the 50s, 60s and 70s, people who couldn’t afford to buy were housed until they could.

Then came Thatcher! People stayed put, buying at substantial discounts thus depriving others of decent housing. Society reaps what it sows.

Bob Crow and Ed Dempsey to start with - and there have been others.

Council housing is for those who cannot house themselves, and I am not talking of evicting anyone who does well and later earns a good salary, but i see no reason why they should get sibsidised housing, nor why, if they can afford to house themselves by buying or letting privately, they should not be encouraged to do so.

By making rents a proportion of post-tax income, you are ensuring that the poorest get housing they can afford without applying for benefits and those on higher incomes can make a larger contribution to help build more council houses for those in need of housing, where someone who no longer needs to be in council housing is still occupying one.

Arthur Scargill and his right to buy fuss

I don’t know any ‘wealthy union bosses’ who live in council houses either, but the concept of means-testing them is backward-looking, IMO. Putting a ceiling on entitlement to a fair rent and charging more for people earning over that just stifles ambition and keeps council estates as low-earners’ ghettos.

Remember that the good thing about council housing was that the rent went back to the council rather than into the pockets of landlords and that unlike private renting they gave people housing security with lifetime tenancies.

Need is assessed when the tenancy is offered - if people improve their circumstances afterwards, why should they be penalised? Talk about keeping people in their place!

(I know of two: Crow and Dempsey should get their own housing, don't know any more "wealthy union bosses" apart from them unless you do).

When I referred to people who need rented social housing I mean for those who cannot manage without a level of support. People who are elderly, have disabilities or other special needs, have children with special needs etc. Cannot manage property alone.
As for the rent, it depends on their other calls on their income depending on need/care/equipment etc.

Wyllow3

Social housing is not just for those who cant afford to buy.

With much social housing now there is a need for manager/support even if at very low level. Part of Care in community strategies needed more than ever.

How many people who need social support, are in a position to buytheir own house?

The people in need of care in the community have always formed part of the cohort of people who need social housing as house purchase - for a variety of reasons - is not affordable or practical.

I would like to see the rent for social housing set at a fixed % of a household's take-home pay. That way some of those wealthy union bosses parading their socialism as the reason they stay living in social housing in central London would be paying the same proportion of their usually large incomes, towards their rent as their comrades living on UC. Were their rents to rise to £5-10,000 a month. I wonder whether it would change their attitude to continuing to live in social housing.

MissA 👍🏻

Agreed, MissA.

Pantglas2

Neither do I MissAdventure, she was given an opportunity to get a good deal and grabbed it. I’d just like others with similar needs to get the same…that’s my idea of fairness, what’s yours?

I share your antipathy for the whole RTB debacle Doodledog. Social housing should be for those who couldn’t afford to buy and Thatcher bought votes with that policy!

My idea of fairness, and what actually happens are two different things.
Fair is everyone having access to well maintained classrooms, with an excellent pupil teacher ratio.
Fair is everyone being able to get dental and medical, including mental health care when they need it.
All having comfortable, appropriate housing, and low, affordable rents.

That isn't how it is though, sadly.

Others with similar needs will still get the same under a Labour government - all they have said is that they will look at reducing the huge discounts added by Cameron and co after 2012.

Social housing is not just for those who cant afford to buy.

With much social housing now there is a need for manager/support even if at very low level. Part of Care in community strategies needed more than ever.

Neither do I MissAdventure, she was given an opportunity to get a good deal and grabbed it. I’d just like others with similar needs to get the same…that’s my idea of fairness, what’s yours?

I share your antipathy for the whole RTB debacle Doodledog. Social housing should be for those who couldn’t afford to buy and Thatcher bought votes with that policy!

Oh, so she was in need when she bought her council house.
I see no reason on earth why a parent on need shouldnt do something perfectly legal to improve their family life.

Pantglas2

She is an actual MP now though and will do everything in her power to stop others (in just as much need as she was) getting a brilliant deal.

Can someone kindly explain, anyone, doesn’t have to be person who brought the ‘supporting fairness’ into this discussion, how on earth any of the above is fair?

Can you link to anything that suggests that AR will 'do anything in her power to stop others . . . getting a brilliant deal'?

I'm not saying that I think that AR or anyone else should have been allowed to buy houses at huge discounts. I disapproved of the RTB at the time, and still do. What I don't think, however, is that it is any more hypocritical of her to have done so than it was for anyone else, or that all Labour MPs should have lived a life of poverty before becoming MPs.

If they come from wealthy backgrounds they are accused of hypocrisy too - look at the snide comments about Sir Keir Starmer (with the 'Sir' stressed and in quote marks), or the fact that Tony Benn constantly had his background dragged up. People can want equality - sorry to keep mentioning this, but it is the basis of what the LP wants for the country - without being poor or otherwise disadvantaged themselves.

Am I the only person other than Casdon to have ploughed through the turgid report she recommended and quoted their figures on discounts for tenants during the last 40 odd years?

I’d no more take note of the Mail’s bias than I would the Guardian’s opposite bias, Doodledog and certainly wouldn’t take Rayner’s word as gospel on anything.

Pantglas2

She is an actual MP now though and will do everything in her power to stop others (in just as much need as she was) getting a brilliant deal.

Can someone kindly explain, anyone, doesn’t have to be person who brought the ‘supporting fairness’ into this discussion, how on earth any of the above is fair?

I’m not sure where you have got the impression from that Angela Rayner will be making decisions about this from Pantglas2. She won’t, it will be a policy decision that she will adhere to like the rest of the government? The Guardian article explained what they will be wrestling with, and the pressure there will be from the regions and devolved governments - it’s not going to be up to her.

I think the dilemma Labour will have is that if they don’t stop Right to Buy in the short term, the housing stock for rental will continue to reduce before there is time to build new properties. A review of the discounts offered and as Doodledog said a return to a more affordable discounting rate, with profits from sales being reinvested in building new homes (or as my council is doing, buying back ex council houses when they are sold later and then renting those out)is urgently needed. That, coupled with the need to improve the standard of private rentals, means there are no quick fixes, as with so much of what they will be inheriting.

Will you believe it if it's in the Mail?

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13121737/Rayners-48k-profit-council-house-sale-Starmers-deputy-used-Maggies-flagship-policy.html

In any case, you are ignoring the fact that the LP is not going to repeal the RTB. There is therefore no hypocrisy by any definition of the term, even if Rayner had had the psychic powers to know that she would become a front bench MP.

The Mail is using the word 'hypocrite', and talks about 'pulling up the ladder' 🤔, but even they say that the LP is going to look at reducing the discount, not to repeal the policy.

She is an actual MP now though and will do everything in her power to stop others (in just as much need as she was) getting a brilliant deal.

Can someone kindly explain, anyone, doesn’t have to be person who brought the ‘supporting fairness’ into this discussion, how on earth any of the above is fair?

Pantglas2

Going by Casdon reference History & Policy.org (rather than an article in the Guardian) it would have been an automatic third off valuation (not a quarter as suggested by the journalist) with 1% added per year of tenancy.

I don’t know why the discount amounts are different Pantglas, but it wasn’t only the Guardian that reported the discount she received was 25%, it was widely reported in the media. I used the Guardian article because it explained more about the background to Labour’s current position than I had seen elsewhere. Here is the Sky News report.
news.sky.com/story/angela-rayner-rejects-hypocrisy-accusation-after-selling-council-house-for-profit-13080738

Pantglas2

How is a Labour politician supporting fairness by doing one of the things I posted at 13:48 and then trying to stop others following their lead?

Actually I call that unfair! If it’s good enough for them why not for everyone?

She wasn't an MP at that time.

Me too.

I agree with you Glorianny

I think that destroying the council house system was partly to do with appealing to a section who were not Tory voters, but also to do with destroying the power of local authorities. The income from property has dwindled leaving LAs largely dependent on the money they get from the government.

The biggest nonsense as most now agree, was refusing to allow local authorities to use money from sales to build new

Was an appallingly bad decision. The stock of social housing could have been maintained.

Basically it was Thatcher's attempt to close down social housing, but why? To be able to cut local council taxation?