Grant Shapps, the housing minister, said it was “blindingly obvious” that local authorities should seek to sell properties worth “millions” in order to use their resources “more efficiently” .Yes. Yes, Grant, it is.
His intervention was made as new research found that more than a fifth of council house tenants in England are living in homes worth more than the average privately-owned home in their areas.*sigh*
And, naturally, there are people desperate to continue this sorry state of affairs:
Critics warned that it would lead to “social cleansing” , with low-paid workers progressively moved out of more expensive areas.Now, apart from the advantage it gives the Guardian-reading set to not have their domestic servants have to travel so far, as Rob points out in the comments at Tim Worstall’s post, just what benefit do we (‘we’ as in society) get to having this fabled ‘social mix’?
Alex Morton, a former civil servant who wrote the report, added: “Social housing tenants deserve a roof over their heads, but not one better than most people can afford, particularly as expensive social housing means less social housing and so longer waiting lists for most people in need.”Well, quite! After all, in a high-income area, the goods and services on offer will be geared towards just that sort of clientele, pushing the low-income budget even further.
Pushing them, in fact, into ‘poverty’. I thought the left were agin’ that?
David Orr, chief executive of the National Housing Federation, said: “We have a huge shortage of homes and urgently need to start building more and part of that solution is that housing associations should be able to take advantage of the value of their properties in different ways.
“However, the idea of selling off social housing in 'high value’ areas to build more in cheaper areas is fundamentally flawed.
“It could effectively cleanse many towns of hard-working people who simply can’t afford the high prices of buying or renting privately.”When he says ‘hard working people’, is that progressive speak for ‘Well, now where am I going to find a gardener?’ do you suppose..?
There's another large pachidern in the room - three-quarters or more of social housing tenants are not working (split roughly 50:50 between the retired and the workless).
ReplyDeleteSo - and not for the first time - David Orr from the Nat Fed is talking out of his bottom
Maybe the Lefties who are moaning about this change in the rules have jobs supporting those who live in such houses, such as HB managers, social workers etc. They wouldn't want their income stream cut of would they? Not that I'm cynical of course.
ReplyDeleteA question that needs to be asked is are the people living in expensive social housing in these rich areas and in these cases providing services for the community or working in the areas commercial enterprises or are they just Doley's?
I'd be interested to hear some figures on this.
(I was the the poster formerly known as Trundlemaster but now I have my own Blog Farenheit211 - the temperature that piss boils)
Farenheit211 - "now I have my own blog Farenheit211 - the temperature that piss boils
ReplyDeleteI'm liking the inspired blog title so I'll do you a deal.
I'll be tempted to take a look if you spell "Fahrenheit" correctly ;)
Immigration.
ReplyDeleteThe gift (in the German sense of the word) that keeps on taking.
Tatty, unfortunately I spelt the name wrongly in the first registration and wordpress will not allow me to change it. I do say in my blog that there will be eclectic and badly spelled articles and I started with the title :-)
ReplyDelete'Hard-working families'. It tripped off the tongue of T Blair and G Brown and now Milliband junior and idiots like this.
ReplyDeleteIf there are so many 'hard- working families' why are there do many non-work benefit junkies. Actually there are plenty of 'hard-working families'. They're working very hard indeed to keep the housing benefit claimants in the properties to which they have become accustomed.
"There's another large pachidern in the room - three-quarters or more of social housing tenants are not working (split roughly 50:50 between the retired and the workless)."
ReplyDeleteGood point!
"Maybe the Lefties who are moaning about this change in the rules have jobs supporting those who live in such houses, such as HB managers, social workers etc. "
Perfect nail/head interface.
"If there are so many 'hard- working families' why are there do many non-work benefit junkies."
And another...
I don't get this social cleansing thing. Imagine who would live in a more expensive area if there were no benefits. That would be the natural order of things.
ReplyDeletePeople who could afford to live there would, and people who couldn't, wouldn't.