Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

George Clarke’s Council House Scandal Channel 4


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

On 04/08/2019 at 09:26, SoldTooSoon said:

Anybody see George Clarke’s documentary on Channel 4?

I particularly agreed with the point he made about once people have secure affordable housing, it provides a solid base to build non-chaotic, manageable, meaningful lives.

 

I saw most of it and liked it very much.

This guy seems to me to be one of the good guys or easily the least tainted presenter in the property porn arena.

Until we find out he has a BTL empire, no doubt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, iamnumerate said:

I know someone who got council housing because she has a chaotic life - it didn't help her.

A single anecdote doesn’t invalidate the arguments that George Clarke makes in the film in favour of council housing. I think the points he makes in the films are really valid. We need a government which feels it has a duty of care towards the people it serves.

You can tell that times have changed when a program like this gets made for Channel 4.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, stuckinlimbo said:

A single anecdote doesn’t invalidate the arguments that George Clarke makes in the film in favour of council housing. I think the points he makes in the films are really valid. We need a government which feels it has a duty of care towards the people it serves.

You can tell that times have changed when a program like this gets made for Channel 4.

I was not trying to invalidate it, saying that there are lots of people who get council houses because of chaotic lives.  A friend (an exception) who has a council flat told me that one of his neighbours is illegally subletting but they don't report it because they are worried that the replacements would be worse.

Edited by iamnumerate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎05‎/‎08‎/‎2019 at 09:45, iamnumerate said:

I know someone who got council housing because she has a chaotic life - it didn't help her.

Saying that I think affordable housing is a good idea - and that politicians should be ashamed of themselves for making it more and more expensive.

The term "affordable housing" is an oxymoron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 04/08/2019 at 09:26, SoldTooSoon said:

Anybody see George Clarke’s documentary on Channel 4?

I particularly agreed with the point he made about once people have secure affordable housing, it provides a solid base to build non-chaotic, manageable, meaningful lives.

 

Thx for the tip.

In the same vein, the new series of "£1 Houses" is poor. I would have liked to see C4 explain why the Liverpool terraces were boarded up and derelict > were they victims of John Prescotts insane "Pathfinder" project?

Edited by dryrot
spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

George is passionate because he’s been there...brought up in a council house. Not sure whether that’s reflected in the cabinet or shadow cabinet. 

I guess as long as the country is run by the middle classes (left, right, liberal etc) then who in central government really cares? 

It’s numbers, it’s politics and it’s careers. It’s about time politicians really cared....less ‘academia’ and more passion. But hey, that’s really unfashionable at the moment and I guess the public don’t care enough about passion, anger, creating a legacy and the politicians who represent the public, so the biggest proportion of the public I imagine are getting what they want.

Edited by Pop321
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 04/08/2019 at 09:26, SoldTooSoon said:

Anybody see George Clarke’s documentary on Channel 4?

I particularly agreed with the point he made about once people have secure affordable housing, it provides a solid base to build non-chaotic, manageable, meaningful lives.

 

The Vienna segment was a bit utopian. The building looks very old, much easier to find £350pcm rentals in a European capital city of it was put up in the 1930s and fully depreciated.

 

Of course we tried this in the 1960s and it didn't go terribly well.

 

Only last week we had the guy fined £100k for putting his council flat on Air BnB. It is really a fools errand trying to buck the market. If you are trying, you are already doing something wrong and need to figure out where.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MARTINX9 said:

We used to require people to have secure stable lives to get a council house before the 70s - be in work, perhaps be married and a stable home life.

Now such people are least likely to qualify.

I dont know where you got that idea?

The criteria used to be "households who are unable to afford to rent in the private sector".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/08/2019 at 20:13, Wayo said:

The Vienna segment was a bit utopian. The building looks very old, much easier to find £350pcm rentals in a European capital city of it was put up in the 1930s and fully depreciated.

 

Of course we tried this in the 1960s and it didn't go terribly well.

 

Only last week we had the guy fined £100k for putting his council flat on Air BnB. It is really a fools errand trying to buck the market. If you are trying, you are already doing something wrong and need to figure out where.

A friend has a council flat and told me that they don't report people who sublet because they are worried that the council will replace them with someone worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, iamnumerate said:

A friend has a council flat and told me that they don't report people who sublet because they are worried that the council will replace them with someone worse.

One disadvantage with a needs based approach to allocation - as availability gets tighter the most dysfunctional are usually the only ones near the top of the points list to qualify for vacant flat. Probably also means several kids in tow - stomping and screeching all day and all evening where perhaps before there was a single person or couple.

So they have a point! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, MARTINX9 said:

One disadvantage with a needs based approach to allocation - as availability gets tighter the most dysfunctional are usually the only ones near the top of the points list to qualify for vacant flat. Probably also means several kids in tow - stomping and screeching all day and all evening where perhaps before there was a single person or couple.

So they have a point! 

That is exactly why they don't complain - I think they are worried about mental health issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, nothernsoul said:

Social housing in uk started between the wars in places like peterborough. They were very strict who they rented it too, with interviews to get the right sort, they wanted who they regarded as the respectable working class. 

It was homes for heroes as well.  Ironically although I do know some people who have got council housing in the last few years - none of them have relatives who took part in WWI or WWII - mainly because their home countries did not really take part.

https://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/our-key-themes/tracking-welfare-reforms/resources/homes-heroes-today-brief-history-housing-london

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn’t it all change in 1979?  I’m sure I’ve read this on here.

 

Pre 1979 the people who lived in social housing was more mixed and also the housing authority was more strict about who could have a tenancy - most people paid their council house rent from salaries rather than housing benefit, anti social behaviour was cracked down on etc.  The law changed in 1979 and getting a council house became needs based instead.  Needs tend to mean single mother with kids in tow (as we don’t want kids living in the street), people with addiction problems and newly arrived immigrants with nothing.  That is why the council have no support to build more social housing - because the tax payer no longer has a stake in it (wouldn’t be eligible and would try and avoid living in a council estate if they could avoid it).  I think George Clark was being disingenuous by not mentioning the 1979 change to needs based when comparing the U.K. with the Austrian system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mancunian284 said:

Didn’t it all change in 1979?  I’m sure I’ve read this on here.

 

Pre 1979 the people who lived in social housing was more mixed and also the housing authority was more strict about who could have a tenancy - most people paid their council house rent from salaries rather than housing benefit, anti social behaviour was cracked down on etc.  The law changed in 1979 and getting a council house became needs based instead.  Needs tend to mean single mother with kids in tow (as we don’t want kids living in the street), people with addiction problems and newly arrived immigrants with nothing.  That is why the council have no support to build more social housing - because the tax payer no longer has a stake in it (wouldn’t be eligible and would try and avoid living in a council estate if they could avoid it).  I think George Clark was being disingenuous by not mentioning the 1979 change to needs based when comparing the U.K. with the Austrian system.

This, from the low paid local key workers, to need based......need meant anyone who happened to have nothing, turned up but had put or paid nothing into the local society but needed something so got it.....over and above others who worked, their families had worked and paid in but their need was less so their right to a council home was removed......no wonder they felt resentful......if more people have more need for housing they should have been building more houses to home everyone not stop building/providing them to those who have put into society over many years and prioritise to those that have not......no wonder many feel resentful about how the system works to benefit some at the detriment of others...?

 

 

....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Mancunian284 said:

Didn’t it all change in 1979?  I’m sure I’ve read this on here.

 

Pre 1979 the people who lived in social housing was more mixed and also the housing authority was more strict about who could have a tenancy - most people paid their council house rent from salaries rather than housing benefit, anti social behaviour was cracked down on etc.  The law changed in 1979 and getting a council house became needs based instead.  Needs tend to mean single mother with kids in tow (as we don’t want kids living in the street), people with addiction problems and newly arrived immigrants with nothing.  That is why the council have no support to build more social housing - because the tax payer no longer has a stake in it (wouldn’t be eligible and would try and avoid living in a council estate if they could avoid it).  I think George Clark was being disingenuous by not mentioning the 1979 change to needs based when comparing the U.K. with the Austrian system.

Very true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, winkie said:

This, from the low paid local key workers, to need based......need meant anyone who happened to have nothing, turned up but had put or paid nothing into the local society but needed something so got it.....over and above others who worked, their families had worked and paid in but their need was less so their right to a council home was removed......no wonder they felt resentful......if more people have more need for housing they should have been building more houses to home everyone not stop building/providing them to those who have put into society over many years and prioritise to those that have not......no wonder many feel resentful about how the system works to benefit some at the detriment of others...?

 

 

....

Absolutely Winkie, you said it better than I did.  Social Housing was for low paid key workers who were contributing.  Now it’s for professional single mothers (both British and immigrant), drug addicts and alcoholics, those with mental health problems and newly arrived immigrants.  Those low paid key workers now have to rent privately at twice the price (if not more) of a council house.  My mother grew up in a council house, their next door neighbour was the local policeman.

 

The other thing to note, is that when social housing rents were being paid by workers it was a sustainable model.  Now that social housing rents are predominantly paid by benefits it’s no longer sustainable. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, winkie said:

This, from the low paid local key workers, to need based......need meant anyone who happened to have nothing, turned up but had put or paid nothing into the local society but needed something so got it.....over and above others who worked, their families had worked and paid in but their need was less so their right to a council home was removed......no wonder they felt resentful......if more people have more need for housing they should have been building more houses to home everyone not stop building/providing them to those who have put into society over many years and prioritise to those that have not......no wonder many feel resentful about how the system works to benefit some at the detriment of others...?

 

 

....

And I do feel resentful about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

And I do feel resentful about it.

Me too, as do a lot of workers.  I could never afford to live in London (not that I’d want to these days) so how come it’s seen as fair that a newly arrived Polish single mother gets housed there for free?  At my expense.

 

I agree, we need to overhaul the system.  Maybe returning decent social housing to workers (getting rid of the antisocial element on council estates at the same time).  Placing pro single mothers in single mother homes - some kind of dormitory living until the message gets through that popping out a couple of kids is no longer a ticket to a free house and 18 years as a stay at home mum on benefits.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.