It depends what area you're in - in the area I've just moved from £20k wouldn't have allowed you to privately rent a 2 bed flat, possibly not even a 1 bed. The flat I lived in (I shared with a friend as that was only way I could afford some sort of independence having been a lodger for the previous 18 months), you were required to earn £27500 just to apply. I've moved to a cheaper area now but was still required to earn a certain amount to be able to rent. There always seems to be this myth that you can just rent privately when there's a minimum you have to earn, credit checks and referencing to pass (which the prospective tenant has to pay for).
I've said this before, I'd love to be able to qualify for social housing so I could pay cheaper rent and save for a deposit for my own place. It's very difficult when you're paying loads to move to a place, then rent and bills on top. It's also a horribly insecure way of living.
The people I'm taking about are single or cohabitating with someone who also earns a decent wage.
£20k a year is around £1400 a month after tax. Our household bills come to around £800 a month and we're a family of 4 in a family home. So that would leave us £600 a month for food, clothes, luxuries etc. Which is quite a lot of disposable income.
I wouldn't call that peanuts as someone else suggested.
Obviously it's all relative as if this house was more southernly our household bills would be much higher.
As for those on benefits, £20k a year in benefits is a lot. If you're entitled to that much, then I'd assume you gets housing and council tax benefit, so you'd be able to have your rent paid for you anyway.
I just think 1.8 million people sounds a lot. But how many of them are absolutely desperate, have no roof over their heads? And how many can afford the rent they're paying already but would like to pay less?
Well more houses, obviously. But it's just not happening.
So the situation will go from bad to severe to critical, I'm afraid.
Hard physical reality.
I disagree that 'more houses' is the answer to increasing population. You can only do that indefinitely until you run out of land to build on. Measures need to be put in place now to curb population growth, and not just in the UK but globally. I know people bang on about education but do we really have the time to wait for adequate levels of education?
The people I'm taking about are single or cohabitating with someone who also earns a decent wage.
£20k a year is around £1400 a month after tax. Our household bills come to around £800 a month and we're a family of 4 in a family home. So that would leave us £600 a month for food, clothes, luxuries etc. Which is quite a lot of disposable income.
I wouldn't call that peanuts as someone else suggested.
Obviously it's all relative as if this house was more southernly our household bills would be much higher.
As for those on benefits, £20k a year in benefits is a lot. If you're entitled to that much, then I'd assume you gets housing and council tax benefit, so you'd be able to have your rent paid for you anyway.
I just think 1.8 million people sounds a lot. But how many of them are absolutely desperate, have no roof over their heads? And how many can afford the rent they're paying already but would like to pay less?
Get what you're saying. I'm single and work full time (I would on my current wage be able to rent my previous flat by myself, but it would still be a struggle). For me it's more about being able to have a secure tenancy while I save to buy somewhere. I've had to move 3 times in the last 3 years and it costs thousands (referencing, credit checks, deposits, removal men), OK you get some back with the return of previous deposits but the last agency I was with charged me £120 as a 'check out fee' - it's ridiculous charges like this (and the insecurity) that make me hate private renting. I was/am lucky that my parents are able to help me, many people are not so fortunate and so that's why they're on waiting lists. There's also probably a lot wouldn't pass the credit check, whether they're on benefits or not.
I disagree that 'more houses' is the answer to increasing population. You can only do that indefinitely until you run out of land to build on. Measures need to be put in place now to curb population growth, and not just in the UK but globally. I know people bang on about education but do we really have the time to wait for adequate levels of education?
What a moot point. Are you not aware of the vast amount of land this country has just sitting there.
Get what you're saying. I'm single and work full time (I would on my current wage be able to rent my previous flat by myself, but it would still be a struggle). For me it's more about being able to have a secure tenancy while I save to buy somewhere. I've had to move 3 times in the last 3 years and it costs thousands (referencing, credit checks, deposits, removal men), OK you get some back with the return of previous deposits but the last agency I was with charged me £120 as a 'check out fee' - it's ridiculous charges like this (and the insecurity) that make me hate private renting. I was/am lucky that my parents are able to help me, many people are not so fortunate and so that's why they're on waiting lists. There's also probably a lot wouldn't pass the credit check, whether they're on benefits or not.
The fees that are charged are ridiculous. And if they were regulated/had a set fee, I think private renting would be much more accessible to people. We're looking at moving, we've looked at 2 houses through different estate agents. Both the same price. One would cost us £1.6k to move including the fees, deposit and first months rent. The other £2.2k. An extra £600. £300 of that was on the deposit. The rest we'd never see again.
I would love to pay less rent. I think everybody would. Even those already in social housing. But I also appreciate that the rent I pay enables me to live in a nice area with an excellent catchment school. It's never really crossed my mind to apply for social housing as I don't feel we "need" it and the snob in me would rather pay £300 a month more rent than live in the council estates near us.
The people I'm taking about are single or cohabitating with someone who also earns a decent wage.
£20k a year is around £1400 a month after tax. Our household bills come to around £800 a month and we're a family of 4 in a family home. So that would leave us £600 a month for food, clothes, luxuries etc. Which is quite a lot of disposable income.
I wouldn't call that peanuts as someone else suggested.
Obviously it's all relative as if this house was more southernly our household bills would be much higher.
As for those on benefits, £20k a year in benefits is a lot. If you're entitled to that much, then I'd assume you gets housing and council tax benefit, so you'd be able to have your rent paid for you anyway.
I just think 1.8 million people sounds a lot. But how many of them are absolutely desperate, have no roof over their heads? And how many can afford the rent they're paying already but would like to pay less?
Surely the problem isn't that 'affordable' housing rents are too low, it's that private rents are too high. Private landlords are creaming off profits by setting high rents paid for, in some instances, by housing benefits. A partial solution to this would be to build more 'affordable' housing (and NOT sold off) so that more people can afford to have a decent, settled lifestyle - even if they don't earn a fortune.
£20K really isn't that a high a wage for living in a lot of areas in the UK. It is a relatively new concept (since the 1980s, a Thatcher legacy) that people working in ordinary jobs put themselves in debt with mortgages, just to have a safe and secure roof over their head. Council housing used to cater for people -generally in factories or blue-collar jobs, for whom owning a property was either a distant dream or of no concern as they were happy to rent.
The 'Right to Buy' policy of the 1980s, coupled with 'buy to let' landlords buying multiple properties and renting them out to people who would have once been housed by the council, are parts of the problem. The artificially high prices of properties in some parts of the UK, keep people on lower incomes 'in hock', and has decimated affordable council housing for people who need it. It has also helped to set some sections of the 'working classes' off against each other because there is not enough affordable property for a person on an average wage. People who don't have these properties are jealous of people who do, and so think they are a bad idea. I wonder if they would want to rent privately if there were more 'affordable' properties to go around?
What a moot point. Are you not aware of the vast amount of land this country has just sitting there.
Only our arrogance assumes that the land is just 'sitting there.' It is home to countless species of wildlife and is vital to our ecosystem. And my point stands - you can't just keep reacting to ever increasing population; at some point you have to start being proactive in combating it.
Who do you suggest we vote for, The Socialist Worker's party?
People could protest and that would result in the main two parties being in favour of closing the wealth gap. I mean, I know noone will actually do this. And then they'll complain about their being no social housing.
The fees that are charged are ridiculous. And if they were regulated/had a set fee, I think private renting would be much more accessible to people. We're looking at moving, we've looked at 2 houses through different estate agents. Both the same price. One would cost us £1.6k to move including the fees, deposit and first months rent. The other £2.2k. An extra £600. £300 of that was on the deposit. The rest we'd never see again.
I would love to pay less rent. I think everybody would. Even those already in social housing. But I also appreciate that the rent I pay enables me to live in a nice area with an excellent catchment school. It's never really crossed my mind to apply for social housing as I don't feel we "need" it and the snob in me would rather pay £300 a month more rent than live in the council estates near us.
My dad always says that I wouldn't want to live on a council estate! In a lot of ways he is right, even though the last town I lived in was very expensive to buy/private rent in there were a couple of estates that were rough. Like I say, its the insecure tenancies - I'd love to be able to move somewhere and not have the thought in the back of my mind that in 10 months or so I could be having to start the whole process again.
In the previous place I lived the landlord decided to sell the flat, we were told we'd "probably" be able to stay. Not very reassuring. Especially since the bloke next door was told the same - then promptly served with his notice as soon as the new landlord bought it. In the end, my flatmate said he wanted to live on his own so I moved and left him to it. I believe that in other European countries 5 year leases are the norm, rather than the 6/12 months in the UK. Not sure if that would work, but it would offer tenants much greater security and allow them to feel they have a home. My last town had very little sense of community as there was an ever-changing parade of residents, if you don't feel you have a stake in something, you're not bothered about the local area as you know you may not be there that long.
Finally, I believe that a cap on these charges was introduced in Scotland, however I saw an investigation on the BBC news site thst said they were still being charged - and people were still paying as the bottom line is they need a place to live and all other options are closed to them.
I've not read all the posts, but I know several people who are on the social housing waiting lists and have been for a few years. However, they are certainly not in need of it. They just don't want to spend their £20k+ a year salaries on "normal" rent.
I'd rather see the figures of how many people who are actually in need of social housing are on the list.
I think there is a certain amount of abuse of the system. I know of someone in my area who I am told owns at least two ex Council houses, which his grown up children now live in, while he and his wife still live in a rented Council house. The late Bob Crow of the RMT Union lived in a council property, while earning over £100 000 pa.
What a moot point. Are you not aware of the vast amount of land this country has just sitting there.
This country has one of the smallest land mass of any country for the population.
Countryside is needed, it is a source of food, wildlife lives there, it is where rain falls and then soaks into the water table, the trees and vegetation which give us oxygen that we breathe and it gives us Brits enjoyment to go to the countryside and have a quality of life.
It simply isn't up to us to keep fixing other countries problems for them.
- We go in there and put troops on the ground and everyone blames us for global terrorism and call us war criminals.
- We do nothing and watch a country implode and get taken over and effectively become lawless and we now have to take all these people in and give them housing, schooling and feed them whilst their country turns into a terror state.
Syria is where a lot of terrorist camps have been for ages, spreading hate against the western world. You now want us to take their people in (who didn't fight against extremism and instead up sticks and left), the same people who are largely muslim and have had issues with integrating into our country as it is. Although many muslims do integrate, there are a large number that haven't and have extreme religious views that are not welcome to many of the population.
The UK has done a lot so far to try and help Syria, large amounts of money have been given in aid. Now all of a sudden the 'social media heart strings' have been pulled by images and we've suddenly all gone soft just because of 1 or 2 photographs. The problem is if we accept large numbers now, we'll store up a bigger problem later on in this country when it 5-10 years people want more mosques, more of their religion, more of their laws and not to come and adapt to our way of life, culture and values.
This country has one of the smallest land mass of any country for the population.
/snip - post above/
Money spent in relief parcels and free food, while necessary and humanitarian - is money into a bottomless pit. You effectively pay to maintain a status quo where you need to pay. Being a large contributor in mainly only this area ensures that we will continue to be a large contributor.
The people need to be rehoused, welcomed and provided the means to provide for themselves. Ideally we would give them two choices - integrate into an existing society or join a 'nation in exile'.
As for integrating into the UK, it is to our own shame that our citizen classes are so piss poor, and that our aspiration to values based on human rights is not entrenched in our governmental principles and championed more strongly to all citizens and cultural societies within the UK.
As for the 'nation in exile' I would approach a nearby nation with space (Armenia?) and make an international offer of funding. What is the UN for???
Thing is, I could give £500 to Syrian refugees entering this country - more importantly I could generate £500 worth of work on my property for some of them to do. Many people could.
Solutions are not easy - especially when they are new, we have no experience of them and they need to be established quickly. But, to be honest, we've had at least two years for the world to plan for this one, so we have only ourselves to blame for now needing to run round like headless chickens developing a strategy that we could have spent years preparing for.
Councils don't help matters when they allow builders to 'buy out' the planning clauses that say they have to build a certain percentage of social housing in with their larger developments.
I don't know if this happens everywhere, but working in construction I do know it's a 'thing' developers can sometimes do if they wish to, certainly in the area I live in.
It certainly happens where I live. The proportion of new housing set aside for social housing is tiny, there are a million and one reasons the council gives for not seeking more. The latest one is that the site in question is contaminated land, and the clean-up costs are so high that the development would be uneconomic if they had to include social housing.
Uneconomic, my arse. House prices here are rising so fast that even if they were uneconomic when they got the planning consent, they'd be in profit by the time they were finished.
I think there is a certain amount of abuse of the system. I know of someone in my area who I am told owns at least two ex Council houses, which his grown up children now live in, while he and his wife still live in a rented Council house. The late Bob Crow of the RMT Union lived in a council property, while earning over £100 000 pa.
This is another problem - people still living in social housing when they no longer 'need' it. A guy I worked with and his wife earn around £70k between them and live in a council house. I'm not even allowed to bid as I earn 'too much', even though my salary is less than half their combined income. I often wondered what Mr Crows members who were unable to access social housing despite some probably earning a fifth of what he did, thought about his arrangements...
Money spent in relief parcels and free food, while necessary and humanitarian - is money into a bottomless pit. You effectively pay to maintain a status quo where you need to pay. Being a large contributor in mainly only this area ensures that we will continue to be a large contributor.
Yes, because it isn't our problem to fix. We are meeting the immediate needs whilst their people and their neighbours restore normal society in Syria. If every time a crisis happens we offer free housing and a life in Britain then we're soon going to end up as an absolutely horrible place to live, we'll effectively be a refuge state full of people all propping up poor states, with overflowing hospitals, queues around the block for food handouts and crime out of control (as where there's poverty, there's crime). I CHOOSE not to live in a country like that.
As for integrating into the UK, it is to our own shame that our citizen classes are so piss poor, and that our aspiration to values based on human rights is not entrenched in our governmental principles and championed more strongly to all citizens and cultural societies within the UK.
Thing is, I could give £500 to Syrian refugees entering this country - more importantly I could generate £500 worth of work on my property for some of them to do. Many people could.
championed more strongly to all citizens and cultural societies within the UK.
And what when that runs out? despite the fact it's a criminal offense to hire non legal workers, one which is now able to impose a prison sentence on employers.
The fact is, that Syria is not even in Europe, they or their neighbours never joined any support organisations or coordinated nation support. They have never contributed anything except extremist religion and values that go against our values and way of life. It isn't up to us to totally fix the world's problems, whilst we may be able to offer some housing and give some aid, the onus is on the people of that country and their neighbours to take a stand.
Scrap right to buy. Social housing should remain social housing.
Also legislation about vacant property.
"more housing" in itself is not an answer though, the UK is an Island and will eventually run out of space.
The right to buy means that every time a house it bought, it must be replaced by another using the money from the sale as the build cost. The government is clamping down on authorities which haven't replaced stock. A percentage of houses built by developers must be social housing too.
The issue isn't with a shortage, it is with much more demand. We need to deal with the demand.
It depends what area you're in - in the area I've just moved from £20k wouldn't have allowed you to privately rent a 2 bed flat, possibly not even a 1 bed. The flat I lived in (I shared with a friend as that was only way I could afford some sort of independence having been a lodger for the previous 18 months), you were required to earn £27500 just to apply. I've moved to a cheaper area now but was still required to earn a certain amount to be able to rent. There always seems to be this myth that you can just rent privately when there's a minimum you have to earn, credit checks and referencing to pass (which the prospective tenant has to pay for).
A lot of people don't understand this.
Where I live, it is virtually impossible to find a one-bed flat below £650 pcm. One letting agent won't countenance letting a property where the monthly rent is less than monthly net pay, so you need a net income of £1,625 to get a one-bed flat. That's about £25-26k pa, gross.
Thankfully, they will include housing benefit and tax credits in that. I regularly provide clients with a calculation showing what benefits they'd be entitled to, just so they can get somewhere to live.
The ironic thing is, the housing support workers who help them secure housing don't earn anything like enough to get a one-bed flat themselves.
Rent controls would make housing a lot more affordable and secure tenancies would reduce need, because people wouldn't have to leave on the landlord's whim with just 2 months notice.
This is another problem - people still living in social housing when they no longer 'need' it. A guy I worked with and his wife earn around £70k between them and live in a council house. I'm not even allowed to bid as I earn 'too much', even though my salary is less than half their combined income. I often wondered what Mr Crows members who were unable to access social housing despite some probably earning a fifth of what he did, thought about his arrangements...
But if this is wrong so is the right to buy, even more so when big discounts are given out and the homes sold are not replaced 1 for 1.
Scrap right to buy. Social housing should remain social housing.
Also legislation about vacant property.
"more housing" in itself is not an answer though, the UK is an Island and will eventually run out of space.
Not for ages I don't think. We have a fairly high population density but still less than many countries we don't think of as in danger of running out of space.
Comments
The people I'm taking about are single or cohabitating with someone who also earns a decent wage.
£20k a year is around £1400 a month after tax. Our household bills come to around £800 a month and we're a family of 4 in a family home. So that would leave us £600 a month for food, clothes, luxuries etc. Which is quite a lot of disposable income.
I wouldn't call that peanuts as someone else suggested.
Obviously it's all relative as if this house was more southernly our household bills would be much higher.
As for those on benefits, £20k a year in benefits is a lot. If you're entitled to that much, then I'd assume you gets housing and council tax benefit, so you'd be able to have your rent paid for you anyway.
I just think 1.8 million people sounds a lot. But how many of them are absolutely desperate, have no roof over their heads? And how many can afford the rent they're paying already but would like to pay less?
Get what you're saying. I'm single and work full time (I would on my current wage be able to rent my previous flat by myself, but it would still be a struggle). For me it's more about being able to have a secure tenancy while I save to buy somewhere. I've had to move 3 times in the last 3 years and it costs thousands (referencing, credit checks, deposits, removal men), OK you get some back with the return of previous deposits but the last agency I was with charged me £120 as a 'check out fee' - it's ridiculous charges like this (and the insecurity) that make me hate private renting. I was/am lucky that my parents are able to help me, many people are not so fortunate and so that's why they're on waiting lists. There's also probably a lot wouldn't pass the credit check, whether they're on benefits or not.
What a moot point. Are you not aware of the vast amount of land this country has just sitting there.
The fees that are charged are ridiculous. And if they were regulated/had a set fee, I think private renting would be much more accessible to people. We're looking at moving, we've looked at 2 houses through different estate agents. Both the same price. One would cost us £1.6k to move including the fees, deposit and first months rent. The other £2.2k. An extra £600. £300 of that was on the deposit. The rest we'd never see again.
I would love to pay less rent. I think everybody would. Even those already in social housing. But I also appreciate that the rent I pay enables me to live in a nice area with an excellent catchment school. It's never really crossed my mind to apply for social housing as I don't feel we "need" it and the snob in me would rather pay £300 a month more rent than live in the council estates near us.
Surely the problem isn't that 'affordable' housing rents are too low, it's that private rents are too high. Private landlords are creaming off profits by setting high rents paid for, in some instances, by housing benefits. A partial solution to this would be to build more 'affordable' housing (and NOT sold off) so that more people can afford to have a decent, settled lifestyle - even if they don't earn a fortune.
£20K really isn't that a high a wage for living in a lot of areas in the UK. It is a relatively new concept (since the 1980s, a Thatcher legacy) that people working in ordinary jobs put themselves in debt with mortgages, just to have a safe and secure roof over their head. Council housing used to cater for people -generally in factories or blue-collar jobs, for whom owning a property was either a distant dream or of no concern as they were happy to rent.
The 'Right to Buy' policy of the 1980s, coupled with 'buy to let' landlords buying multiple properties and renting them out to people who would have once been housed by the council, are parts of the problem. The artificially high prices of properties in some parts of the UK, keep people on lower incomes 'in hock', and has decimated affordable council housing for people who need it. It has also helped to set some sections of the 'working classes' off against each other because there is not enough affordable property for a person on an average wage. People who don't have these properties are jealous of people who do, and so think they are a bad idea. I wonder if they would want to rent privately if there were more 'affordable' properties to go around?
Agreed!
Well what did Labour do? sod all.
Who do you suggest we vote for, The Socialist Worker's party?
People could protest and that would result in the main two parties being in favour of closing the wealth gap. I mean, I know noone will actually do this. And then they'll complain about their being no social housing.
Or at least vote for a right wing government that attacks the EU rather than the poor and disabled here.
My dad always says that I wouldn't want to live on a council estate! In a lot of ways he is right, even though the last town I lived in was very expensive to buy/private rent in there were a couple of estates that were rough. Like I say, its the insecure tenancies - I'd love to be able to move somewhere and not have the thought in the back of my mind that in 10 months or so I could be having to start the whole process again.
In the previous place I lived the landlord decided to sell the flat, we were told we'd "probably" be able to stay. Not very reassuring. Especially since the bloke next door was told the same - then promptly served with his notice as soon as the new landlord bought it. In the end, my flatmate said he wanted to live on his own so I moved and left him to it. I believe that in other European countries 5 year leases are the norm, rather than the 6/12 months in the UK. Not sure if that would work, but it would offer tenants much greater security and allow them to feel they have a home. My last town had very little sense of community as there was an ever-changing parade of residents, if you don't feel you have a stake in something, you're not bothered about the local area as you know you may not be there that long.
Finally, I believe that a cap on these charges was introduced in Scotland, however I saw an investigation on the BBC news site thst said they were still being charged - and people were still paying as the bottom line is they need a place to live and all other options are closed to them.
I think there is a certain amount of abuse of the system. I know of someone in my area who I am told owns at least two ex Council houses, which his grown up children now live in, while he and his wife still live in a rented Council house. The late Bob Crow of the RMT Union lived in a council property, while earning over £100 000 pa.
This country has one of the smallest land mass of any country for the population.
Countryside is needed, it is a source of food, wildlife lives there, it is where rain falls and then soaks into the water table, the trees and vegetation which give us oxygen that we breathe and it gives us Brits enjoyment to go to the countryside and have a quality of life.
It simply isn't up to us to keep fixing other countries problems for them.
- We go in there and put troops on the ground and everyone blames us for global terrorism and call us war criminals.
- We do nothing and watch a country implode and get taken over and effectively become lawless and we now have to take all these people in and give them housing, schooling and feed them whilst their country turns into a terror state.
Syria is where a lot of terrorist camps have been for ages, spreading hate against the western world. You now want us to take their people in (who didn't fight against extremism and instead up sticks and left), the same people who are largely muslim and have had issues with integrating into our country as it is. Although many muslims do integrate, there are a large number that haven't and have extreme religious views that are not welcome to many of the population.
The UK has done a lot so far to try and help Syria, large amounts of money have been given in aid. Now all of a sudden the 'social media heart strings' have been pulled by images and we've suddenly all gone soft just because of 1 or 2 photographs. The problem is if we accept large numbers now, we'll store up a bigger problem later on in this country when it 5-10 years people want more mosques, more of their religion, more of their laws and not to come and adapt to our way of life, culture and values.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/458717/DFID_Syria_Crisis_Response_Summary__2015.09.04_.pdf
Money spent in relief parcels and free food, while necessary and humanitarian - is money into a bottomless pit. You effectively pay to maintain a status quo where you need to pay. Being a large contributor in mainly only this area ensures that we will continue to be a large contributor.
The people need to be rehoused, welcomed and provided the means to provide for themselves. Ideally we would give them two choices - integrate into an existing society or join a 'nation in exile'.
As for integrating into the UK, it is to our own shame that our citizen classes are so piss poor, and that our aspiration to values based on human rights is not entrenched in our governmental principles and championed more strongly to all citizens and cultural societies within the UK.
As for the 'nation in exile' I would approach a nearby nation with space (Armenia?) and make an international offer of funding. What is the UN for???
Thing is, I could give £500 to Syrian refugees entering this country - more importantly I could generate £500 worth of work on my property for some of them to do. Many people could.
Solutions are not easy - especially when they are new, we have no experience of them and they need to be established quickly. But, to be honest, we've had at least two years for the world to plan for this one, so we have only ourselves to blame for now needing to run round like headless chickens developing a strategy that we could have spent years preparing for.
It certainly happens where I live. The proportion of new housing set aside for social housing is tiny, there are a million and one reasons the council gives for not seeking more. The latest one is that the site in question is contaminated land, and the clean-up costs are so high that the development would be uneconomic if they had to include social housing.
Uneconomic, my arse. House prices here are rising so fast that even if they were uneconomic when they got the planning consent, they'd be in profit by the time they were finished.
This is another problem - people still living in social housing when they no longer 'need' it. A guy I worked with and his wife earn around £70k between them and live in a council house. I'm not even allowed to bid as I earn 'too much', even though my salary is less than half their combined income. I often wondered what Mr Crows members who were unable to access social housing despite some probably earning a fifth of what he did, thought about his arrangements...
Yes, because it isn't our problem to fix. We are meeting the immediate needs whilst their people and their neighbours restore normal society in Syria. If every time a crisis happens we offer free housing and a life in Britain then we're soon going to end up as an absolutely horrible place to live, we'll effectively be a refuge state full of people all propping up poor states, with overflowing hospitals, queues around the block for food handouts and crime out of control (as where there's poverty, there's crime). I CHOOSE not to live in a country like that.
Are you not citizen class then? a royal are we?
And what when that runs out? despite the fact it's a criminal offense to hire non legal workers, one which is now able to impose a prison sentence on employers.
The fact is, that Syria is not even in Europe, they or their neighbours never joined any support organisations or coordinated nation support. They have never contributed anything except extremist religion and values that go against our values and way of life. It isn't up to us to totally fix the world's problems, whilst we may be able to offer some housing and give some aid, the onus is on the people of that country and their neighbours to take a stand.
Also legislation about vacant property.
"more housing" in itself is not an answer though, the UK is an Island and will eventually run out of space.
OK, you can't make much money out of them and you can't stack them on top of each other ....... but that's a good thing.
The right to buy means that every time a house it bought, it must be replaced by another using the money from the sale as the build cost. The government is clamping down on authorities which haven't replaced stock. A percentage of houses built by developers must be social housing too.
The issue isn't with a shortage, it is with much more demand. We need to deal with the demand.
A lot of people don't understand this.
Where I live, it is virtually impossible to find a one-bed flat below £650 pcm. One letting agent won't countenance letting a property where the monthly rent is less than monthly net pay, so you need a net income of £1,625 to get a one-bed flat. That's about £25-26k pa, gross.
Thankfully, they will include housing benefit and tax credits in that. I regularly provide clients with a calculation showing what benefits they'd be entitled to, just so they can get somewhere to live.
The ironic thing is, the housing support workers who help them secure housing don't earn anything like enough to get a one-bed flat themselves.
Rent controls would make housing a lot more affordable and secure tenancies would reduce need, because people wouldn't have to leave on the landlord's whim with just 2 months notice.
But if this is wrong so is the right to buy, even more so when big discounts are given out and the homes sold are not replaced 1 for 1.
Not for ages I don't think. We have a fairly high population density but still less than many countries we don't think of as in danger of running out of space.