Bob Crow's Council House

There shouldn't be council houses at all. Why should one part of society pay for another part that can't take care of itself?

At the moment the council can't differentiate the rent for council housing between high and low earners. However the government might be introducing plans to force high earners to pay a higher rent which is a good idea. I would love to see if Bob stays put if he is charged the full rent, would make a good story if he decides to move.



His council house is in a part of London with a shortage of low cost council housing, there is no doubt a waiting list for his type of property and he is living in.



Council subsidised rent are set at significantly low levels so I doubt councils would make much money from them after maintenance costs.

Also you can already buy a council house with the Right to Buy scheme. I'm guessing Bob doesn't because he doesn't qualify (e.g. already owns another home somewhere else) or prefers the taxpayer to pick up the maintenance costs for his home.



Oh but he is! His house could go for at least double the rent that he is paying if it were at market rate. Plus all house maintenance costs and repairs get charged to the council as they are landlords of the house.

In London this issue is already being addressed via a couple of ways, mainly:

1. All new housing developments over a certain size must include a certain percentage of social housing within that development.

2. More and more ex-council properties in London are becoming available for sale privately after being bought using the right-to-buy scheme.

3. Council estate ghettos are being demolished or redeveloped and mixed in with private housing.

The general trend (in London at least) is that private housing is becoming more mixed with social housing. Bob Crow's argument is therefore not really relevant and certainly not a good excuse for staying in a council house.

But the whole point is surely that they're providing affordable housing for people who would, otherwise, not be able to afford homes. The reason it is government-run is to ensure that housing framework is there for the low-paid and the needy.

Your argument is perfectly legitimate, but we already take this into account in planning arrangements. We don't build council estates to be ghettos and, where we have, we should alter them. This is especially not a problem in London, where Mr Crow lives.

Anyway, I'm not sure why Bob Crow thinks his family are somehow maintaining the social order of his area, and that a family earning a modest income would somehow disrupt it. Seems a bit of a bizarre accusation really.

Simple question: Am I missing something here? I always assumed that council houses and flats were for people who couldn't afford to rent privately. Is Crow just full of complete **** or does he have a point? Because when I heard it I couldn't quite believe that someone could be that moronic and be the head of a major union. So either I'm missing something about his justification or something in the RMT union is totally ****ed up.