The need for social housing in the UK
“Housing is not a question of Conservatism or Socialism, it is a question of humanity.” [Harold Macmillan]
To state that there is a housing problem in the UK is to almost repeat an established truth. But, controversially, it is true to state that the UK does not have a housing crisis. It is, more specifically, a shortage of affordable housing that provides the source and mainstay of any problem with housing in the UK. This is a situation that, in contemporary times, has been addressed by means of social housing policies – homes built by local authorities to provide secure tenancies at reasonable rents for those in society with lesser means. Perspectives on the need for a social housing policy in the UK change according to the demands identified, or the cost of the provision entailed in the fulfilment of a stratagem. King George V stated, in an extract from his speech to Representatives of the Local Authorities and Societies in 1919: “While the housing of the working class has always been a question of the greatest social importance, never has it been so important as now” Writer and historian, Lynsey Hanley, herself from the Chelmsley Wood estate in Birmingham, identifies 20th century social housing policies as “nineteenth century crusade[s] to house the poor in clean and comfortable surroundings.” Social housing policies are models that can only be constructed by means of collective action and a re-distribution of wealth on the part of greater society. As the above references make clear, social housing at the onset of the 20th century was taken very seriously at all social levels, both as a need and as an obligation of a civilised society. In the early part of the 21st century however, the “crusade” struggles under both the quantity of those who await social housing provision, how it should be designed and indeed, if housing should be preferentially distributed.
The Essay on Development Of Social Policy part 1
... Social attitudes changed over the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and were the main driving force for the development of health care policies. ... was lengthy and considered the whole question of social insurance, arguing that want could be ... afford or have access to good housing, generally live in poor areas with ... very high in todays society. Relative poverty is about social exclusion and not having ...
‘The Housing of the Working Classes Act’ (1890) is the modern origin of a social housing policy in the UK; this act encouraged local authorities to take an interest in the improvement of housing provision. ‘Homes fit for heroes’ was the rallying cry of Liberal Prime Minister, Lloyd George’s First World Wartime coalition government, and the planning and implementation of a housing policy was an election promise. The need was identified by the chronic shortage of available housing – Dr Marian Bowley in ‘Housing and the State, 1919-1944’ (1945) calculated that the shortage of houses in England and Wales by 1921 was 805,000. The quality of the present housing stock was poor, and this also affected the population’s health, as highlighted during the period of conscription (1916 – 1918) in the Great War, when over 41% of conscripts were classified as “outside the ranks of those who would be likely to see combat”. Minister for Health, Dr Christopher Addison, headed the 1917 Tudor Walters Committee Report into housing needs, and his committee’s findings gave birth to ‘The Housing and Town Planning Act’ of 1919, which spawned an ambitious programme of state-sponsored house-building across England and Wales.
The UK, in the immediate post Second World War era, was somberly illustrated by housing stock that had largely been bombed-out. “475,000 houses were either destroyed or [had been] made permanently inhabitable, and a much greater number damaged” during the bombing raids of the war. Governments in the following decade were united, at least in terms of their perception of the electorate’s approval, in helping to vanquish what the civil servant and economist, William Beveridge, identified as the ‘Five Giants’ standing in the way of creating a more equal post-war society: ‘Want, Ignorance, Disease, Idleness, Squalor.’ Immediately following the war, the Minister for Health, Aneurin Bevan, oversaw a major house-building programme that he saw as essential to replace and supplement housing in the UK, and his government subsequently embarked on building “a million homes during its first five years in power”. Harold Macmillan’s incoming Conservative government of 1951 committed to an election promise of “300,000 [new] homes a year” with his ‘Great Housing Crusade’. This joint enthusiasm between the two major parties for housing build was, however, marked by major political differences between Bevan and Macmillan’s priorities, in their drive to build housing.
This Essay Is About The Connotations Of The Words "house" And "home"
What would you call the structure you live in? Would it be a house, or a home? While the words “house” and “home” possess similar definitions and can be used interchangeably– after all both do provide some sort of shelter or protection- they embody very different connotations, and their usage evokes different emotional responses. A home does not have to be a building, ...
While Bevan would “quite happily have housed everybody in council houses if he could”,Macmillan’s rationale was to aim toward a “property owning democracy”. The transposition of government in 1951 saw “a change of perspective from one that saw public housing as providing the nation with a collective legacy, to one that saw it as a brief stop on the path towards acquiring an individual legacy.” Macmillan, with his more pragmatic approach, was able to build more houses quicker and cheaper. Housing under the Tory government of the 1950s reached an annual total, by 1954, of 348,000 completions. However this was at a cost of average house size, ubiquity of design and quality of construction – factors that also easily identified many homes as being council houses. While these aspects may have been minor drawbacks for eager house-seekers, the long-term problems that subsequently became attached to social housing had been seeded.
The 1960s saw a peak in a more contemporary type of housing build – the tower block. 26% of all tenders for new local authority builds were made for flats in 1966. Families in particular, many with children, were housed in such properties in opposition to public opinion and contrary to original intentions. However the distaste for the high rise flat could reasonably be attributed to a dislike of the new. An enquiry in 1972 into residents’ feelings to various types of housing saw that only two-fifths of residents with small children expressed unhappiness at living above the ground. What mattered more was not the density of housing or the height, but more the general appearance, character and the way it was – or not – looked after. However catastrophic incidents, such as the Ronan Point accident of May 1968 that saw the deaths of four people when one half of a block of flats fell down after a gas leak, made aesthetic discussions about high-rise housing redundant. The eventual attribution of the cause of the Ronan Point incident was the substandard materials and the hasty construction methods. It was clear that homes built ostensibly to replace slum housing, were being replaced by nothing more than “slums in the sky”.
The Essay on Cherokee Indians Council House
Out of the many Indian tribes of the past, none have been more interesting as the Cherokee. This interesting tribe was brutally forced out of their native land during the "Trail of Tears." Here is the story of these remarkable Indians and their legacy left in the United States today. The Cherokee's believed earth was a floating island suspended by four cords in the sky, which was made of solid ...
The deeper issues, though, surrounding high-rise social housing weren’t that illustrated by such dreadful accidents. While people losing their lives due to half a building crashing to the ground one morning is an immediate and tragic catastrophe, the longer-term difficulties attached to deprivation, isolation and the alienation many tenants felt from living in such homes meant that deep-seated social problems that would take and scar many lives for generations to come were sown. The problems of alienation and isolation show themselves medically, of course, in the populace affected, and so carry an economic cost to the state as well as a personal cost to those affected. Essential features for a high rise such as elevators could be out of order for many months awaiting repairs. The high-level walkways connecting the blocks induced, as at Park Hill in Sheffield, a “sense of horizontal vertigo for tenants, and provided easy escape routes for muggers and burglars”. Those inhabiting the flats understandably had a difficult or unpleasant experience exiting or entering their homes. Inhabitants of the White Tower estate near Clapham Park, London, were observed “scuttl[ing] in and out of their blocks, hurrying to their own front doors. The only place to be was inside the safe, familiar, private space of your own flat” Tenants with families petitioned the council for alternative accommodation, and the flats they left behind were, in the main, filled by one or two people only – often in transient residence. The need or natural human desire for the community of a neighbourhood was being broken down and eroded.
The ‘right to buy’ policy of allowing council house tenants to purchase their homes at a vastly discounted rate from their local authorities, originated with Harold Macmillan in the early 1950s. The judgment of whether and how many of their properties to sell was then, however, left to the discretion of local authorities. Edward Heath’s government in the early 1970s subsequently attempted to make ‘right to buy’ part of Conservative policy. Ironically this was opposed at the time by Margaret Thatcher, who was concerned at the privilege offered to those who hadn’t spent the years others had in saving and living frugally in order to buy their homes. However after her 1979 election victory it was clear that “record working class support” had formed a large of the voters who returned the government. Of these many were skilled manual workers who filled the demography that would be grateful of such a policy. Therefore in 1980 the Secretary of State for the Environment, Michael Heseltine, included the ‘right to buy’ policy in the Housing Act (1980), and by 1982 sales of council properties to former tenants had reached 200,000 a year. The BBC presciently reported at the time “the government believes the bill will transform the social structure of Britain for good.”
The Term Paper on Mauritius, Social Housing: Social Movement and Low Income Housing in Mauritius
Social Housing Social Movement and Low Income Housing in Mauritius Abstract: The Republic of Mauritius has been a model success story in both economic and social progress among both the African nations and the whole world. Despite many odds, the country has made tremendous economic progress and has succeeded at the same time to uplift significantly the living standards of the population in ...
Regarded superficially, there is little not to admire in ‘right to buy’. Quite reasonably, a tenant given proprietorship will take increased pride and care with their own home. Those now paying a mortgage had a more pressing need to stay in employment and improve their skills. Many householders were given the first opportunities in their lives to acquire a tangible asset, and this, of course, could be passed on to their children. But there was also a political agenda that lay with the ‘Right to Buy’ policy – that of radically reducing the nation’s council housing stock and of eroding the respectability of social housing provision. Local authorities that were compelled to offer tenants a right to buy were then barred from replenishing the stock with new builds. According to research from Cambridge University, 242,000 new homes will need to be built annually from 2010 until 2026 to meet current needs. In the first decade of the 21st century the number of people in temporary accommodation awaiting a council or housing association tenancy rose by 135%, and there are currently more than 1.67 million households on waiting lists for social housing in the UK. Many former council houses were subsequently bought by private landlords and rented back to those who would previously have been housed in a council house. In 2010 the government spent £21 billion on housing benefit, and much of this revenue was ultimately passed on to wealthy private landlords.
The Essay on PRC Social Security Scheme
Major Characteristic of PRC Social Security Scheme - Only applicable to Chinese local employees - Local requirements may vary from locality to locality. Structure of Social Security Scheme ?Decisions of the State Council Concerning the Establishment of a Unified System of Basic Old-age Insurance for Staff and Workers of Enterprises?(July 16, 1997) Structure of ...
In 2008, the Minister for Housing, Caroline Flint, floated the idea that those with council tenancies who didn’t get a job could lose their homes, and ‘commitment contracts’ would be issued to ensure that compliance with job-seeking would be tied to house-tenure. The fact that such a policy would be socially destructive and, of course, illegal – councils cannot make an individual homeless – was somehow immaterial. The supposition was once again being aired that those who have a council tenancy are in some way feckless. In 2010, Prime minister, David Cameron, called for the scrapping of long-term council tenancy agreements. He argued that only the most needy would be offered any lengthy tenancy – at most ten year agreements. Others would be monitored to assess their level of need, and then, once judged to have an income sufficient, would be requested to buy or to rent privately. This was a clear down-grading, even further, of the perception of council tenants in the eyes of modern politicians. Council houses are now viewed as little more than transit camps for the needy – temporary holding pens for the, hopefully temporarily, deprived. Much like the ‘Housing Projects’ of the USA, it has now become acceptable to view social housing as a refuge of last resort. Housing that no right-minded individual would choose, or should be able to exercise a right to choose.
A great opportunity for social housing provision was unfortunately missed when the 1945- 1951 Labour Government seriously considered, but failed to implement, the nationalisation of the entire stock of rented housing. The mass municipalisation of all privately rented homes would have raised the total national stock of council housing, in proportion to private housing, to 60%. With one act the sheer size of the housing stock would have defied stigma and perception problems. But rather than hark back to missed opportunities in pursuit of tackling current problems, we should question why state provision of health and education attracts mass support and popularity, whereas the provision of public housing attracts disdain. Many people wouldn’t dream of taking out private health care in preference to a cherished NHS, and only seven per cent of people seek private schooling for their children. Yet the overwhelming majority of people either have or covet a mortgage for a privately owned house. If the status of social housing was raised to parity with public health and education provision, then the main problems of perception and government reluctance to provide stock would be overturned. “On the continent, whether someone lives in cooperative housing in Sweden, a housing association flat in Holland, or a rented apartment in Paris has far less bearing, both on the quality of their home and their social standing” In the UK we could enjoy this perception too if social housing was to be regarded as an integral part of the housing stock – not peripheral.
The Term Paper on A Social History Of Truth
Review of The Social History Of Truth by Steven Shapin Chapter 1 When someone says that something is true, they are usually stating that it corresponds to the facts of how things really are. Academic philosopher's what is true and what is taken to be true by a process of sorting? No single being can constitute knowledge. All one can do is offer claims, with evidence, arguments and inducements to ...
“The true test of a successfully housed population will not be when 75, 80, 85, 90, etc. per cent of people are homeowners, but when everyone has a home that suits their circumstances”. This is perhaps a hazy utopia, but it is also an ideal of housing provision that is given up on at peril. In 1937, the social and quotidian historical project, Mass Observation, carried out ‘anthropology at home’ research into people’s lives. Of those residing in working-class homes, “satisfaction was highest (80%) in housing estates and lowest (62%) in privately-rented old houses. A majority of all residents identified their ‘ideal house’ as a small house with a garden”. As a nation we seem to have simple desires and requirements regarding the ‘four walls and a roof’ accommodation that is also a fundamental need. It is therefore not only vital; it is humanitarian to make such accommodation affordable, desirable and widely available.
Bibliography:
Burnett, John, “A Social history of housing, 1815 – 1985”, Routledge, 1993
Hanley, Lynsey, “Estates: an intimate history”, Granta, 2008
Hoffman, John & Graham, Paul, “Introduction to Political Theory”, Pearson Longman, 2006
Jones, Owen, “Chavs: the demonization of the working class”, Verso, 2011
Winter, J.M, “The Great War and the British People”, Macmillan Education, 1987
Minto, Anna, “Ground Control”, Penguin, 2009
Moran, Joe, “Queuing for beginners”, Profile, 2007
Toynbee, Polly, “Hard Work: Life in low pay Britain”, Bloomsbury, 2003
——————————————–
[ 1 ]. Hanley, Lynsey, “Estates: an intimate history”, Granta, 2008, pg. 89
[ 2 ]. Burnett, John. “A social history of housing: 1815 – 1985”, Routledge, 1993, pg. 219
[ 3 ]. Hanley, “Estates”, pg. 50
[ 4 ]. Burnett, John. “A social history of housing”, pg. 219
[ 5 ]. Ibid, pg. 221
[ 6 ]. Winter, J.M, “The Great War and the British People”, Macmillan Education, 1987 pg. 55
[ 7 ]. Hanley, Estates, pg. 61
[ 8 ]. Burnett, John. “A social history of housing”, pg. 285
[ 9 ]. Hanley, Estates, pg. 74
[ 10 ]. Ibid, pg. 83
[ 11 ]. Ibid, pg. 88
[ 12 ]. Ibid, pg. 92
[ 13 ]. Ibid, pg. 92
[ 14 ]. Ibid, pg. 92
[ 15 ]. Burnett, John. “A social history of housing”, pg. 286
[ 16 ]. Ibid, pg. 301
[ 17 ]. Ibid, pg. 302
[ 18 ]. Ibid, pg. 304
[ 19 ]. Hanley, Estates, pg 109
[ 20 ]. Ibid, pg. 97
[ 21 ]. Hanley, Estates, pg. 124
[ 22 ]. Ibid, pg. 117
[ 23 ]. Toynbee, Polly, “Hard Work: Life in low-pay Britain”, Bloomsbury, 2003, pg. 17
[ 24 ]. Hanley, Estates, pg. 117
[ 25 ]. Ibid, pg. 134
[ 26 ]. Jones, Owen, “Chavs: The demonization of the working class”, Verso, 2011, pg. 69
[ 27 ]. Hanley, Estates, pg. 135
[ 28 ]. Minton, Anna, “Ground Control”, Penguin, 2009, pg. 115
[ 29 ]. Hanley, Estates, pg. 142
[ 30 ]. Minton, Anna, “Ground Control”, Penguin, 2009, pg. 115
[ 31 ]. Ibid, pg. 115
[ 32 ]. Jones, “Chavs”, pg. 207
[ 33 ]. Minto, “Ground Control”, pg. 115
[ 34 ]. Jones, “Chavs”, pg. 207
[ 35 ]. Ibid, pg. 87
[ 36 ]. Ibid, pg. 209
[ 37 ]. Minton, “Ground Control”, pg. 115
[ 38 ]. Hanley, “Estates”, pg. 91
[ 39 ]. Ibid, pg. 212
[ 40 ]. Minto, “Ground Control”, pg. 125
[ 41 ]. Hanley, “Estates”, pg. 231
[ 42 ]. Moran, Joe, “Queuing for beginners”, Profile, 2007, pg. 2
[ 43 ]. Burnett, “A social history of housing”, pg. 237
