The Council Estate Stigma

I have never generally had any great fear for tackling sensitive issues. Afterall, it's not what you do, but how you do it. Although I must say I harbour no doubt that all who read this will agree entirely with what I have to say. I'm an observant person, and this is based on something I witnessed last week that inspired me to look in to this particular avenue of the welfare state, and in particular those who are a party of it.

The 'council house' is a form of public or social housing in the UK. Council houses were built and operated by local councils to supply un-crowded, well built homes on secure tenancies at below market rents to, primarily, the working classes. Council house development began in the late nineteenth century and peaked in the mid-20th century. Some of these developments did not live up to the hopes of their supporters, and now suffer from a distinct reputation for urban blight and degeneration. A substantial part of the UK population still lives in council housing, despite the influence of the 'Right to Buy' Scheme under the 1980 Housing Act. Approximately 40% of the country’s social housing stock is owned by local authorities, 15% is managed by arm's length management organisations, and 45% by housing associations.

The facts over with, it is time to note some observation and opinion. Different political parties will of course have their own standing on the subject, although it has got to be said that, now that council housing is so well established, no party could ever abolish it. If it did, it would have to be done very slowly, and probably as a bi-product of other schemes and legislation over time.

However, the key issues on council housing and its sustainability seem to lie with 'who, where and why'. I will briefly look at each of these in reverse order, based on my own observations:

Firstly, why? The point of council housing was, as I have already mentioned, to provide better quality and maintained housing for the less privileged groups of our society. This always seems to have materialised naturally - afterall, (and I may get shot for saying this given everybodys circumstances are of course different,) those who work hard at school, achieve qualifications, seek employment and a career and manage themselves and their finances responsibly do tend to own their own homes, or at least have a mortgaged or rented property, and sustain their own lives without the need to fall back on the public purse. That is the middle-right wing view, and one must remember that for some (albeit a minority) it is misfortune that places them in need of council provided housing despite making the effort for themselves. Sadly though, despite that positivity, it remains the case that most of the occupants are people who simply could not be bothered.

Secondly, where? Peripheral areas tend to be the plots for council housing, usually built on estates. Walk through any city suburbia or the inner city residential clusters (basically the clump between the Central Business District and the outer suburbs) and you are bound to stumble across an agglomeration of council owned property somewhere. I say stumble, as despite the 'free' maintenance that the tenants are granted, things do tend to be tatty and it is a sad reality that little pride is taken in the physical environment by neither residents or authorities. Just take the goegraphy of estates in cities in the North of England, such as in Newcastle or Ripon, for your case study examples. I suppose these are the only places they could be. Nobody would want a council estate, or any residential property for that matter, dumping in the historic city centre areas of locations such as York, Norwich or Durham, would they?

Thirdly, or finally, who? If you've been reading this and struggling to figure out where it is going to end up, this is the crux of the debate. We know by now what the stigma is. The lower/working classes - associated historically with poverty, antisocial behaviour and no respect for humanity. In fact, many people would say this still prevails today. But we must look at the better side. Elderly people for example, such as those in sheltered accommodation or adapted bungalows are probably the most well receiving inhabitants. Afterall, tiny state pensions and no assistance would do nothing to aid the community or political democracy. Help for the disabled and elderly will always be valued and must be continued in the best format possible

However last week I was unfortunate enough to bear witness to an individual who is likely a candidate for most disgusting council house resident in the country. As this man listed his convictions proudly to myself and my friend (including stabbing, supplying drugs, violent assault and criminal damage) I found myself feeling increasingly resentful towards the entire system. Why? Because if an indecent low life like this is actually permitted to live in state funded accommodation, something is seriously wrong. At the end of the day, if he doesn't give a sh*t about society, why should society give a sh*t about him. Personally, I think the system needs reforming to seriously promote better social standards, and if that means denying council accommodation to anybody with more than a mediocre criminal conviction, then so be it. These councils are that obsessed with doing CRB checks on the employees providing their services, what about the people they allow to live in their property, given lots of vulnerable people (families with children, the disabled and the elderly) are likely to be nearby! That is the end of it - and this aforementioned individual should be evicted from his home and sent to prison for these crimes alone - he clearly had no desire to better himself, but we'll save the justice system for another day.

In conclusion, there are rights and wrongs with council housing, and this blog could be ten times longer. It exists for a reason - and for some people, it is just and deserved. For others, it frankly takes the Michael out of the entire welfare system and in turn, the hard working, tax paying, economically active population who (albiet in-directly) finance it. I for one am thoroughly discontented at having to pay for the man I mention to exist, and would loudly applaud any upcoming change to this horrific contradiction of social interest.