You have a very polarised view that social housing is a temporary stopping point for any person or family, somewhere that they shouldn't linger too long in while they throw a six or buy a winning scratch card, or something.

What "encouragement" do you give your tenants to move on and avoid getting "trapped" ?

We do all kinds of work with them, but explaining it to someone with such a set agenda as yours seems a little fruitless Mr Chicken.

My agenda isn't set in stone, its just a different point of view, you believe that you are there to provide temporary accommodation for absolute defined periods of a persons family life, I believe you should have a different function and I'm curious as to when your job function changed because it wasn't always so.

Why would they need to "move on"and where do you suggest they move on to?

It's a shame you have only been a housing professional for 15 years, if you'd done it for 60 years you would have the experience of seeing how council housing worked through the 50s and 60s and what happened to it post righ to buy

I'd say that your definition of "social" differs from mine, regardless of your job.

Unfortunately there are many who think that social housing is only for those receiving Social Security

What on earth do you mean by "trapped" in social housing? Why is it a trap? Is the social housing you deal with so awful people living there are trapped in it?

There was a documentary a few years ago about social housing and its history and it was this that highlighted to me the changes made by successive governments that have led us to where we are today. The biggy was of course the right-to-buy with councils not being allowed to reinvest the money in new builds but the one I mentioned above where social housing started to be allocated based on need had a polarising effect that was never the intention.

In fact the term "social housing" is pejorative IMO and is different to what I consider "council housing". The latter is simply the council providing rented accommodation to the local population and that is just what it used to be. The vast majority of people in council housing in the 50's and 60's were full time employed people with families. They were not the unemployed or the single mother stereotype associated with social housing these days.

The problems we face today of soaring private sector rents and property prices is crying out for a reintroduction of council housing. Build enough and assured tenancy agreements and the like won't be a problem (as they were not in the 50's and 60's) but instead could be viewed as giving the tenants the assurance they can call their house a home which in my opinion is something we ought to consider a right in a society as rich as ours

It's odd to think that those making a fuss about this would probably be small-statists, yet they appear to think that the state should decree how much of your income you should spend on housing and at what point you should increase your spending on your accommodation.

But then again, the vast inflation in housing prices over the last 20-25 years was artificially created by the state in the first place, although one wonders what those small staters feel about that.

This is EXACTLY my viewpoint, based on my wife's parents home of 50 years or so (1962 until their death 5 years ago) on what was then a brand new council estate of 2 and 3 bed homes for families, the huge majority of whom were IN work and happy to pay rent for the rest of their lives, there was no indication that they would have to, and no inclination to give up their homes when the children of the family moved on but there was always a flow of elderly into the one bed bungalows (also council) on the outskirts of the same estate, indeed there was a waiting list for these and as each old person pegged it then one would be rehomed and free up a 2 or 3 bed house although this was always voluntarily and not based on any sort of enforceable contract (which all seems a little heavy handed).

I don't know at what point the attitude to council housing changed but there seems to be an approach now that it is a temporary and short term fix - why is this ?

My mam & dad moved into their council house in late 1953, a 2 bedroomed new-build on a brand new estate on the Eastern outskirts of Hull. The land was acquired for a song because it was previously agricultural land and the cost of build (at the time) was less than £1000. It was brick-built with metal window frames, tiled roof, bitumen-covered concrete base and a single coal fire in the living room. I can't recall the rent but it was affordable because we never went into arrears - my old lady had kept every rentbook from the day we moved in until the day they exercised RtB. Those rent books formed part of an exhibition at Hull Museum, showing that me mam always paid a few bob more than required each week, so that she wouldn't have to find two weeks rent at Christmas or for our annual summer holiday.

The old man worked on the dock and she worked at Northern Dairies, I'd get up at the same time as them and go to work with the old lady until it was time for school. Rather than attend a primary school adjacent to home, I attended one close to my mother's workplace. I can't imagine that happening today. I'd spend my time before school hanging around the dairy, going to the coffee shop for hot cakes etc. Again, I can't envisage that happening today.

I remember the house was sparsely furnished with lino on the ground floors, covered with a few mats. We initially had a radio, then a radiogramme and the only form of heat came from the coal fire in the living room, supplemented by a paraffin stove. It wasn't unusual to wake on a winter's morning and find ice on the inside of the windows. But compared to the back room at my nan's, it was a palace. Our neighbours were all similar, from similar backgrounds, everyone took pride in their homes. The council would come around every five years or so and paint the exteriors in a mix of council approved colours. Gardens (front or back) could only be fenced or hedged to a height not exceeding 3' and if anyone started to let their garden go to seed, it wasn't long before the man from "the corpo" would come around to issue a warning.

As I grew up, I and most of my mates went on to grammar (or similar) schools. We used to go to the local youth club based at the secondary modern school on the estate, so grammar and sec-mod kids mixed freely. Although my old man never owned a car (he used bike, bus or taxi), there were a few of my mates' dads who owned modest, old bangers. Most of those cars only ever spun a wheel at weekends, their owners would commute by bike or bus during the week and then use the car on Saturday & Sunday.

As people became more prosperous, very few moved on to purchasing a house, they stayed where they were, knowing that once all the kids were finally gone, they could apply for an OAP bungalow on the same estate. The majority of the houses on the estate were 2 or 3 bedroomed with a small number of four bedroomed houses, some one bedroomed flats over the shops on the two parades and the OAP bungalows. There were three pubs, a library, two parades of shops, an estate office, two primary schools (with nursery facilities) and a senior school, on top of all this, there was also a large council-run Old Folks Home and a couple of 6-bedroomed houses for fostering. It may sound corny but the planners had put everything in place to assist a genuine community.

Looking back, is there any wonder I blame so much of society's ills on Thatcher?