Council Homes

 I notice some people on Twitter, talking about Council Homes, saying that they should be limited to people in need? 

It seem some people opinion, sorry I mean they was say as fact, that Council Tenants should not earn over a set amount that the person who says this, has set in they mind, and if over, they should lose they Council Home, and get somewhere else?

But they have no problem with Council Tenants and Right to Buy with a discounted price? That is seen as great.

Seem a bit of a mixed message there?

So it popular to think Council Homes are just for people in need, nothing to do with anything else?

The Housing, Town Planning, &c. Act 1919 (9 & 10 Geo. 5. c. 35) was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.^[1] It was also known as the Addison Act after Minister of Health, Christopher Addison, who was Minister for Housing.^[2] The Act was passed to allow the building of new houses after the First World War,^[3] and marked the start of a long 20th-century tradition of state-owned housing in planned council estates. A separate Act was passed for Scotland.^[4]

Background[edit]

The 1919 Act followed on from the Town Planning Act 1909 and the 1917 Tudor Walters Committee Report into the provision of housing in the United Kingdom; the latter commissioned by Parliament with a view to postwar construction. In part, it was a response to the shocking lack of fitness amongst many recruits during World War I, which was attributed to poor living conditions. That belief summed up in a housing poster of the period that "you cannot expect to get an A1 population out of C3 homes",^[5] in reference to the period's military fitness classifications.

Poor living conditions, that affected the heath of tenants,  this seem to be forgetting.

Why at this time, after The Great War,  may be if they fitness was affected, they role in the services, and role in the war would be too?

So now days, Council Homes for the working class might seem left wing or even "Woke" now,, but then, they was reasons that it was done.

I do not think then, the plan was to rent out Council Homes to people in need, then take them away, after a set time? as some people say it should be now.

This time the reason was, a Labour MP is living in a Council Home, they had before they was elected, and still living there?

Well if they claim for a Council Home rent, then it will be much cheaper than private house?

So costing less.

Still some people say on Twitter, if anyone earn over £30,000, then they should lose a right to a Council Home, which I think is wrong, as how do you count £30,000?

Two people living in a flat or house, one earn £25,000, and the other earn £22,000, then should they lose it?

Is it just earnings from work, what about investments, or other earnings? 

"It seems that the idea of limiting Council Homes to people in need is rooted in the belief that these properties should only be available to those who cannot afford private housing. However, this argument ignores the fact that many Council Tenants work hard jobs and still struggle to afford private rent. Additionally, the Right to Buy policy allows Council Tenants to purchase their homes at a discounted price, which contradicts the idea that Council Homes are only for those in need."