howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
18 October 2010
13:4775467getting back to the issue of council housing, i would like to know if the new goverment will carry on with flogging the best council stock at knock down prices.
18 October 2010
13:5675468Howard. As I have probably posted before, there is no shortage of housing.
We have the highest bedroom to person ratio for over 800 years.
The problem is that we refuse to share bedrooms. Years ago it was not unusual for children to share a bedroom. Nowadays it is the exception rather than the norm.
Plus with the break up of many marriages/relationships the father expects spare rooms for his offspring on the weekends they stay with him.
Many people have far too big a house which they are not utilising. Both myself and my mother being prime candidates. In both case the 'kids' have left home. I've got 4 spare bedrooms she's got two.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
18 October 2010
14:0575469Marek, all of us will have to suffer a fall in living standards, why should the 'vulnerable' be any different?
The rich greedy bankers are totally irrelevant to this discussion. If we tax them more they will go elsewhere, taking their investments and tax revenues with them so we shall all be worse off in the end. I know a good few of them and they are all more than willing to pay their FAIR share of tax. Fair generally means no more than they would pay in the US or Switzerland.
Jan, I agree many existing tenants have had it too good for too long, the problem is identifying them and dealing with the problem in a fair and just manner.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
18 October 2010
14:3075471I guess, Peter, because the vulnerable have a shorter distance to fall and no safety net.
18 October 2010
14:4275474Bern. To fall to where?
If one goes back to early post war England the living standards of to poorest in the UK are almost 'beyond the dreams of avarice'.
18 October 2010
15:0575477But Bob, we are no longer in early post war England, or indeed in Nepal, Zimbabwe, Nigeria or Bangladesh. because some people lived and continue to live in poverty doesn't mean we condone it. I guess it does hinge on your definition of poverty and at what point rights intrude on aspirations.
18 October 2010
15:1675478Bern I suppose the bottom line is if you have a roof over your head, food in your belly and some bastard is not trying to kill you tonight that is civilisation.
Most of the inhabitants of the UK have not had that historically and most people on the planet do not have that tonight.
Everything else is luxury.
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
18 October 2010
15:2075479bob,as it was explained to me by the ddc housing officer,a brother/sister over the age of 10 cannot and i repeat cannot share the same bedroom under current law.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
18 October 2010
16:0175494bob
you have lost me in post 22, how does it fit in with flogging off the council housing stock?
18 October 2010
16:2575495Bob - I don't actually disagree with you - I point out most days to my children that there are people who do not have a home outside of which to leave the bins (so why are they moaning about doing it) and children who have to work from an outrageously young age because they are the main breadwinner with no job security, living with violence and without much in the way of affection. It is clearly wrong. Aspiring to better than that doesn't mean we are soft, it means we have developed - trouble is our morality is lagging behind in the developmental stakes...........
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
18 October 2010
17:2775507We have all seen examples of the 'vulnerable and poor' who have lived their lives on benefits, never had a job, perhaps third generation of jobless and yet - there is the 42" flat-screen tv, PS3's, Laptops and even in one recent case a boob job, all paid for by us.
I do not hold that such people should be able to continue their parasitic lifestyle and I an optimistic that will change. In simply do not agree at all with the concept of 'relative poverty'.
Clearly there are indeed people who are vulnerable, temporarily down on their luck, elderly, disabled and so on. These all deserve support and IDS' proposals will ensure that they are protected and, where appropriate, helped and encouraged back into work.
18 October 2010
18:2775509The former are not the vulnerable of whom I speak BarryW!
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
19 October 2010
18:2275639Dover District Council have sold very few council houses over recent years Howard, very few.
Poverty is relative - to who you are and where you live.
Many people in Africa see on TV what life is like in the UK and want to come here, but we cannot take the whole of Africa, nor the whole of Eastern Europe; we're already full up with non-productive people.
What we should be doing is that those who live here - where ever they come from, can work, earn money, pay taxes and be responsible and productive members of society, that way there'll be less money to pay out on benefits and more money coming in from taxes.
We do need a safety net for some, but it shouldn't be a life-style, which it has become for so many.
Roger
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
19 October 2010
18:3275643nkt surprised about the issue roger.
not many local authority houses left worth buying, as evidenced by people being housed in private rented accommodation.
if we want a mobile labour force in the future we will need more public housing to be built.