You only have to look at the plight of ex soldiers on our streets to see just how much the government treat their own population with contempt. There's lots of these brave lads still suffering with PTSD and are homeless. Yet the government pander to the "local" population affected by war, leaving our soldiers (truly affected by war) to their own devices.. Cameron, Corbyn and their cronies should hang their heads in shame.
100,000 Homeless Children In UK
- Thread starter Whitespirit66
- Start date
You only have to look at the plight of ex soldiers on our streets to see just how much the government treat their own population with contempt. There's lots of these brave lads still suffering with PTSD and are homeless. Yet the government pander to the "local" population affected by war, leaving our soldiers (truly affected by war) to their own devices.. Cameron, Corbyn and their cronies should hang their heads in shame.
Sponsored Links
any house sold then leaves the social housing stock
meaning less affordable housing for the low paid causing councils to now find higher costing alternatives /lower quality accommodation in the private sector to replace them
the tories then for some strange manipulative reason stopped paying housing benefit direct to the housing provider and gave it to the person more often than not hard working but short on cash
this off course means they spend the money on essentials like food and bills and off course some non essentials as they now have money they never had before
this off course means the rent will be short forceing evictions due to shortage or non payment off rent
this can be further aggravated by the bedroom tax and other help reductions almost fully aimed at the poorest in society removing further money from the budget
Last edited:
L
longdogs
If someone is desperate and homeless, I am guessing that they would be more than happy to be given somewhere to live, so long as it has a roof, windows, a front door, running water and heating (a lot more than is available in a lot of third world countries). So why can't the desperates coming from these countries be given the 'less desirable' properties that no one really wants? Then the indigenous people who perhaps are working, paying tax but can't afford a property or get a council flat could move into the brand new properties that the councils are so good at building then giving away to immigrants. We all know this is true.
where do you get your information from ??
a link please
social housing needs are met via a points system
it doesn't differentiate by race creed or colour only by need
you get points for overcrowding special needs number and sex age off children
you get points for being pregnant and being homeless
you get points for age related needs and time on the weighting list
you get points for all sorts off reasons
then you need to bid on your local system and be the one with the most points to get the property
some properties are in a shocking state but they cant turn them down unless they are prepared to wait weeks or months or even years for another place that may be even worse
they have something like 3 or 4 chances and if they dont take one they go to the back off the list
Sponsored Links
You are going off on another track. The selling off of council houses does not reduce the number of houses available. The people that lived in them continue to live in them. Instead of paying rent, they pay a mortgage, which in the long term is better for them, and it teaches them to be responsible for their own future rather than depending on the council to look after them. And areas that were council houses have improved because people care more.
Without doubt there is an issue with decent people who cannot afford a proper place to live, now perhaps you think the council should be a landlord, I'm not so sure. An equally big problem is the massive increase in the population which reduces the access to housing for the poor. So ironically left wing policies harm the poor, but then again Blair was not left wing.
Put it another way, then.
Are immigrants likely to have more points?
Are immigrants likely to have more points?
That is, of course, nonsense.
Forcing councils to sell off social housing below its value removed housing that could be offered to people in need, and allowed the buyers to make a handsome profit at society's expense, and encouraged them to vote Tory. Preventing the councils from using the meagre proceeds to provide replacement social housing has resulted in needy families being placed in overpriced rental homes, further enriching the private landlords, many of whom now profit from renting out ex-council homes.
There is no housing shortage for those with sufficient funds to pay whatever is demanded.
Those are not the people we are talking about here.
Selling off council houses did not reduce the number of homes, or increase the housing shortage. No houses were destroyed.
"Those are not the people we are talking about here"
No, what you mean is: "Those are not the people I am talking about here". Feel free to argue about something else.
Osborne's reduction of tax credits on mortgage interest to 20% from 40% maximum will help. It was 40% during the Labour reign, incidentally. So lots of people became rich buying flat and houses to rent, pushing up prices in the process. So much for cuddly warm caring Labours, nasty evil Tories. I think it should be reduced to 0% and that would make a real contribution.
Oh, and immigration rocketed to unheard of levels under Labour, further increasing the housing shortage. So, all in all, the biggest contribution to the housing shortage was made by Labour.
So much for a caring party. Not that the Tories are that much better.
L
longdogs
Is there a link to real life?
L
longdogs
I used to know someone that worked in social housing and she blatantly admitted that immigrants were given priority and saw nothing wrong in doing so. Her argument was that an immigrant could turn up at 2 in the morning needing somewhere to live. My argument was, well ring me up at 2 in the morning, I will move out of my 'undesirable' flat to somewhere nicer then they can have mine. After all, I was actually paying rent at the time.
Sorry, I don't have a link for that.
Sorry, I don't have a link for that.
So if you are not talking about people who are in need of rehousing, and do not have ample funds to get themselves nice houses, who are YOU talking about?
real life is different for everyone
we all have different experiences
if you live in a high employment area then employment wont be moaned about much where as house prices and rail fares will be
if you live in an area with very high unemployment and low wages then housing will tend to be less off a problem as many will move away looking for work
Except if they didn't buy the houses, they would still be living in them.
We would still not have any more or less available council houses (or the difference would be a rounding error).
We do not have a housing shortage, we have a price crisis.
That price crises is not caused by lack of supply of housing, but oversupply of credit.
It is a red herring that council housing is the solution, because it does not solve the problem, real solutions cure the problem not stick a plaster over it.
The original post which you referred to used the term housing shortage. You might have noticed that an awful lot of hard working people struggle to buy a home, whilst buy to let landlords trouser a fortune on the route to a wealthy retirement.
As for immigrants not getting preferential treatment, that might be so, but the very fact that a lot of poor people are entering the country means more competition for housing.
Maybe we should have councils building decent housing, then allowing tenants to gradually acquire ownership by renting, as a way to get round the huge mortgage deposits required. But to be honest I'm not sure many poor people should have a right to a large house as per many council houses. When my parents were young they rented a flat, and I slept in a chest of drawers. Or so I was told.
Sponsored Links
