Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Saving For a Space Ship

E. London Mothers Squat To Tell Gov Of Social Housing Need Not Social Cleansing

Recommended Posts

Newham is up and coming now and required by the rich, so time to pack up mum's and move (gasp) to Manchester.

I had to, well I got as far as West Yorkshire, but I least I come from there.

Edited by aSecureTenant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's always me me me. More social housing, aka gimme stuff. Everybody is on the take. Across all social classes.

The fair thing to do is reform the planning system, not hand out bungs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's always me me me. More social housing, aka gimme stuff. Everybody is on the take. Across all social classes.

The fair thing to do is reform the planning system, not hand out bungs.

How would reforming the planning system help renters immediately?

We've had an 8M+ population increase and barely over 4m homes built since state building stopped supplementing that. Quite a lot of private owners now live in state built houses quite happily (my sister being one - still a staunch Tory, but completely missing the irony her home wouldn't exist without some degree of socialism post WW2 when the troops coming home needed appeasing and somewhere to live).

At the end of the day, the state has already been paying "hand out bungs" to these mothers if they had some housing benefit.

The housing benefit bill has soared 300% since we stopped building state homes. House prices have done something similar.

The time has come to accept the two are connected and adopt the much loved boomer mantra: renting is dead money. Quite. And so is housing benefit. Let's take the lesser of two evils and start building again.

Edited by byron78

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with previous poster that we should just borrow 20 billion extra a you year and use it to build 200,000 council houses per annum. Great investment too a would save us about the same per annum in housing benefit going forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's always me me me. More social housing, aka gimme stuff. Everybody is on the take. Across all social classes.

The fair thing to do is reform the planning system, not hand out bungs.

If all the population ever wanted was a basic roof over their head, is it really that hard to provide? Do we really have to hand over £200-250 over to a rentier for a poorly maintained hovel. NO

I mean really its a joke. The financial system goes into meltdown after lending too much money on overpriced property, yet we criticise someone for wanting a 'spare bedroom' which is what? A bit of plasterboard.

Social housing used to bring up standards (though looking at some of the post war builds this is slightly unbelievable) now the private sector is dragging it down.

Edited by aSecureTenant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If all the population ever wanted was a basic roof over their head, is it really that hard to provide? Do we really have to hand over £200-250 over to a rentier for a poorly maintained hovel. NO

1/4 of poorly maintained hovels are in the social sector.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How would reforming the planning system help renters immediately?

Nothing is going to help renters immediately, that's no excuse.

If they cut planning house prices would drop like a rock in some places, almost immediately. Won't be too long before new houses are going up all over the place as people pop out of their rabbit hutches all over the country. There'd probably be a frenzy and another crash, in fact, but at least we'd get some houses built.

Building social housing, same diff, except the government pays for it rather than the proles directly, and because it'll still be at ridiculous prices the government will end up paying a LOT for a bunch of unlivable hutches. And of course anybody with a job can forget it, what little housing will be rationed by the government, which means the people who pay for it will no doubt be screwed as that's what the government does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If all the population ever wanted was a basic roof over their head, is it really that hard to provide? Do we really have to hand over £200-250 over to a rentier for a poorly maintained hovel. NO

No, we don't, but the government forces us to, and if we buy our own land (Which is cheap) the government will bulldoze whatever shack you build on it and force you back to the rentier's clutches again.

Social housing is swapping one rentier (a landlord) for another (the government).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing is going to help renters immediately, that's no excuse.

If they cut planning house prices would drop like a rock in some places, almost immediately. Won't be too long before new houses are going up all over the place as people pop out of their rabbit hutches all over the country. There'd probably be a frenzy and another crash, in fact, but at least we'd get some houses built.

Building social housing, same diff, except the government pays for it rather than the proles directly, and because it'll still be at ridiculous prices the government will end up paying a LOT for a bunch of unlivable hutches. And of course anybody with a job can forget it, what little housing will be rationed by the government, which means the people who pay for it will no doubt be screwed as that's what the government does.

Lots of valid points.

I'm not a fan of social housing btw, and I agree with regards planning.

That aside the government building houses and renting them was infinitely cheaper than the government not building houses and renting them.

I also think the state in this country is the only thing that can force through large scale builds. We need whole new towns really. It's that bad.

Private builders may have achieved that in the UK before but I can't find an example. I'm also not sure there are enough builders to privately build on that scale. Very monopolised now by the private rabbit-hutch builders who someone above has very validly observed are utter cr@p compared to what a skint broken country was able build 70 years ago.

Edited by byron78

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of valid points.

I'm not a fan of social housing btw, and I agree with regards planning.

That aside the government building houses and renting them was infinitely cheaper than the government not building houses and renting them.

I also think the state in this country is the only thing that can force through large scale builds. We need whole new towns really. It's that bad.

Private builders may have achieved that in the UK before but I can't find an example. I'm also not sure there are enough builders to privately build on that scale. Very monopolised now by the private rabbit-hutch builders who someone above has very validly observed are utter cr@p compared to what a skint broken country was able build 70 years ago.

I suppose building social housing is better than doing sweet FA beyond making sure nobody builds anything.

But it seems to me that the proper fix is a long term one, as you say, monopolised builders and such. It simply is not this way in the rest of Europe, indeed the rest of the western world I guess but certainly not the European countries I am where I am aware of how it works. Social housing is a band aid, the disease needs to be tackled. If anything social housing will perpetuate it as people keep looking to a planned economy in housing to better their lives, when the planned economy in housing has been absolutely catastrophic for our standard of living.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How would reforming the planning system help renters immediately?

We've had an 8M+ population increase and barely over 4m homes built since state building stopped supplementing that. Quite a lot of private owners now live in state built houses quite happily (my sister being one - still a staunch Tory, but completely missing the irony her home wouldn't exist without some degree of socialism post WW2 when the troops coming home needed appeasing and somewhere to live).

At the end of the day, the state has already been paying "hand out bungs" to these mothers if they had some housing benefit.

The housing benefit bill has soared 300% since we stopped building state homes. House prices have done something similar.

The time has come to accept the two are connected and adopt the much loved boomer mantra: renting is dead money. Quite. And so is housing benefit. Let's take the lesser of two evils and start building again.

+1

Great post.Not to mention that the original article is about unused Council homes that are ALREADY available, bur will be sold cheaply by the corrupt Council to the "developer" who will only develop his huge profit and saddle the taxpayer with the loss of Council homes + eventual banking loss from HTB etc. schemes that will "help" home buyers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps it's a good thing if the kind of poor choices that bring people into these situations are no longer rewarded in the way they used to be?

Are you talking about bankers? ;)

(I get what you mean btw, but these situations are invariably complicated by children. I wouldn't feel at all comfortable abandoning kids just because their parents are feckless. There are alternatives - better foster care and adoption etc - but that would require investment/infrastructure. Also, just because a parent is financially poor doesn't mean they're not potentially great parents. Bit of a minefield really).

Edited by byron78

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a single parent who lives with his parents so i can work, why is it so wrong for pretty much every other single parent in Britain to do this. If they cant look after their kids they shouldn't have them.

Id be willing to bet most these mothers were brought up on state handouts and think its perfectly normal for the state to fund them, just like parasites working in the upper echelons of the public sector and crony capitalistic private sector in its varying forms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(I get what you mean btw, but these situations are invariably complicated by children. I wouldn't feel at all comfortable abandoning kids just because their parents are feckless. There are alternatives - better foster care and adoption etc - but that would require investment/infrastructure. Also, just because a parent is financially poor doesn't mean they're not potentially great parents. Bit of a minefield really).

Didn't the US stop paying for welfare kids, and then mysteriously parents were less feckless? Unfortunately, trying to be humane just gets you taken for a ride I suspect.

And having read the article, I still am unmoved. So the Evil here is that local authorities are now prioritising those who are working? Seems reasonable to me.

If you are shocked and appalled, donate to a charity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't the US stop paying for welfare kids, and then mysteriously parents were less feckless?

In a word. No.

No idea at all what you're basing that on.

Trailer parks and poor parent births are still booming in the states.

In general, birth rates in younger parents are plummeting in all developed countries (including America).

In the UK older mum birth rates are right up. Big foreign familes also up.

It's actually been dropping here steadily amongst UK born younger parents though despite welfare apparently getting more generous, so any link would be pretty tenuous.

Edited by byron78

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a single parent who lives with his parents so i can work, why is it so wrong for pretty much every other single parent in Britain to do this. If they cant look after their kids they shouldn't have them.

Id be willing to bet most these mothers were brought up on state handouts and think its perfectly normal for the state to fund them, just like parasites working in the upper echelons of the public sector and crony capitalistic private sector in its varying forms.

You only have to look at the recent Scots referendum debate to see that many people still believe in the magic money pot - you know, the one that nice parties like the Scot Nats use to help poor people, and which evil Tories want to grab for themselves to pay for their champagne and caviar. Few people seem to realise where social welfare funding comes from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You only have to look at the recent Scots referendum debate to see that many people still believe in the magic money pot - you know, the one that nice parties like the Scot Nats use to help poor people, and which evil Tories want to grab for themselves to pay for their champagne and caviar. Few people seem to realise where social welfare funding comes from.

The SNP were portrayed as the nasty party by the corporation owned MSM, it was teary Dave that was the nice guy in last weeks edition of Cu**s in Westminster who was offering the biggest bribes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a word. No.

No idea at all what you're basing that on.

Trailer parks and poor parent births are still booming in the states.

In general, birth rates in younger parents are plummeting in all developed countries (including America).

In the UK older mum birth rates are right up. Big foreign familes also up.

It's actually been dropping here steadily amongst UK born younger parents though despite welfare apparently getting more generous, so any link would be pretty tenuous.

Interesting, I shall take that on board, then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting, I shall take that on board, then.

In short young folk are shagging less everywhere. I think they're missing out (but it's probably beneficial in terms of teenage pregnancies and welfare dependancy).

It's still highest in areas without good internet access I believe (so the really poor are still breeding), which suggests there's a link between how folk interact and birth rates.

Pretty obvious when you think about it. Hard to get pregnant over Facebook ;)

Edited by byron78

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   224 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.