Turn! Turn! Turn! (To Everything There Is a Season)

[HairyOb1]

2 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

Why not?  My Gran was born in South Kensington does that mean that my Great Grandparents had an inalienable right to a decent home there and ipso factor all their descendants for ever.  Loads of Londoners have moved out of London because of housing pressures why should people on benefits be any different?  I once heard someone talking about the benefit cap and how it might make her move, when she was asked about where her friends live she "said the ones who work had to move out of this area because it was too expensive".  IMHO that justifies the benefit cap.

BTW how much history means that someone cannot be forced to move from an area - a year, two years or a week?

I think if you have ties to an area you shouldn't be forced out against your will.

You're forcing a migration - Imagine someone who's lived and worked in London for 30 years, loses his house and has to get social housing and they say we've got a flat in Hull.  Fair?  No, not at all.  I think anything like that is a bit too Orwellian for me

[HairyOb1]

2 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

If we had open borders how many people would come here and how would we house them?  I would guess at least 1-2 million a year (look at the number of internal migrants in China and how badly they are treated) and no idea.

People would come and people would leave.  Open borders means open borders.  

It's an inviolate human right, and I don't think the lottery of birth should weigh that much in favour of western worlds.  When I retire, I will move to the South of France.  If I could, I'd probably move to Thailand, Laos.

We also still only populate under 5% of our land.  Lets remember that too.

[iamnumerate]

6 minutes ago, HairyOb1 said:

I think if you have ties to an area you shouldn't be forced out against your will.

You're forcing a migration - Imagine someone who's lived and worked in London for 30 years, loses his house and has to get social housing and they say we've got a flat in Hull.  Fair?  No, not at all.  I think anything like that is a bit too Orwellian for me

The current housing prices are forcing migration (my family no longer lives in South Ken).

  I am just changing who will be forced.  However your example is a good one lets say instead " 1) Don't provide housing in expensive parts of the South East (most of it) to people who don't work there and have not worked at least x years there".  I would say that x is between 10 and 15 others might disagree.

[iamnumerate]

54 minutes ago, HairyOb1 said:

Disagree.  Completely.  I agree with open borders and equivalence.

 

My idea is not actually anti open borders, it says open borders are only possible if people want to provide the homes for them.

Under my idea any level of immigration would be possible.

[HairyOb1]

6 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

The current housing prices are forcing migration (my family no longer lives in South Ken).

  I am just changing who will be forced.  However your example is a good one lets say instead " 1) Don't provide housing in expensive parts of the South East (most of it) to people who don't work there and have not worked at least x years there".  I would say that x is between 10 and 15 others might disagree.

I know what you’re trying to say, but I do find things like that too arbitrary, which leads to resentment, say you’re 1 day shy of x years, and they say you’re moving to Rotherham?  Your support base, network whatever, family base, is gone, you’re going to be shipped out.  I really, really don’t like the notion this could happen to anyone.

Land banks.  Compulsory purchase them if not used within 18 months of purchase, at original prices.  Force a levy on home builders that go to the local councils which then would be forced to use the money to build social housing. Relax greenfield sites, rewrite all of the local plans to ensure they’re forced to expand in 5 years the housing stock by x% dependent on the need in that area.

 

The problem is not the people, and it’s this notion I am trying to push out to you, and it’s this rhetoric the government want us to buy into, so we’re looking angrily at people who have the temerity to want to stay local to their roots, friends, and not at the people who control the land and planning processes.  It isn’t the people we should be venting our anger at.

[HairyOb1]

3 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

My idea is not actually anti open borders, it says open borders are only possible if people want to provide the homes for them.

Under my idea any level of immigration would be possible.

Under your plan we’d have to provide homes for anyone who came here, so an expansion of building.  Well I am glad you’ve moved on from it being people, and now it’s the building issue, which I can agree with you. But I still maintain, we have a massive amount of land we could build on.  Massive.  We could incentivise businesses to move to areas we intend on seeing large population growth by offering tax cuts and tax disincentives to businesses that do not move.  It’s easy to make a business listen to you by marginalising their bottom line.  That way, you could, for example, target Swindon and say we’re going to expand Swindon by building 40,000 houses and in doing that, we’ll encourage firms in the south east to relocate there, by charging them £X per employee per week for ‘administration’, but waiving it for moving them to an area of expansion, or free business rates, or 2% cut in Corp tax for 10 years.  Whatever, but if there is a will, there is a way.

 

We need more houses, period.  We do not have enough.

[iamnumerate]

34 minutes ago, HairyOb1 said:

The problem is not the people, and it’s this notion I am trying to push out to you, and it’s this rhetoric the government want us to buy into, so we’re looking angrily at people who have the temerity to want to stay local to their roots, friends, and not at the people who control the land and planning processes.  It isn’t the people we should be venting our anger at.

However I don't think the rhetoric comes from the Government rather the Government reflects our anger (well not yours).  I thought that the benefit cap should be introduced years before any politician thought of the idea.

This bit is not true

" we’re looking angrily at people who have the temerity to want to stay local to their roots, friends"

1) We are only looking at people who don't work

2) In many cases - their working friends don't live near them any more, they have had to move somewhere cheaper.  Few of my acquaintances/friends on benefits live near me - I couldn't afford to live where they do and they would never live where I do - unless they had to.

Edited March 24, 2017 by iamnumerate
Clarity

[iamnumerate]

29 minutes ago, HairyOb1 said:

I know what you’re trying to say, but I do find things like that too arbitrary, which leads to resentment, say you’re 1 day shy of x years, and they say you’re moving to Rotherham?  Your support base, network whatever, family base, is gone, you’re going to be shipped out.  I really, really don’t like the notion this could happen to anyone.

 

A lot of laws have an arbitrary  cut over, it is something that can't be avoided. You can argue against drink driving on that basis (I am not saying you are).

There is a lot of resentment at the moment over people who don't work being given housing others cannot afford (although the benefit cap will help with that).

[HairyOb1]

2 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

I don't think the rhetoric comes from the Government rather the Government reflects our anger (well not yours).  I thought that the benefit cap should be introduced years before any politician thought of the idea.

Yes, keep the proles down...

The rhetoric does come from the Government, who are always going on about how the schools and NHS are under pressure from immigration, how resources are always now directed to helping EU nationals, more money spent on housing, etc.

I find it strange people didn’t really query a 10% rise in MP’s pay, but are all for cutting benefits to those who can ill afford the cuts.

I find it strange people aren’t up in arms that due to geolocation, you get more benefits.

All I hear from the government, is not how it is big businesses fault that the economy is in dire straits from not paying their fair share, but because disabled people get £18 a week more, that you’re not actually disabled if you can walk more than 20 metres on your walking sticks, even if it’s only 25m.  I find it odd people are ok with removing money from the most vulnerable, but are ok with CEO’s and Council managers getting 6 figure salaries and pensions to match.

Genuinely, I am shocked people are so quick to go after the neediest in society and not after who should really be in the hairlines of their scopes.

[iamnumerate]

Just now, HairyOb1 said:

Genuinely, I am shocked people are so quick to go after the neediest in society and not after who should really be in the hairlines of their scopes.

I don't think pro single mums are the neediest in society.

[HairyOb1]

4 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

A lot of laws have an arbitrary  cut over, it is something that can't be avoided. You can argue against drink driving on that basis (I am not saying you are).

There is a lot of resentment at the moment over people who don't work being given housing others cannot afford (although the benefit cap will help with that).

Actually, that's not correct.  I play tennis with a policeman and the law states 35, but they allow to 40, in order to prosecute.  From memory, but this was absolutely true.  If you had a reading of 37, they'd allow you some time, then they'd do ti again.  But they wouldn't prosecute at 39.

I disagree with it, in its entirety, the moving people away.  Completely and utterly.

[iamnumerate]

2 minutes ago, HairyOb1 said:

I find it odd people are ok with removing money from the most vulnerable, but are ok with CEO’s and Council managers getting 6 figure salaries and pensions to match.

 

Actually I am not ok with that as well and think it could solve some problems - not housing because I don't think money will solve the housing crisis and this is a thread about housing.

[iamnumerate]

1 minute ago, HairyOb1 said:

Actually, that's not correct.  I play tennis with a policeman and the law states 35, but they allow to 40, in order to prosecute.  From memory, but this was absolutely true.  If you had a reading of 37, they'd allow you some time, then they'd do ti again.  But they wouldn't prosecute at 39.

 

Surely any wise council would do the same with the x years rule?  Particularly since if you were 1 or even 20 days short and you appealed you would hit the x years?

[HairyOb1]

Just now, iamnumerate said:

I don't think pro single mums are the neediest in society.

No, not needy at all, young, kids, nah, nothing needed here.

And I am guessing you’ve already made up your mind who is who? 

It’s all about other people with you, and I don’t agree at all, and it’s this lack of compassion that I find odd in a country I call home.  A country that was welcoming, friendly, supportive, helpful and caring.  Now, sod them, they’re a sponge on society, then carry one watching the ruling classes screw everyone over and not pay their way.  Magic.  Well, I believe we are completely and utterly ideologically opposed, so there’s really no real need to carry this on, I couldn’t be, think or act more differently than people like you.

[HairyOb1]

1 minute ago, iamnumerate said:

Surely any wise council would do the same with the x years rule?  Particularly since if you were 1 or even 20 days short and you appealed you would hit the x years?

No, as they use a decision date for these rulings.

Like residency rules.  It's X years, if you're one day shy and appeal, they still use the X days - 1 when deliberating

[iamnumerate]

1 minute ago, HairyOb1 said:

  Well, I believe we are completely and utterly ideologically opposed, so there’s really no real need to carry this on, I couldn’t be, think or act more differently than people like you.

Fair enough.  Just don't assume that my views come from Government rhetoric.  They don't I thought like this before Cameron was an MP.

[iamnumerate]

11 minutes ago, HairyOb1 said:

No, not needy at all, young, kids, nah, nothing needed here.

And I am guessing you’ve already made up your mind who is who? 

It’s all about other people with you, and I don’t agree at all, and it’s this lack of compassion that I find odd in a country I call home.  A country that was welcoming, friendly, supportive, helpful and caring.  Now, sod them, they’re a sponge on society, then carry one watching the ruling classes screw everyone over and not pay their way.  Magic.  Well, I believe we are completely and utterly ideologically opposed, so there’s really no real need to carry this on, I couldn’t be, think or act more differently than people like you.

Please don't assume that I have lack of compassion, I want everyone to have decent housing not just those who bought at the right time or are a single parent.

If you are single mum and homeless you will always get some type of housing from the council, even if you just got off the plane*.  A single man without kids - not a chance in London.

*I know someone who did this

[HairyOb1]

10 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

Please don't assume that I have lack of compassion, I want everyone to have decent housing not just those who bought at the right time or are a single parent.

If you are single mum and homeless you will always get some type of housing from the council, even if you just got off the plane*.  A single man without kids - not a chance in London.

*I know someone who did this

There’s a reason for this, in that kids are vulnerable, so need protecting.

I went travelling many years ago, ended up coming back to the uk with around £30 in my pocket hungover and jetlagged.  I went to London, booked 2 nights at a hostel and went and took manual labour that paid £5 an hour, but was paid daily.  I stayed in hostels for 2 months, saving every penny I had, and then went and took a room in a HMO.  I started with £30.  After 2 years, I bought a house in London.  There is no way I could have done that if I were a young woman, or old woman, with a baby and knowing nobody.  This is why we have a safety net.

My sister got a council house immediately when running into issues with her, violent, husband.  I wouldn’t have.  I agree this has to be this way, as single men can vry, very easily get their way out of trouble, as they have nothing else to consider.  Were I a single man, with kids, I’d have been treated the same as my sister, as they don’t look at the sex, gender of the person claiming, it’s all about the children, as it should be.

 

This is why I say you have no compassion, as I find it lacking in nearly every one of your posts; in them, it’s always about people.  Other people.  I don’t agree with any of it.

[iamnumerate]

3 minutes ago, HairyOb1 said:

There’s a reason for this, in that kids are vulnerable, so need protecting.

I went travelling many years ago, ended up coming back to the uk with around £30 in my pocket hungover and jetlagged.  I went to London, booked 2 nights at a hostel and went and took manual labour that paid £5 an hour, but was paid daily.  I stayed in hostels for 2 months, saving every penny I had, and then went and took a room in a HMO.  I started with £30.  After 2 years, I bought a house in London.  There is no way I could have done that if I were a young woman, or old woman, with a baby and knowing nobody.  This is why we have a safety net.

My sister got a council house immediately when running into issues with her, violent, husband.  I wouldn’t have.  I agree this has to be this way, as single men can vry, very easily get their way out of trouble, as they have nothing else to consider.  Were I a single man, with kids, I’d have been treated the same as my sister, as they don’t look at the sex, gender of the person claiming, it’s all about the children, as it should be.

 

I don't have problems with single mums getting housing - I think all homeless people should get emergency housing.

[Ballyk]

1 hour ago, HairyOb1 said:

I think if you have ties to an area you shouldn't be forced out against your will.

You're forcing a migration - Imagine someone who's lived and worked in London for 30 years, loses his house and has to get social housing and they say we've got a flat in Hull.  Fair?  No, not at all.  I think anything like that is a bit too Orwellian for me

If I had no home and someone offered me a flat in Hull, I would be extremely grateful.  

[iamnumerate]

7 minutes ago, HairyOb1 said:

 

This is why I say you have no compassion,

That is why we have polarized politics, people say those who don't agree with them are morally wrong in someway. 

[iamnumerate]

9 minutes ago, HairyOb1 said:

your posts; in them, it’s always about people.  Other people.  I don’t agree with any of it.

Couldn't that be said almost all posters.  Wasn't your post about CEO's getting paid too much about other people? 

[iamnumerate]

3 minutes ago, Ballyk said:

If I had no home and someone offered me a flat in Hull, I would be extremely grateful.  

True, particularly if you had just got off a plane.  Although to be honest I think if all pro single mums in London were offered housing in Hull, a lot of/ some of them would decide they no longer needed it.

[HairyOb1]

11 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

I don't have problems with single mums getting housing - I think all homeless people should get emergency housing.

But only in a location of your choosing.

8 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

That is why we have polarized politics, people say those who don't agree with them are morally wrong in someway. 

No, not at all, but I disagree with you completely and find your moral compass somewhat off the boil.

7 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

Couldn't that be said almost all posters.  Wasn't your post about CEO's getting paid too much about other people? 

No, it was about corporations being greedy, not paying their way, CEO's being paid too much.  It's an holistic issue, not singular.  I hope I'v conveyed that.

You, meanwhile, talk about your neighbour having a nicer house, about moving people away from areas they call home, about benefits being too high, immigration.  You polemic against the poorest in society somewhat troubles me.

If we are to discuss opinions about who we are as people, I am very comfortable in my own skin…

[HairyOb1]

If I had £50 today, I would be fine.  I wouldn’t need to get a flat in Hull. I think you get a daily handout if you’re homeless.  That would be enough for me. I would never, ever, move to an area not of my choice and I believe it would be the thin edge of the wedge to start doing it, as well as forcing people to work for welfare.  Look at the stupidity of that government incentive to pay unemployed people £1 an hour to get work experience whilst unemployed.  If ever there was a clear display of the ruling elite showing how they’d like things to be, that would have been it; cheap labour, given to large corporations by the government.  It was as close as we could hopefully get to workhouses in this day and age.

Personally, I’ve never needed benefits, as I don’t want that kind of life for myself.  I maintain if I were to hit rock bottom tomorrow, even aged 52, I would recover and recover quickly.

There are people unlike me, who need that safety blanket and I am still utterly amazed, that there are people still going on about the poorest in the country, rather than the corporations who wilfully do not pay their own way.