Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

George Clarke’s Council House Scandal Channel 4


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, PeanutButter said:

Perhaps we should look at ways to incentivise good behaviour instead of rewarding poor behaviour. 

Yes

 

10 minutes ago, Mancunian284 said:

Me too, as do a lot of workers.  I could never afford to live in London (not that I’d want to these days) so how come it’s seen as fair that a newly arrived Polish single mother gets housed there for free?  At my expense.

 

 

I used to be pro the EU, pro immigration etc - all the left wing stuff.  Then a Spanish woman I knew came here and got a flat in Islington because she was a single mum.  Her daughter is about to follow the same career path.

To be fair to the EU - they don't make us have this crazy benefits system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 minute ago, iamnumerate said:

Yes

 

I used to be pro the EU, pro immigration etc - all the left wing stuff.  Then a Spanish woman I knew came here and got a flat in Islington because she was a single mum.  Her daughter is about to follow the same career path.

To be fair to the EU - they don't make us have this crazy benefits system.

No the EU don’t make us have a non contributory benefits system.  However us having a non contributory benefit system is why we have half of eastern europe’s Dole queue over here on the scrounge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mancunian284 said:

No the EU don’t make us have a non contributory benefits system.  However us having a non contributory benefit system is why we have half of eastern europe’s Dole queue over here on the scrounge.

True - it should have been obvious that either our system had to change or we would have resentment against EU immigration - amazingly it was not - probably because everytime someone said, they were called racist.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, iamnumerate said:

To be fair to the EU - they don't make us have this crazy benefits system.

They certainly don't. Plenty of EU countries don't allow people to walk in and start claiming without having contributed anything. 

So the question is why hasn't our supposedly conservative government changed it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, PeanutButter said:

Perhaps we should look at ways to incentivise good behaviour instead of rewarding poor behaviour. 

Yes, which is what the pre 1979 system did, not just in housing.

The change to needs based ( I think by the Callaghan labour government) in 1979 has actually incentivised feckless behaviour as under the needs based system you get rewarded for feckless behaviour.  Add in Gordon Brown’s tax credit mess to make it worse.  

Edited by Mancunian284
Typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, PeanutButter said:

They certainly don't. Plenty of EU countries don't allow people to walk in and start claiming without having contributed anything. 

So the question is why hasn't our supposedly conservative government changed it?

Because big business wants a large pool of unskilled labour that they can have on zero hours contracts and generally give them few rights. Said workers can’t complain as they’re so replaceable.  Companies don’t have to pay employers NI if the worker works less than a certain amount of hours, I think?  So instead of one full time person on a set contract, have 3 on 12 hours a week, cheaper for the business but tax payer picking up the cost.

 

Zero hours contract workers mean the business can react better to up and down turns.  Costs bourne by the worker and state, not the business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Mancunian284 said:

Because big business wants a large pool of unskilled labour that they can have on zero hours contracts and generally give them few rights. Said workers can’t complain as they’re so replaceable.  Companies don’t have to pay employers NI if the worker works less than a certain amount of hours, I think?  So instead of one full time person on a set contract, have 3 on 12 hours a week, cheaper for the business but tax payer picking up the cost.

 

Zero hours contract workers mean the business can react better to up and down turns.  Costs bourne by the worker and state, not the business.

Also means more consumers.

Quite some way back within Durhamborn's thread about the deflationary bust to come there was a post of his which starts with the words "the rich want what they have always wanted....."

It sums up the Conservatoids to a tee and the system they have created and continue to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Mancunian284 said:

Absolutely Winkie, you said it better than I did.  Social Housing was for low paid key workers who were contributing.  Now it’s for professional single mothers (both British and immigrant), drug addicts and alcoholics, those with mental health problems and newly arrived immigrants.  Those low paid key workers now have to rent privately at twice the price (if not more) of a council house.  My mother grew up in a council house, their next door neighbour was the local policeman.

 

The other thing to note, is that when social housing rents were being paid by workers it was a sustainable model.  Now that social housing rents are predominantly paid by benefits it’s no longer sustainable. 

 

I am a huge leftie liberal softie who genuine believe those with most need should be helped. However, I agree entirely with this point and low paid key workers must be prioritised.

Culture has changed...but so has the support system and it is feeding culture change. Chicken and egg. What happened to all those single young mums/dads in the 1970’s? They weren’t helped nearly as much so there weren’t as many of them.   

46 minutes ago, Mancunian284 said:

Me too, as do a lot of workers.  I could never afford to live in London (not that I’d want to these days) so how come it’s seen as fair that a newly arrived Polish single mother gets housed there for free?  At my expense.

Completely agree. I know ‘cleansing’ in these areas is a hot topic and there should be a spread of people, wealth, culture etc in Knightsbridge. But let’s be honest...very few (if any) ‘non benefits working poor’ can live there so why should the ‘on benefits non working poor’?  

London is a tricky one though  

My personal little protest as a key worker would be I wouldn’t work in the area unless I was paid £50k more and enough to live there...interesting to see how these areas get on without hospitals, police, teachers, post.  I guess it would all be private but again as a teacher at the private school I wouldn’t work there unless I was paid enough to live there...maybe that happens? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Pop321 said:

 

Culture has changed...but so has the support system and it is feeding culture change. Chicken and egg. What happened to all those single young mums/dads in the 1970’s? They weren’t helped nearly as much so there weren’t as many of them.   

 

Yep, single mothers should be helped if say the father has died, that’s why there was an increase in state support for single mothers.  As you say, chicken and egg, as soon as it was realised that state support was available then we got this feckless behaviour of women popping out kids to get a house and benefits.  Add in the Eastern Europeans.  My sis knows of Polish girl who got pregnant in Poland, the mid wife recommended she moved here for a house and benefits as the financial support is better here.  So she moved here, free flat and 1k a month benefits, having never (and probably never will as she’s unskilled) contributed.

what pisses me off is despite all my tax contributions, I am only entitled to £75 a week in benefits if I lose my job.  I think the time has come for a return to contributions based, with exception for those genuinely in need, such as the disabled.

(I am female btw, so I’m not being sexist).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason the labour party havent supported a contributory based system is obvious, they were worried about upsetting parts of their client voting base as well as criticism from party members that they would be attacking the poor. With the tories the reasons are more difficult to fathom, their members, the right wing press, and most of their voting base would be supportive of it. My opinion is they were frightened that it would be both popular and successful, and as a result make the welfare state more difficult to scale back. It would also empower ordinary workers as it must do in france, where those who have payed in get a large percentage of their former salary if  made unemployed. Much more likely to be compliant at work if the alternative is 75 quid a week. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 13/08/2019 at 13:18, nothernsoul said:

Social housing in uk started between the wars in places like peterborough. They were very strict who they rented it too, with interviews to get the right sort, they wanted who they regarded as the respectable working class. 

Social housing began a little earlier than that.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who with the greatest need got access to all the council houses left 1980 onwards?.......a mixture of people, including asylum seekers, do we still have the same number of asylum seekers coming over as we did, many thousands, did we build extra housing to accommodate them?.....single parents, for every single parent there is another parent and the parents parents, there was a period of time when children were created intentionally so that the parent got help with getting an own council home, the only way they could realistically get their own freedom and front door was by having a child..... previously it was the responsibility of the family to care for their offspring and children......create the polices get the behaviours, so we got the behaviours.?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Mancunian284 said:

Yes, which is what the pre 1979 system did, not just in housing.

The change to needs based ( I think by the Callaghan labour government) in 1979 has actually incentivised feckless behaviour as under the needs based system you get rewarded for feckless behaviour.  Add in Gordon Brown’s tax credit mess to make it worse.  

Maybe Callaghan and Brown should be voted out and not be allowed to run things anymore? 

A bit off thread but I see this so much where a leftie blames Tories or a Tory blames Labour  

You might be right in who made the decision but you can’t blame ‘today’ on a decision made 40 years ago. It is so impossible to reverse a decision when you are running the country? 

Every government and every career politician (which they all have been since the eighties) until yesterday are to blame...everyone one of them ‘didn’t change it’. Infact the latter ones are worse because the original decision make didn't have the benefit of hindsight. 

Thatcher started ‘Right to Buy’ but I don’t just blame her for that policy (if I disagreed with it). I would ALSO blame every single politician since who was in a position to change it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Mancunian284 said:

Because big business wants a large pool of unskilled labour that they can have on zero hours contracts and generally give them few rights. Said workers can’t complain as they’re so replaceable.  Companies don’t have to pay employers NI if the worker works less than a certain amount of hours, I think?  So instead of one full time person on a set contract, have 3 on 12 hours a week, cheaper for the business but tax payer picking up the cost.

 

Zero hours contract workers mean the business can react better to up and down turns.  Costs bourne by the worker and state, not the business.

I still vote for stupid.  I have known people who have been here for years without working.  I think they are just scared to change the system.

Don't forget businesses pay tax as well - so they do bear these costs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the middle needs to recognise helping the poor (and yes, sometimes feckless) ultimately benefits them more than they realise. 

More council housing ultimately means more, and better quality, housing stock at lower prices. 

Benefits trickle up more than people think as well. Poor people tend to stay and spend in their local areas. Part of the reason Osborne got austerity so wrong is when he cut 10 billion from benefits he expected to save 10 billion. The reality was perhaps at least 75% of that flowed back to the government via VAT and all the other taxes. A saving yes, but not nearly as clean cut as many think. And if it shrinks local economies... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, byron78 said:

I think the middle needs to recognise helping the poor (and yes, sometimes feckless) ultimately benefits them more than they realise. 

More council housing ultimately means more, and better quality, housing stock at lower prices. 

Benefits trickle up more than people think as well. Poor people tend to stay and spend in their local areas. Part of the reason Osborne got austerity so wrong is when he cut 10 billion from benefits he expected to save 10 billion. The reality was perhaps at least 75% of that flowed back to the government via VAT and all the other taxes. A saving yes, but not nearly as clean cut as many think. And if it shrinks local economies... 

I don't mind helping the poor - just not so much they have nicer housing than me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, iamnumerate said:

I don't mind helping the poor - just not so much they have nicer housing than me.

Out of interest....how do you value individuals and their worth to the community?.....is it by how many hours they work or by how much they earn from the work they do?....;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, iamnumerate said:

I don't mind helping the poor - just not so much they have nicer housing than me.

I always wonder about people who moan about how comfy benefits are. Why don't they just pack it all in and go onto them themselves if it's such an easy ride? 

I grew up when council houses were a thing. Tbh I'm posh and so never really thought much about them, but the reality was people were a bit snotty about living in the things. Since then we've scrapped them and replaced them with a benefit system that allows anyone to live anywhere they want whilst private landlords pocket loads of state cash...

 Utter madness if you ask me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, winkie said:

Out of interest....how do you value individuals and their worth to the community?.....is it by how many hours they work or by how much they earn from the work they do?....;)

Interesting. How about the type of work?

Fireman, Doctor, Nurse etc v’s Finance man. 

If we had to loose 98% of the population and could pick those remaining (in a Marvel ‘Endgame’ type scenario) I wonder how I would value worth of individuals to help the selection. ?

Obviously politicians, landlords and estate agents would be those I would need to keep first ??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, winkie said:

Out of interest....how do you value individuals and their worth to the community?.....is it by how many hours they work or by how much they earn from the work they do?....;)

I was talking about people who don't work at all so your question is not relevant.  How one values different people who work is tricky but not relevant.

1 hour ago, byron78 said:

I always wonder about people who moan about how comfy benefits are. Why don't they just pack it all in and go onto them themselves if it's such an easy ride? 

 

Honesty, self respect etc, hope that in the long term working will be a good idea, realization that if we all do it, it will destroy the economy.  I am amazed that it was not obvious.

Edited by iamnumerate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Pop321 said:

Interesting. How about the type of work?

Fireman, Doctor, Nurse etc v’s Finance man. 

If we had to loose 98% of the population and could pick those remaining (in a Marvel ‘Endgame’ type scenario) I wonder how I would value worth of individuals to help the selection. ?

Obviously politicians, landlords and estate agents would be those I would need to keep first ??

Not recruitment consultants?  Thoroughly upstanding and decent people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, iamnumerate said:

Honesty, self respect etc, hope that in the long term working will be a good idea, realization that if we all do it, it will destroy the economy.  I am amazed that it was not obvious.

If 100% / everyone worked and got paid twice as much the economy would still be destroyed.

97% of money would still be debt and the UK taxpayer bank bailout would be about £1.5 trillion (in proportion) though, rather than £850 billion because the banks would have magicked up more debt money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really good find - thank you for bringing this up.

I think the points that he misses are:

  1. If the bottom of the housing market was flooded with social housing (which I personally would like to happen) this would kill low end BTL and demand for low end private housing - thus lowering its price.
  2. It is now Tory orthodoxy that if the population is dependent on social housing they will vote Labour - thus its better to channel people into HTB/ownership to turn them into conservative voters.

The interview with the former housing minister really wound me up as you could tell behind the platitudes lye free-market ideology, fear of house prices going down and possibly a corrupt relationship with private developers that was holding him back from social housing.

I fully support the 100k council houses being built, although I am concerned that many of them will go to immigrants over native British. However, even if this were to happen, it would lead to lower house prices and another blow to BTL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, APerson said:

Really good find - thank you for bringing this up.

I think the points that he misses are:

  1. If the bottom of the housing market was flooded with social housing (which I personally would like to happen) this would kill low end BTL and demand for low end private housing - thus lowering its price.
  2. It is now Tory orthodoxy that if the population is dependent on social housing they will vote Labour - thus its better to channel people into HTB/ownership to turn them into conservative voters.

The interview with the former housing minister really wound me up as you could tell behind the platitudes lye free-market ideology, fear of house prices going down and possibly a corrupt relationship with private developers that was holding him back from social housing.

I fully support the 100k council houses being built, although I am concerned that many of them will go to immigrants over native British. However, even if this were to happen, it would lead to lower house prices and another blow to BTL.

As someone who was quite active in the Tory party during the 1980s that's bang on. 

The plan was to turn a lot of socially housed/council house dwellers Tory by letting them buy their homes on the cheap. Certainly the biggest benefit perk I've ever seen during any government but could of course be spun as encouraging free enterprise/anti socialism. 

HTB is probably the modern equivalent, but it's not quite as compelling as buying an entire house for less than 20K. 

I can only presume there aren't many Tory voters under 40 now? Those that do vote Tory are presumably mortgaged up to their eyeballs or have a bank of mum/dad. 

Brexit might change all that, but I suspect we'd rather hurt a demographic not associated with voting for us over and above hurting house prices if at all possible. 

Edited by byron78
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...

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.