|
Ozzie Osmond
12,080 posts
115 months
|
AJS- said: It's a very emotive, and IMO tasteless term..... Hmmm. What's your take on the far more cuddly "Quantitative Easing"? Seems to fit the situation nicely!
|
|
|
Gwagon111
Original Poster
3,365 posts
30 months
|
The thing that does make me chuckle is the way people are banging on about Newham as though it's somewhere desirable to live. If people are willing to pay stupid money to live in that hole, more fool them.
|
|
|
turbobloke
55,479 posts
129 months
|
It's been mentioned a million times but this remains Labour inspired political posturing in Newham.
|
|
|
wolves_wanderer
7,945 posts
106 months
|
Globs said: Gwagon111 said: wolves_wanderer said: They aren't cutting back on free housing though are they? Merely moving the problem to somewhere else that doesn't have enough social housing already. Genius idea. Move them to the colonies. I know it's a novel idea, but I think it may just work  The problem is the cost to the taxpayer who doesn't get housing benefit. This IS solved by moving these chosen people to a cheaper area. What about the social costs of moving a load of people somewhere there are already not enough jobs?
|
|
|
fido
9,384 posts
124 months
|
Gwagon111 said: The thing that does make me chuckle is the way people are banging on about Newham as though it's somewhere desirable to live. If people are willing to pay stupid money to live in that hole, more fool them. It will be a desirable area to live once the untermensch has left.  Like bits of South London that have undergone gentrification (that's a nicer word) there will still be enough proles to retain a Labour MP - but you'll get Starbucks, a Waitrose, and lots of fit girlies in knee-high boots - so everyone's happy.
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
AJS-
10,005 posts
105 months
|
Ozzie Osmond said: AJS- said: It's a very emotive, and IMO tasteless term..... Hmmm. What's your take on the far more cuddly "Quantitative Easing"? Seems to fit the situation nicely! QE is just a bulls  t term for printing money. "Social cleansing" is intentionally comparing it with ethnic cleansing, and in my view slaughtering people due to their ethnicity is something entirely different from saying you can't have a free house in this borough, but here's one where you can.
|
|
|
thinfourth2
23,538 posts
73 months
|
AJS- said: "Social cleansing" is intentionally comparing it with ethnic cleansing, and in my view slaughtering people due to their ethnicity is something entirely different from saying you can't have a free house in this borough, but here's one where you can. No its exactly the same thing as giving someone a free house somewhere they don't want to live as murdering people as they sleep. I haven't got a free house so logically i must of been murdered in my sleep
|
|
|
Justayellowbadge
29,428 posts
111 months
|
There was a girl on R4 this morning, and to be fair, it did sound a sad story. She was pretty well spoken, and recently bereaved, so now a single mother of one daughter. Didn’t come across as a lifetime benefit user. The council have apparently informed her that they have sourced her housing in Walsall, and if she chooses not to take it they have discharged their legal duty so she’s on her own.
She has no connection to the Midlands, no friends or family in the area.
However, and where she lost any sympathy, she went on to suggest that one of the reasons that she should stay where she was, apart from schooling and friends etc, was that all her daughter’s grandparents lived in the borough, along with aunts and uncles.
Perhaps I am being unrealistic, but what the hell is wrong with families looking after their own?
|
|
|
turbobloke
55,479 posts
129 months
|
Justayellowbadge said:
Perhaps I am being unrealistic, but what the hell is wrong with families looking after their own?
It's not unrealistic but if it can't happen for any reason then the option remains to make a new start in Walsall or wherever. People relocate away from family and friends all the time and for all sorts of reasons. That case isn't fundamentally more emotive in terms of the effects but may seem so because of the fact that the mover hasn't initiated the move.
|
|
|
hora
16,571 posts
80 months
|
I couldn't afford a posh house or flat in London so why would it be my right?
There was a woman on the news last night who said its taken her 5yrs to build up a network of contacts in the area.
What she should have said was 'look I know taxpayers are paying over the odds to keep me in an unsustainable property but I have a couple of friends right'.
|
|
|
AJS-
10,005 posts
105 months
|
thinfourth2 said: AJS- said: "Social cleansing" is intentionally comparing it with ethnic cleansing, and in my view slaughtering people due to their ethnicity is something entirely different from saying you can't have a free house in this borough, but here's one where you can. No its exactly the same thing as giving someone a free house somewhere they don't want to live as murdering people as they sleep. I haven't got a free house so logically i must of been murdered in my sleep Is this a "first they came for the housing benefits..." type parable?
|
|
|
kingofherts
337 posts
65 months
|
s1962a said: My current commute to the centre of London is 1 hour each way - sometimes more if there are delays on public transport. Assuming someone is working in the centre of London, they could quite easily live on the outskirts and have a 1 hour commute into town. I would imagine that your one hour commute on the train costs quite a bit every day, but then I would also assume that your on a wage that can cover that fairly easily? The sort of amount that someone say, on £250 a week might not be able to spend on train travel.. Not much of an incentive if your going to spend circa £100 a week on travel to earn £150 afterwards is there, especially if a selection of benefits means your better off not working. It's certainly a tough one though. We can't keep paying hand over fist for people to live in expensive areas of the UK if they contribute nothing. Perhaps an unlimited amount of housing benefit to be paid only for a year, and then not again for 2 years without working? Something like that... You can't just move all the 'poor' out of cities, as it has been said, who would collect the bins? who would serve your coffee at the station? It all sounds silly, but it's true.
|
|
|
Countdown
6,338 posts
65 months
|
Justayellowbadge said: Perhaps I am being unrealistic, but what the hell is wrong with families looking after their own? Couldn't agree more. The costs of looking after other people's offspring or elderly parents is massive. But hey, much better to have a flash car / regular holidays than to look after one's own 
|
|
|
turbobloke
55,479 posts
129 months
|
Countdown said: Justayellowbadge said: Perhaps I am being unrealistic, but what the hell is wrong with families looking after their own? Couldn't agree more. The costs of looking after other people's offspring or elderly parents is massive. But hey, much better to have a flash car / regular holidays than to look after one's own Nothing wrong with doing both.
|
|
|
Fatboy
7,281 posts
141 months
|
kingofherts said: I would imagine that your one hour commute on the train costs quite a bit every day, but then I would also assume that your on a wage that can cover that fairly easily?
The sort of amount that someone say, on £250 a week might not be able to spend on train travel..
Not much of an incentive if your going to spend circa £100 a week on travel to earn £150 afterwards is there, especially if a selection of benefits means your better off not working.
It's certainly a tough one though. We can't keep paying hand over fist for people to live in expensive areas of the UK if they contribute nothing. Perhaps an unlimited amount of housing benefit to be paid only for a year, and then not again for 2 years without working? Something like that...
You can't just move all the 'poor' out of cities, as it has been said, who would collect the bins? who would serve your coffee at the station? It all sounds silly, but it's true. good point, but you could easily move the long term unemployed out of the city without negatively affecting the running of the place... And perhaps the time has come to revisit the building of proper council housing for the lower paid - decent, properly maintained and managed (i.e. warning/removal of those who ruin it for everyone else) tower blocks could well be the solution to how to ensure that the lower paid can still find somewhere decent to live within a reasonable distance from work...
|
|
|
turbobloke
55,479 posts
129 months
|
Latest TaxPayers Alliance Report said: The number of Newham staff earning more than £100,000 has gone up from 14 to 26.
|
|
|
baz1985
3,429 posts
114 months
|
It is possible to understand the vicissitudes of the economic problem. The original concern was that housing benefits were being claimed in residences situated in prime prestigious London i.e. Kensington and Chelsea, Westminster etc. This is difficult to reconcile with the debate in Newham, where every socio-economic indicator depicts that notwithstanding the Olympic Investment, it has not been transformed into an area where the Middle Eastern-Russian funds are competitively bidding for acquisition. The rent for a four bedroom dwelling is circa £1300pcm in Newham, circa £3500pcm in Kensington and Chelsea, circa £600pcm in Stoke-on-Trent. In facile economic terms the first wave of mediocre rendition cases to Stoke-on-Trent should be targeted in the Royal Borough and not Newham.
I realise that my intellectual capacity is exceptionally limited; so that’s my justification for averring spurious drivel.
|
|
|
s1962a
935 posts
31 months
|
kingofherts said: s1962a said: My current commute to the centre of London is 1 hour each way - sometimes more if there are delays on public transport. Assuming someone is working in the centre of London, they could quite easily live on the outskirts and have a 1 hour commute into town. I would imagine that your one hour commute on the train costs quite a bit every day, but then I would also assume that your on a wage that can cover that fairly easily? The sort of amount that someone say, on £250 a week might not be able to spend on train travel.. Not much of an incentive if your going to spend circa £100 a week on travel to earn £150 afterwards is there, especially if a selection of benefits means your better off not working. It's certainly a tough one though. We can't keep paying hand over fist for people to live in expensive areas of the UK if they contribute nothing. Perhaps an unlimited amount of housing benefit to be paid only for a year, and then not again for 2 years without working? Something like that... You can't just move all the 'poor' out of cities, as it has been said, who would collect the bins? who would serve your coffee at the station? It all sounds silly, but it's true. I gave some examples on a later post as well. I agree that some commutes can work out quite expensive, but lets take an example of someone living and working in zone 1 in London at the moment. Their monthly travelcard would currently cost £112 - if they moved to cheaper accomodation in zone 6 their travelcard increases to £205. A difference of £90 odd which is possible if they are saving money on their rent. I do see the point you're making though about moving all the 'poor' out of the cities - but it may just have an unintended effect of making them want to work harder, earn more money, and get back to their old hometown. Source http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tickets/14416.aspx
|
|
|
Gwagon111
Original Poster
3,365 posts
30 months
|
As has been said, it would boil my piss a lot, to see some worthless workshy scumbag living in a high cost property in Berkley square or similar, at the tax payers expense. I really don't get too upset about them living in Newham. However my urine temperature would rise if they were being put up in Newham, at tax payers expense, and a private landlord was receiving over the odds money from the public purse.
|
|
|
Justayellowbadge
29,428 posts
111 months
|
Gwagon111 said: However my urine temperature would rise if they were being put up in Newham, at tax payers expense, and a private landlord was receiving over the odds money from the public purse. Again, that is the system at fault, not the landlord.
|
|
