Rant: social engineering and its failings.
Discussion
Zaxxon said:
Is that the period of 10 years post 1997 when Labour blamed everything on the previous Tory government?
Then it was realised that Labour had been in power for 10 years and had not improved life one bit, had got involved in 2 wars that they could not justify being part of (at least Maggie fought off an invasion.....and won).
The general populace slowly began to realise that thanks to Brown, we had no gold left, no money and a bleak future.
Blair and Brown couldn't use the 'but it was maggie's fault' card. Blair realised that the country no longer believed his lies and scarpered. Brown was left and couldn't paint over the cracks with a winning cheesy smile, because he didn't have one.
For what it's worth, I don't think the coalition will be able to turn things around, it's too far gone, Labour has sunk this country and the bankers have stolen all the life rafts.
There we go, normal service is resumed! Then it was realised that Labour had been in power for 10 years and had not improved life one bit, had got involved in 2 wars that they could not justify being part of (at least Maggie fought off an invasion.....and won).
The general populace slowly began to realise that thanks to Brown, we had no gold left, no money and a bleak future.
Blair and Brown couldn't use the 'but it was maggie's fault' card. Blair realised that the country no longer believed his lies and scarpered. Brown was left and couldn't paint over the cracks with a winning cheesy smile, because he didn't have one.
For what it's worth, I don't think the coalition will be able to turn things around, it's too far gone, Labour has sunk this country and the bankers have stolen all the life rafts.
Zaxxon said:
Is that the period of 10 years post 1997 when Labour blamed everything on the previous Tory government?
Then it was realised that Labour had been in power for 10 years and had not improved life one bit, had got involved in 2 wars that they could not justify being part of (at least Maggie fought off an invasion.....and won).
The general populace slowly began to realise that thanks to Brown, we had no gold left, no money and a bleak future.
Blair and Brown couldn't use the 'but it was maggie's fault' card. Blair realised that the country no longer believed his lies and scarpered. Brown was left and couldn't paint over the cracks with a winning cheesy smile, because he didn't have one.
For what it's worth, I don't think the coalition will be able to turn things around, it's too far gone, Labour has sunk this country and the bankers have stolen all the life rafts.
Proper ray of sunshine you are.Then it was realised that Labour had been in power for 10 years and had not improved life one bit, had got involved in 2 wars that they could not justify being part of (at least Maggie fought off an invasion.....and won).
The general populace slowly began to realise that thanks to Brown, we had no gold left, no money and a bleak future.
Blair and Brown couldn't use the 'but it was maggie's fault' card. Blair realised that the country no longer believed his lies and scarpered. Brown was left and couldn't paint over the cracks with a winning cheesy smile, because he didn't have one.
For what it's worth, I don't think the coalition will be able to turn things around, it's too far gone, Labour has sunk this country and the bankers have stolen all the life rafts.
Something like this is happening to my village.
A large private housing estate has been built on an old factory site; any resistance to the plan was countered by a promise that a proportion of the housing was to be social housing "to help local young people stay in the area".
Then the council decided to fill the social housing with troublemakers from a town ten miles away (which has plenty of scum to spare...) and - bingo! - petty crime increased almost overnight.
A friend started complaining (after the second attampt to burgle his house) to be told by a young lady at the council that they had moved the antisocial families to our village as they thought "the village life would make better people of them".
A large private housing estate has been built on an old factory site; any resistance to the plan was countered by a promise that a proportion of the housing was to be social housing "to help local young people stay in the area".
Then the council decided to fill the social housing with troublemakers from a town ten miles away (which has plenty of scum to spare...) and - bingo! - petty crime increased almost overnight.
A friend started complaining (after the second attampt to burgle his house) to be told by a young lady at the council that they had moved the antisocial families to our village as they thought "the village life would make better people of them".
I seem to remember when delivering parcels that similar was happening in parts of Herefordshire where social housing was put next to nice homes, and again unsurprisingly the crime rate went up overnight.
I even had one of the lovable rogues/ promising footballers try to break into my van while I was in it sorting my deliveries in the back....he had a surprise when I jumped out of the back doors at him
I even had one of the lovable rogues/ promising footballers try to break into my van while I was in it sorting my deliveries in the back....he had a surprise when I jumped out of the back doors at him
Getragdogleg said:
Pupp said:
Getragdogleg said:
the council actually puts the troubled "families" in this estate and recieves money from other councils to take problem people from inner cities.
Care to evidence that particular assertion?Its locally well known, Treneere Estate gets these families and so does Roscadghill Estate, Interestingly Treneere is one of the countries worst estates in terms of crime, drugs and other problems.
Pupp said:
Maybe because, social housing on Treneere appears to be owned/managed by Penwith Housing Association, which is bog all to do with the council. And Wikipedia indicates the estate was actually built in the 1930s?
PHA was what the CC housing side became, its a charity and employs a lot of ex CC people and people who worked under the wider umbrella of the various CC section and CC funded schemes.The Treneere estate was a bright new thing in its day, working people lived there, then in the last 20 years the place changed as families were moved in from other areas, it can be a nasty place now that i would not like to walk through in daylight let alone at night.
Dont get me wrong, a lot is being done to tidy it and sort the problems but the elephant in the room regarding estates such as ours is that a lot of the people there have no job, have never had a job and will not ever get a job, some are involved with drugs and crime and that makes the area bad to live in.
The system of money for nothing is the trap, no incentive to work if it means you will have to get up and leave the house for less money.
rover 623gsi said:
cymtriks said:
My wife spent many years by the seaside, so did I. I also spent a lot of my early years in a rural area.
Would you like to pay for us to have a nice rural seaside cottage, Devon or Cornwall would be nice, after all us leaving this kind of area has depleted them so it would only improve things for your taxes to fund our cottage?
Alternatively, this is just an idea, we could pay our own way unless we are actually too ill, old or in the middle of a disaster to provide for ourselves.
Personally I think that the problem is excaberated by people thinking that they cannot possibly hop on a bus to see their folks so the rest of us must pay for them to live in a picturesque village.
I work for a housing association - we own and manage approx 5,500 properties, mainly in rural areas. Last year we opened 12 properties for rent in a small village - it took five years from when we first identified the site to when the first residents moved in such are the obstacles faced by housebuilders. The price of housing in rural areas relative to wages is even worse than in urban areas and if we want rural areas to remain as vibrant and viable communities then we need more, not less, social housing. IMHO, of course.Would you like to pay for us to have a nice rural seaside cottage, Devon or Cornwall would be nice, after all us leaving this kind of area has depleted them so it would only improve things for your taxes to fund our cottage?
Alternatively, this is just an idea, we could pay our own way unless we are actually too ill, old or in the middle of a disaster to provide for ourselves.
Personally I think that the problem is excaberated by people thinking that they cannot possibly hop on a bus to see their folks so the rest of us must pay for them to live in a picturesque village.
Why is preserving a fixed ratio of older/richer people to younger/poorer people specifically so important for rural areas?
Why can't people move just a few miles down the road and visit their families by bus or car like the rest of us?
Why is your definition of a community better than one created by market forces?
Why do you think that social housing helps make an area vibrant or viable? Most home owners living near "vibrant and viable" social housing hate it because it has made their community worse!
Social housing shouldn't be about social engineering of communities, it should be about housing those medically unable to put a roof over their heads or for people who have lost their homes due to some disaster like flooding, fire or collapse. All IMHO...
rover 623gsi said:
The price of housing in rural areas relative to wages is even worse than in urban areas and if we want rural areas to remain as vibrant and viable communities then we need more, not less, social housing. IMHO, of course.
I don't understand the reasoning here - why do we want to artifically support the market?If housing was left to the private sector to provide we would have millions of people homeless and starving. Social housing was not designed as a last resort - it is an alternative housing model which has over the years provided decent living accomodation of millions of people in this country. Perhaps you'd like to see the return of Victorian slums?
No one has a 'right' to live anywhere, but we have a duty to provide enough decent housing for our population.
No one has a 'right' to live anywhere, but we have a duty to provide enough decent housing for our population.
rover 623gsi said:
If housing was left to the private sector to provide we would have millions of people homeless and starving. Social housing was not designed as a last resort - it is an alternative housing model which has over the years provided decent living accomodation of millions of people in this country. Perhaps you'd like to see the return of Victorian slums?
No one has a 'right' to live anywhere, but we have a duty to provide enough decent housing for our population.
Who is paying for this social housing? And what about the people that can't afford housing yet can't get on the ladder either? And why can't social housing be in the cheapest areas to save money?No one has a 'right' to live anywhere, but we have a duty to provide enough decent housing for our population.
Getragdogleg said:
payner2008 said:
I think that your assumption that everyone who lives on a council estate is a drug taking, property burgling, chav piece of scum is slightly narrow minded.
The fact that your friend had his stuff stolen is still s
t though.
Ok, one or two might be ok. The estate is known locally for being ver bad though.The fact that your friend had his stuff stolen is still s
t though. The other estates locally are ok, one is actually very nice indeed.
And I base my opinions on events and evidence, no narrow-mindedness here, just observation, local knowledge and reliable information as to council proceedure regarding troubled family relocation.
I have trouble with lazy f
king morons claiming money from the state and all the while theiving as well while those who have done ok for themselves and lived good lives doing no harm to others get stiffed.Sounds like the people living near Heathrow that complain about aircraft.
NoelWatson said:
rover 623gsi said:
If housing was left to the private sector to provide we would have millions of people homeless and starving. Social housing was not designed as a last resort - it is an alternative housing model which has over the years provided decent living accomodation of millions of people in this country. Perhaps you'd like to see the return of Victorian slums?
No one has a 'right' to live anywhere, but we have a duty to provide enough decent housing for our population.
Who is paying for this social housing? And what about the people that can't afford housing yet can't get on the ladder either? And why can't social housing be in the cheapest areas to save money?No one has a 'right' to live anywhere, but we have a duty to provide enough decent housing for our population.
40% of our residents receive no housing benefit. The rest receive some housing benefit. A very small percentage receive 100% housing benefit.
For people that can't get on the housing ladder we provide shared ownerhship properties - though sadly we simply can't build enough of these.
Social housing does tend to be built in 'cheaper areas' but it also needs to reflect general housing needs.
NoelWatson said:
rover 623gsi said:
The price of housing in rural areas relative to wages is even worse than in urban areas and if we want rural areas to remain as vibrant and viable communities then we need more, not less, social housing. IMHO, of course.
I don't understand the reasoning here - why do we want to artifically support the market?Do you think that all four million social housing properties ought to be sold off to private landlords?
rover 623gsi said:
No one has a 'right' to live anywhere, but we have a duty to provide enough decent housing for our population.
For people who can't look after themselves. Not for people who can't be arsed. It's all part of the safety net that encourages people not to get a job and contribute to society.Not everyone here was given a house or job by their parents. Most people here have had to work hard at school and earn money. This country is creating generations of people who have no concept of working, their parents never had a job and their children won't either. We are simply encouraging it by making life easier for them.
I'm all for assisted housing and supporting people who work. Not just giving people stuff when they could be working and paying rent. Who cares if they can't afford a house near to their parents council house, isn't that an incentive to work harder and be able to afford one?
Giving lazy b
ds free stuff all the time isn't helping them it's making them worse. oyster said:
Getragdogleg said:
payner2008 said:
I think that your assumption that everyone who lives on a council estate is a drug taking, property burgling, chav piece of scum is slightly narrow minded.
The fact that your friend had his stuff stolen is still st though.
Ok, one or two might be ok. The estate is known locally for being ver bad though.The fact that your friend had his stuff stolen is still s
t though. The other estates locally are ok, one is actually very nice indeed.
And I base my opinions on events and evidence, no narrow-mindedness here, just observation, local knowledge and reliable information as to council proceedure regarding troubled family relocation.
I have trouble with lazy f
king morons claiming money from the state and all the while theiving as well while those who have done ok for themselves and lived good lives doing no harm to others get stiffed.Sounds like the people living near Heathrow that complain about aircraft.
But carry on anyway...
Edited by Pupp on Friday 31st December 10:16
rover 623gsi said:
NoelWatson said:
rover 623gsi said:
If housing was left to the private sector to provide we would have millions of people homeless and starving. Social housing was not designed as a last resort - it is an alternative housing model which has over the years provided decent living accomodation of millions of people in this country. Perhaps you'd like to see the return of Victorian slums?
No one has a 'right' to live anywhere, but we have a duty to provide enough decent housing for our population.
Who is paying for this social housing? And what about the people that can't afford housing yet can't get on the ladder either? And why can't social housing be in the cheapest areas to save money?No one has a 'right' to live anywhere, but we have a duty to provide enough decent housing for our population.
40% of our residents receive no housing benefit. The rest receive some housing benefit. A very small percentage receive 100% housing benefit.
For people that can't get on the housing ladder we provide shared ownerhship properties - though sadly we simply can't build enough of these.
Social housing does tend to be built in 'cheaper areas' but it also needs to reflect general housing needs.
rover 623gsi said:
We apply to the Homes and Communities Agency for a grant to build the house and if they agree they will give us half of that amount - £30k.
But isn't some of this money coming from people that can't afford to get on the housing ladder?rover 623gsi said:
For people that can't get on the housing ladder we provide shared ownerhship properties - though sadly we simply can't build enough of these.
Isn't shared ownership another artificial support?rover 623gsi said:
Social housing does tend to be built in 'cheaper areas' but it also needs to reflect general housing needs.
Surely all that is needed is a roof over one's head?Johnnytheboy said:
Something like this is happening to my village.
A large private housing estate has been built on an old factory site; any resistance to the plan was countered by a promise that a proportion of the housing was to be social housing "to help local young people stay in the area".
Then the council decided to fill the social housing with troublemakers from a town ten miles away (which has plenty of scum to spare...) and - bingo! - petty crime increased almost overnight.
A friend started complaining (after the second attampt to burgle his house) to be told by a young lady at the council that they had moved the antisocial families to our village as they thought "the village life would make better people of them".
You can take people out of the slumA large private housing estate has been built on an old factory site; any resistance to the plan was countered by a promise that a proportion of the housing was to be social housing "to help local young people stay in the area".
Then the council decided to fill the social housing with troublemakers from a town ten miles away (which has plenty of scum to spare...) and - bingo! - petty crime increased almost overnight.
A friend started complaining (after the second attampt to burgle his house) to be told by a young lady at the council that they had moved the antisocial families to our village as they thought "the village life would make better people of them".
You can't take the slum out of the people
Planning policy generally requires affordable housing to be provided as an integral component of significant new housing developments. 40% of total new units is not untypical and the starting point would be for these to be pepper-potted throughout the site rather than clustered; occasionally a developer will be allowed to pay money rather than make physical provision if there is something particular about the scheme that means AH cannot be accommodated (no, it's not a reason because it's a, 'executive' development)
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff