Right or wrong? Social housing on new builds
Discussion
V8RX7 said:
Equally nice children will then be influenced by not so nice children with their swearing, violence, theft etc
They have tried closing "special schools" and educating children with Special needs alongside mainstream kids - it doesn't work
They are currently experimenting busing kids from crappy areas into schools in good areas - it doesn't work, it might raise 1% up a smidge but it drags 90% down - that isn't progress.
If you look at Countries where "everyone is equal" - they are all equal at a far lower level than countries where hard work, talent etc are rewarded.
If you want fewer disadvantaged children then don't let people breed until they can demonstrate they have the education, skills and finances to support their children or at least limit them to one child.
+1. Lowest common denominator They have tried closing "special schools" and educating children with Special needs alongside mainstream kids - it doesn't work
They are currently experimenting busing kids from crappy areas into schools in good areas - it doesn't work, it might raise 1% up a smidge but it drags 90% down - that isn't progress.
If you look at Countries where "everyone is equal" - they are all equal at a far lower level than countries where hard work, talent etc are rewarded.
If you want fewer disadvantaged children then don't let people breed until they can demonstrate they have the education, skills and finances to support their children or at least limit them to one child.
vsonix said:
Because not everyone is pessimistic enough to think that the kids of 'socially undesirable' parents deserve to be condemned to the same cycle of f
kery their parents ended up in through either circumstance or choice.
If kids of lower income families grow up alongside kids from 'decent' families there is more chance those less advantaged will have friends from more mobile social circles.
This whole thread is full of massive NIBYism and socio-economic snobbery. Kinda horrible really.
Do you see Nick Clegg's kids running around with the social ones? or Blairs? Nope, private school. And same for every other champagne leftie. The people who decided that a percentage of estates to be social will not live anywhere near them.kery their parents ended up in through either circumstance or choice. If kids of lower income families grow up alongside kids from 'decent' families there is more chance those less advantaged will have friends from more mobile social circles.
This whole thread is full of massive NIBYism and socio-economic snobbery. Kinda horrible really.
Do I want ghetto's? in principle no of course now, however the big estate near me is across town and that suits me fine quite frankly, I can read the local paper's crime section and keep uptodate with them that way...
If there was a 'zero tolerance' or 2 strikes and out kinda rule then sure, but by the time police/social workers jump through all the hoops any wilder social elements will be making peoples lives a misery for years.
Our systems are not designed to be tough and brutal on rule breakers, and it is normal people on normal wages who suffer from leftie decisions. Estates become ghetto's because the feral are not dealt with, no different to what happens on the new housing estate.
I would rather a system where decent social families were given x amount of free places at top nurseries, the families were given more support, and allocated a certain places at the good schools (the ones where ability to afford housing prices dictate), making sure they have quiet places to do their homework and so on. Grammar schools also did good..
Edited by hyphen on Tuesday 24th April 21:44
V8RX7 said:
If you look at Countries where "everyone is equal" - they are all equal at a far lower level than countries where hard work, talent etc are rewarded.
If you want fewer disadvantaged children then don't let people breed until they can demonstrate they have the education, skills and finances to support their children or at least limit them to one child.
Countries like Denmark, Norway, Iceland etc...? If you want fewer disadvantaged children then don't let people breed until they can demonstrate they have the education, skills and finances to support their children or at least limit them to one child.
If we paid more tax perhaps we could afford the public services to help break the chain. You seem upset with the current system, have you considered socialism?
SamR380 said:
V8RX7 said:
If you look at Countries where "everyone is equal" - they are all equal at a far lower level than countries where hard work, talent etc are rewarded.
If you want fewer disadvantaged children then don't let people breed until they can demonstrate they have the education, skills and finances to support their children or at least limit them to one child.
Countries like Denmark, Norway, Iceland etc...? If you want fewer disadvantaged children then don't let people breed until they can demonstrate they have the education, skills and finances to support their children or at least limit them to one child.
If we paid more tax perhaps we could afford the public services to help break the chain. You seem upset with the current system, have you considered socialism?
Social housing on new build estates is exactly why there's an absolute fk tonne of unsold 4 bed detached new builds in Derby.
"Here, come to our new build estate, given a pompous name, pay a 40% premium on a new build (that's waaaaaaay worse specced than the shiny showhome that dragged you into the idea), with a postage stamp garden, that's sat directly opposite Mr & Mrs obesity with their 15 children".
No thanks.
The 2 & 3 bed new builds seem to sell very easily, mainly because they're aimed at first time buyers in their early to mid 20's, who need to buy a new build house, to match their brand new gadgets and leased Merc, and can't buy a 2nd hand house as they don't know which is the pointy end on a screw driver.
If you compare our 70's 4 bed detached with an equivalent sized new build, its a good 40-50% more expensive, on a much smaller plot, with worse parking facilities, and surrounded by social housing. No wonder there's thousands of them.
k tonne of unsold 4 bed detached new builds in Derby."Here, come to our new build estate, given a pompous name, pay a 40% premium on a new build (that's waaaaaaay worse specced than the shiny showhome that dragged you into the idea), with a postage stamp garden, that's sat directly opposite Mr & Mrs obesity with their 15 children".
No thanks.
The 2 & 3 bed new builds seem to sell very easily, mainly because they're aimed at first time buyers in their early to mid 20's, who need to buy a new build house, to match their brand new gadgets and leased Merc, and can't buy a 2nd hand house as they don't know which is the pointy end on a screw driver.
If you compare our 70's 4 bed detached with an equivalent sized new build, its a good 40-50% more expensive, on a much smaller plot, with worse parking facilities, and surrounded by social housing. No wonder there's thousands of them.
Brave Fart said:
I'm fairly lucky , and yes, that disgusting smell of weed that seems to infest certain parts of our society.
Funny that. Because i'd rather have the 'disgusting smell of weed' than have to smell the disgusting aroma of self righteous indignation that seems to infest certain parts of our society. Make your point by all means, but don't try to make it about A PLANT.V8RX7 said:
If you want fewer disadvantaged children then don't let people breed until they can demonstrate they have the education, skills and finances to support their children or at least limit them to one child.
(Rubs hands) a year and 8 pages in, and we're finally starting to get some discussion about solutions.I have been fortunate enough to avoid the issues described, but totally get where people are coming from. Anyone dismissing it as classist or snobbish obviously has not had to suffer the two tier society that is opening up in the uk. I often find those arguing on political"principles" struggle when it is applied "to them".
Worth pointing out that any eviction by the HA will see the family straight back in the town hall foyer, getting expensive emergency accommodation where families are involved.
Boiling it all down though...social housing (or more correctly, scummy behaviour by some freeloaders in social housing) on new build estates is a symptom of something else.
It is not a problem"caused" by allocating X% of affordable housing, and it should be acknowledged that the social engineering is itself trying to rectify previous policy failures.
It's caused by completely different mindsets, upbringing and reference points of people who happen to speak the same language(mostly) and occupy the same bit of damp island.
So, what to do:
- have a proper ghetto style, workhouse. Segregate men women (apologies to anyone offended by my using such a binary view of gender identity, but it's quite late) so reduce the new arrivals. Food is poor, healthly and I short supply. Work is hard, but not hazardous. Overall, this option would have to be unappealing to the majority of society.
Could our society condone this? I very much doubt it. My question would be how do people get out? It would also be open to abuse by the "guards" / wardens, as we know what 70s care homes were like.
2 - continue to integrate, but with zero tolerance. As above, what is the downside? People at the bottom have nothing to lose.
3- try and skip a generation, and get their kids brought up properly, by allowing them to be raised in shouting distance of decent, hard working families. Problem with this is that so much of good parenting needs good parents, and barring the odd Hollywood movie, there's little trickle down effect with parenting.
Such families reproduce at a faster rate, and certainly at my kids school, there's an ever growing mindset it's the school's job to do the thinking, and basics like reading a book a day with your kid, or address poor behaviour with a system rather than shouting are just not on the radar. But I mirror how I was raised, which is exactly what these parents are doing. There's not enough foster parents to raise an entire generation of feral kids..the cost would be just staggering too.
4- move from a top down benefits system to a system that forces responsibilities back onto citizens, or at least makes the rewards contingent on meeting those responsibilities. I totally get that this applies to everyone, including indigenous white families .
I'm not sure of options, but universal credit will still poverty trap low income families, and it is a difficult place to get out from, assuming that you want to, or have the mental ability to keep up with "the system".
It also relies on such families boot strapping themselves up from near zero. My sister in law is a children's social worker...this just doesn't happen in real life.
5 - some other agent is introduced to bring about the scale of change. I'm not saying aliens (as per district 13). The 19th century saw a huge part played by the Methodist church and philanthropists to bring about civic change.
Is that likely to be repeated? Conditions then were truly scandalous..what people describe above is just merely piss boiling. And there's still no incentive at the bottom to change: where is their way out? to do what jobs? What is the advantage to taking on regular work and a mortgage?
Finally, I think it will have to get worse before it gets better. Pretty sucky, but in my mind, that's the only way the price of action will be outweighed by the cost of not acting at a national government level (local govt. has little power really)
I don't think we're anywhere near that point yet. We're not into south african style gated communities with armed guards.
I would give it another 10-15 years before the problems come home to roost. By this time, most of the baby boomer wealth will have made its way to care homes or the Treasury, which will either correct the housing market, or just take it out of reach for good.
The 2nd, 3rd and maybe 4th generation welfare claimants will have well and truly left the workforce, so it remains to be seen how many working families are left to pay for everything...
Ian
V8RX7 said:
If you want fewer disadvantaged children then don't let people breed until they can demonstrate they have the education, skills and finances to support their children or at least limit them to one child.
If you can explain how your idea can be put into practice in the real world you are actually a genius.... Black_S3 said:
If you can explain how your idea can be put into practice in the real world you are actually a genius....
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/feb/07/successful-male-contraceptive-gel-trial-brings-new-form-of-birth-control-closer-vasalgelThis, made mandatory for all boys at age 12, turns breeding back into a conscious act. Reversible with a simple procedure any time you like, you just have to go out of your way to get it done.
SamR380 said:
V8RX7 said:
If you look at Countries where "everyone is equal" - they are all equal at a far lower level than countries where hard work, talent etc are rewarded.
If you want fewer disadvantaged children then don't let people breed until they can demonstrate they have the education, skills and finances to support their children or at least limit them to one child.
Countries like Denmark, Norway, Iceland etc...? If you want fewer disadvantaged children then don't let people breed until they can demonstrate they have the education, skills and finances to support their children or at least limit them to one child.
If we paid more tax perhaps we could afford the public services to help break the chain. You seem upset with the current system, have you considered socialism?
romeogolf said:
romeogolf said:
Yes, you can tell which side is which (not least because the social side is all a smaller house design with shared parking, while the private side gets driveways and front lawns).
Social side looks tired - Why? Because the parking is shared, no one weeds it or cleans it. On the private side we all take care of the space outside our homes because it's OURS, we jet-wash the drives, cut the lawn, remove the weeds. Our cars are newer, our houses bigger - But our kids scream just as loudly in the summer, our evening BBQs with wine and music are just as a disturbance to our sleeping neighbours, and our cats will s
t wherever they damn well please. Perhaps all your estates are very different to ours, but this thread stinks of snobbery.whereas the social side don't. Why should I ? why should I pick that piece of paper up, why should I sweep that pavement, why should I jet wash that car parking bay ? its not my problem, its someone elses. I'm not intelligent enough to see if I did, costs of managing, owning, repairing my home would reduce- my rent could be lower, the rent increases could be less.
I cannot begin to tell you the endless FB and email messages we get in about bins.(as a landlord)
either missing, stolen, damaged, on fire, wrong refuse in so, so they won't be collected, bin chutes and bin stores wedged solid.
"normal" people manage to take their rubbish, place it in a bin, have it collected on time: never any issue. Whereas tnt's: if they're not slinging it out of the windows thinking the "bin fairy" will catch it before it lands, they're onto FB, gathering support from the rest of the "huns" to complain about the terrible service they get.
which none of them pay for.
wait till you start going in their houses: that'll open your eyes and nasal passages up too.
austinsmirk said:
nail on the head though- you and yr neighbours take pride in your environment because you own it. you have an interest in it.
whereas the social side don't. Why should I ? why should I pick that piece of paper up, why should I sweep that pavement, why should I jet wash that car parking bay ? its not my problem, its someone elses. I'm not intelligent enough to see if I did, costs of managing, owning, repairing my home would reduce- my rent could be lower, the rent increases could be less.
I cannot begin to tell you the endless FB and email messages we get in about bins.(as a landlord)
either missing, stolen, damaged, on fire, wrong refuse in so, so they won't be collected, bin chutes and bin stores wedged solid.
"normal" people manage to take their rubbish, place it in a bin, have it collected on time: never any issue. Whereas tnt's: if they're not slinging it out of the windows thinking the "bin fairy" will catch it before it lands, they're onto FB, gathering support from the rest of the "huns" to complain about the terrible service they get.
which none of them pay for.
wait till you start going in their houses: that'll open your eyes and nasal passages up too.
Qfawhereas the social side don't. Why should I ? why should I pick that piece of paper up, why should I sweep that pavement, why should I jet wash that car parking bay ? its not my problem, its someone elses. I'm not intelligent enough to see if I did, costs of managing, owning, repairing my home would reduce- my rent could be lower, the rent increases could be less.
I cannot begin to tell you the endless FB and email messages we get in about bins.(as a landlord)
either missing, stolen, damaged, on fire, wrong refuse in so, so they won't be collected, bin chutes and bin stores wedged solid.
"normal" people manage to take their rubbish, place it in a bin, have it collected on time: never any issue. Whereas tnt's: if they're not slinging it out of the windows thinking the "bin fairy" will catch it before it lands, they're onto FB, gathering support from the rest of the "huns" to complain about the terrible service they get.
which none of them pay for.
wait till you start going in their houses: that'll open your eyes and nasal passages up too.
I had quite a lucrative contract maintaining access control for a housing association. Good rates, travel to jobs included in the hourly rate, but the scummier tenants deliberatly made life so difficult that I had to give it up, myself or one of my engineers were going to end up rattling the nut in someone eventually.
The housing association offered to bump it up to £65ph including travel to jobs and it still wasnt worth it. Having to give guys paid time off to appear in court because they were assualted, turning up to an appointment that the tenant made at a time of their choosing only for them to shout f
k off through the letterbox when you arrive at the door. Never again. It pains me to think we subsidise these s.hyphen said:
More ideas are needed, the most recent radical idea of Universal Income appears to have failed: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/23/finl...
From what I've read they pulled the plug without publishing any reasons why, so I'm not sure it's enough to call it a failure just yet. OldGermanHeaps said:
Qfa
I had quite a lucrative contract maintaining access control for a housing association. Good rates, travel to jobs included in the hourly rate, but the scummier tenants deliberatly made life so difficult that I had to give it up, myself or one of my engineers were going to end up rattling the nut in someone eventually.
The housing association offered to bump it up to £65ph including travel to jobs and it still wasnt worth it. Having to give guys paid time off to appear in court because they were assualted, turning up to an appointment that the tenant made at a time of their choosing only for them to shout fk off through the letterbox when you arrive at the door. Never again. It pains me to think we subsidise these s.
Wait, what... £65 p/h? I had quite a lucrative contract maintaining access control for a housing association. Good rates, travel to jobs included in the hourly rate, but the scummier tenants deliberatly made life so difficult that I had to give it up, myself or one of my engineers were going to end up rattling the nut in someone eventually.
The housing association offered to bump it up to £65ph including travel to jobs and it still wasnt worth it. Having to give guys paid time off to appear in court because they were assualted, turning up to an appointment that the tenant made at a time of their choosing only for them to shout f
k off through the letterbox when you arrive at the door. Never again. It pains me to think we subsidise these s.err... I'll do it? I'll even bring my own knob-kerrie if it helps ward off the worst of the bludgers.
The social end of our estate is noticeably untidy compared to everywhere else. Lawns never cut, kids bikes litter the street, wheelie bins left out for days, rubbish all over the place, Christmas decs still up on some houses. Huge lack of pride IMO but if you've not had to pay the best part of 300k for a house why would you give a st about it.
Shame for anyone near them but luckily we're on the other side so rarely have to see it. One of the families eldest has just been sent to prison for 12 years for drugging and raping a 15 year old girl as well as dealing weed from his mum's house. Glad he's gone, a lot of the neighbors were fed up of his customers coming and going and his stupid illegal pit bike he used to tear arse about on.
t about it. Shame for anyone near them but luckily we're on the other side so rarely have to see it. One of the families eldest has just been sent to prison for 12 years for drugging and raping a 15 year old girl as well as dealing weed from his mum's house. Glad he's gone, a lot of the neighbors were fed up of his customers coming and going and his stupid illegal pit bike he used to tear arse about on.
nadger said:
Whilst higher taxation is part of the reason behind the equality, it’s not the most important. In Denmark, at least (I’m not sure if it applies to the other nations mentioned) there is a social attitude called Jantelov. Basically it translates as Jante’s law, and it basically says that no one is better than anyone else. As a consequence there isn’t the same social divisions in Denmark which plague us here. Some people earn more, some less, but on the whole they accept their lot and get on with it largely because of jantelov.
Sounds nice.FrankAbagnale said:
Social housing quotas combined with developer levys in South Oxon are making previously viable developments less attractive to residential developers and as a result no homes are being built. So, there is less supply of regular homes and no social housing being built on those sites at all.
This. Its a strange far left concept from a Tory government as those that can manage to scrape a deposit and then successfully get a mortgage to purchase as home are TOTALLY subsidising social housing for their neighbour. This all via an effectively increased purchase price so as the developer can sell the social housing at a discount to teh LA (as they are compelled to do). I think it makes things very tough on growing families moving for some more space but paying a premium in lieu of government inadequacy in the whole housing arena - let alone the massive disincentive to anyone considering creating housing but finding the numbers just don't stack up due to the forced subsidy element. Any affordable housing remit 'must be to an equal or greater standard that the commercialy sold open market units'. That's gold taps on the HA bidet then just to get planning consent!!! Killed it 
Ken Figenus said:
FrankAbagnale said:
Social housing quotas combined with developer levys in South Oxon are making previously viable developments less attractive to residential developers and as a result no homes are being built. So, there is less supply of regular homes and no social housing being built on those sites at all.
This. Its a strange far left concept from a Tory government as those that can manage to scrape a deposit and then successfully get a mortgage to purchase as home are TOTALLY subsidising social housing for their neighbour. This all via an effectively increased purchase price so as the developer can sell the social housing at a discount to teh LA (as they are compelled to do). I think it makes things very tough on growing families moving for some more space but paying a premium in lieu of government inadequacy in the whole housing arena - let alone the massive disincentive to anyone considering creating housing but finding the numbers just don't stack up due to the forced subsidy element. Any affordable housing remit 'must be to an equal or greater standard that the commercialy sold open market units'. That's gold taps on the HA bidet then just to get planning consent!!! Killed it Saleen836 said:
Also, having worked on numerous mixed sites it is very easy to tell which will be a social and which will be a private house, the social house will have much larger rooms, bigger patio area, fully turfed lawns and even a garden shed and washing line!
Are the rooms larger in the social builds because they have to meet the minimum space standards, whereas privately purchased ones do not?As for the turfed lawns etc, this is understandable and I would expect the LA would be paying for these as part of the purchase cost, no?
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff