Gordon Brown to 'create' 100,000 jobs.

SGE1

mizzbiz wrote: »

The sort of people that would vote for such a 'spin' are the sort of people that would only vote labour anyway.

Oh well since you say it so sweepingly, it must be true! You seem to have a good grasp of irony too, what with your sig and everything :rotfl:

SGE1

treliac wrote: »

The well-off don't usually like to live too close to social housing and it doesn't help to maintain the value of their properties.

Only if there are significant clusters of (unattractive) social housing - proper large estates etc. A few buildings here and there actually doesn't harm property values very much at all.

caveman38

On the other hand, those who live in social housing have less incentives to contribute or get involved in their local area - they get moved around a lot, and they get given properties they might not want, in locations they might not like.

It is not so much the case these days. Yeaqrs ago social housing was houses / flats on council estates.
These days I beleive all developements above 10 properties have to allocate 25% to housing associations who in turn rent them out to councils. In some cases large appartment blocks that are not selling, larger percentages are offered to HA's for large discounts.
I know of appartments on Isle of Dogs where fazmilies from Brick Lane, Tower Hamlets were housed in luxury appartments now worth £400K (or they were worth).

mizzbiz

SGE1 wrote: »

Oh well since you say it so sweepingly, it must be true! You seem to have a good grasp of irony too, what with your sig and everything :rotfl:

I speak from experience. 11 years of it, in fact. And to be fair, you have a point. There are gullible people that will vote for any party. It's just the majority I was referring too.

Why don't you pick at the rest too? Or do you just pick up on things that touch a nerve or that you can grasp intellectually? :T

leveller2911

SGE1 wrote: »

That's not really summing it up. It's got nothing to do with intelligence, it's just straightforward incentives. If you can afford a 500k house, we're indeed talking about a professional couple, possibly family, or a very loaded single person. Those with higher earning professions generally owe a large part of their salary advantage to good education (note generally, not always). Those who invest significantly in an area (i.e. by buying an expensive house), and those who have extra incentive to ameliorate the area they live in (e.g. children who attend the local school) tend to become more involved in their neighbourhood, with a view to ameliorating it. Success breeds success, unfortunately, so while it may be counter-intuitive, bringing in well-off professionals is in fact quite a good way of improving a neighbourhood, both statistically and in practice.

On the other hand, those who live in social housing have less incentives to contribute or get involved in their local area - they get moved around a lot, and they get given properties they might not want, in locations they might not like.

The ideal solution is therefore scattering a bit of both, I think: more social housing, because more people will need it - but scatter it around larger houses that will attract more well-off people and families who will have more incentive to contributing to the long-term improvement of the area.

Given that the need for social housing, FTB,s housing, young couples etc by far out weigh the need for £500k houses how can you justify a "scattering of both"?, land is finite. With a developer being required to build just 2.5 social houses for every ten they build it will NEVER address the problem.

I have lived in social housing all of my life 40 yrs (birthday today)and Ive moved once.Speaking from experience we do not"Get moved about a lot",you also asume that "profesional people tend to become involved in their neighbourhood with a view to "ameliorate(make better you mean? ).
So I as a carpenter and joiner dont do the same??????????:rolleyes: Some of the "professional " people I know dont have time to give to the community because they either work long hours ,commute or both..."its just straightforward incentives" is it NOT an incentive to see my children grow up with a decent standard of education , get a job ,married and have there own family?????? , for me thats an incentive enough to play a role and I would say that that is true of the vast majority of people,irrespective of class or money...


I still dont get the arguement that money somehow qualifies you to lead a community.


YOUR NOT AN MEMBER FOR PARLIAMENT ARE YOU? OR A PROSPECTIVE MEMBER ??

Lotus-eater

I've read alot of smart replies on here, some appeal to me, some don't.

To me the answer is quite simple. We can afford to have those extra jobs, the extra they would cost on top of what the UK already owes, wouldn't exactly break the bank.

But as someone else already said, 100,000, what does that actually mean? Mostly it means spin I would guess, some jobs would already be there, some would be filled by people already employed, a few, very few I'm guessing, would employ unemployed people.

Typical Brown/politician spin, if you think anyone else would be any better, you need to think again.
I vote liberal, but I am under no illusion.

neverdespairgirl

treliac wrote: »

The well-off don't usually like to live too close to social housing and it doesn't help to maintain the value of their properties.

In London they tend to be scattered - you are never far from social housing.

I know of a road in SE London with £2.5 million houses at one end and a block of council flats at the other.

Lotus-eater

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

In London they tend to be scattered - you are never far from social housing.

I know of a road in SE London with £2.5 million houses at one end and a block of council flats at the other.

To be fair, in most villages you are only a street from SH anyway. But at least you have a chance of knowing these people.

Give me a good reason for living in London again

treliac

leveller2911 wrote: »

I still dont get the arguement that money somehow qualifies you to lead a community.

I agree with you. It smacks of a feudal system to me. Highly undesirable IMO.

stamford

Lotus-eater wrote: »

I've read alot of smart replies on here, some appeal to me, some don't.

To me the answer is quite simple. We can afford to have those extra jobs, the extra they would cost on top of what the UK already owes, wouldn't exactly break the bank.

But as someone else already said, 100,000, what does that actually mean? Mostly it means spin I would guess, some jobs would already be there, some would be filled by people already employed, a few, very few I'm guessing, would employ unemployed people.

Typical Brown/politician spin, if you think anyone else would be any better, you need to think again.
I vote liberal, but I am under no illusion.

Brown repeatedly comes out with this sort of crap - aren't most of the London Olympic construction jobs filled by Eastern Europeans ?