BBC show on council housing now - 21:00 4th May

chucky

so no responses to Lemonjelly's points but still trying to take the thread totally onto something else that it's not - how predictable...

ILW

chucky wrote: »

so no responses to Lemonjelly's points but still trying to take the thread totally onto something else that it's not - how predictable...

Which point?

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

so no responses to Lemonjelly's points but still trying to take the thread totally onto something else that it's not - how predictable...

His point was that I had gone quiet and wasn't responding, and that I should basically apologise.

I've responded. So it's back to "no responses to lemonjellys points".

Can't win. Respond it's insults. Don't respond it's slurs.

Lemon is simply labelling everyone he doesn't agree with. Whether it's daily mail reader slurs. Slurs that we are all against single mothers. Slurs that we want workhouses. That's all it is...slurs. In nearly every single post.

So it's no real shocker that you are both getting on like a small forest on fire.

pukkamum

I live in a council house, i am married my husband works and we have three kids.
I will be honest i never thought i would live in a council house, i thought all people who lived in council were either old or unemployed.
We started off private renting which suited us as before we had kids we moved around the country quite a lot, we assumed it would always be easy to buy a house and there was no rush.

We considered waiting until after we had bought a house til having a baby but i knew i wanted to live back up north near my family when i had a child so decided we could cope with one child and private renting and we would buy a house when i went back to work.

We put our name down on the council list whilst down south just on the off chance really never expecting to get one.

Well we did get one, it was in a decent area near my mums and at only £60 per week for a 3 bed too much of a good thing to give up.

We convinced ourselves we would only be in it for a while til we increased the savings we already had to buy.

Well 8 yrs later we are still here, why?
Because we could never save the 20+% deposit most lenders are asking.
Even if we could all we could afford is a two up two down terrace with no garden.
We spend any spare cash we have doing up the house we are in.

We are in a lovely spot with mostly working familes like us.
I truly believe we are who social housing should be for.

A girl in the next street has four children no partner and has unreservedly told me she WILL be having another then they HAVE to re-house her to one of the bigger houses they are building nearby.
I would have thought that had she applied the brains she clearly has to ensure she never has to work and how to ensure she gets the house she wants to a career she would do very well for herself.

chucky

ILW wrote: »

Which point?

Graham_Devon wrote: »

His point was that I had gone quiet and wasn't responding, and that I should basically apologise.

jeeez, get your stories straight... otherwise it looks like one of you can't read...

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Can't win. Respond it's insults. Don't respond it's slurs.

insults?? where??

ILW

Sorry, I didn't realise it was a private argument.

ManicMum

The_White_Horse wrote: »

they should do away with council housing. work and pay for your house or live on the street unless you are severely disabled/ill.

What? Does that include small children, babies and the elderly? Surely we can blame them for something? Original sin?

you are sick.

chucky

ManicMum wrote: »

What? Does that include small children, babies and the elderly? Surely we can blame them for something? Original sin?

you are sick.

hostels are apparently the answer - i know this because watched a 30 minute programme on it and i'm an expert on the social issues across every council estate in the UK now.

ninky_2

shortchanged wrote: »

lemonjelly, I don't think anyone is saying that all single mothers/fathers are spongers, wasters etc.

What people are saying is that there is definately an element of society who play the system to get into social housing which is ultimately to the detriment of others in genuine need.

Yes most of us are guilty of judging people without knowing all the facts but unfortunately that is human nature.

I am all in favour of a fair and appropriate social state which is there to support those who genuinely need it. However, I have no time for people who use the social state to be lazy, workshy layabouts. Why should taxpayers fund these peoples lifestyles?

Whilst I agree it can often be difficult to identify the genuine cases from the ones manipulating the system there needs to be some real drive to encourage some form of societal change to reduce this cultural belief/habit that exists in certain areas of society and until this is tackled at the grass roots then nothing will change.

there are some very good reasons why the taxpayer should fund their lifestyles. given that they are innately workshy / lazy take away benefits and they will look for an alternative easy route - no doubt crime. the other reason is that if you let them just starve to death on the street you remove a valuable 'need' resource from the capitalist system. why do that when you can instead tax others and put more wealth creating resource (e.g. demand for cigarettes / iceland buffets) into circulation). it may make some people morally repulsed but logically it makes sense.

the real issue here is lack of aspiration and ability (or perceived ability) to meet increased aspiration. both of these can be addressed with improved education. the state education standards we've come to accept are way too low. i'm not really talking about gcse / a level results i'm talking about careers advice, networking advice and resources etc etc. this means the genuinely capable are given a better hand up. as an intelligent and capable (i have been told) comprehensive kid i had bundles of educational and academic capability but not a clue what to channel it towards. our careers advisor was hopeless and actually told us that girls didn't have to worry about a career as they could always get married (no he wasn't joking!). i've done alright for myself but probably could have done something more useful and impressive (for society) with some more focussed early guidance.

this then needs to be coupled with respect for collectivised labour power. when people feel empowered they generally feel a greater sense of pride for what they do. remove the wage slavery and increase empowerment and you not only balance out the important power of capital with the checks and balances of labour power but you increase the attractiveness of work over benefits.

Percy1983

chucky wrote: »

hostels are apparently the answer - i know this because watched a 30 minute programme on it and i'm an expert on the social issues across every council estate in the UK now.

Try growing up in Oldham, that will make you an expert.