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

Jimmy_31

chucky wrote: »

hundreds?? well that blows the hostel argument out of the water then...

this hostel provides for 10 single mothers.

people are asking for thousands of these hostels to built across the country to accommodate single mothers but then complain that the government has no money and councils don't spend money correctly... it's not even close to logical.

Oh yes hundreds of them, in my last year of high school there were 6 girls pregnant in my class alone.

ninky_2

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

Oh yes hundreds of them, in my last year of high school there were 6 girls pregnant in my class alone.

and were you the father to any of them?

ess0two

chucky wrote: »

we can't build enough council houses but we would be able to build enough hostels.

i vote hostels

Not in my back yard either will be the next fuss should one spring up in my area:D

SingleSue

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The programme itself, which is I believe what people are talking about, showed no one willing to, or trying to better themselves. ALL the blame by the families was put on the government for their predicament.

I liked the end of the programme.

"8.30am, and peace returns to the household".

Peace only returned because the kids went to school. Both the mother, her partner (who only goes round for the days) and her two working age sons remained sat on the sofa. None of them trying to better themselves. All of them moaning they didn't have a big enough house. Their hopes were pinned in the two lads being given a council house themselves, so that the existing home would be less overcrowded.

I had a novel idea. Maybe the two lads could actually get off the sofa and go earn some money to help the family, and themselves out? This thought didn't even seem to be existant throughout the programme. The lack of work was not mentioned once.

I didn't actually watch the programme to be honest, I only mentioned the fact that working people also live in social housing as that fact does tend to be forgotten when these discussions happen (seen far too many of these discussions now).

By your explanation above.....I agree with you. My boys know (despite living in social housing and me claiming benefits), that they are expected to work when they are old enough. Ok for the two younger ones, that will have to be supported working due to their problems, but expected to go out and earn their own money they are.

Eldest already has a job to fit around his A levels and he has discovered the natural drug that is earning and paying his way...the more hours he does, the more he gets and the more he can buy, he absolutely loves it (just like his mother did before him).

But, these programmes also niggle me, they tend to only show the one aspect, the bad rather than the good, the irresponsible rather than the responsible which then perpetuates the stereotype of council house (or any social housing) tenants being workless and hopeless.

evenasus

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

I have always thought thats what council housing was for, you get cheap rent so you can save money up to then move out into your own place, next tenant does the same and so on.

No.

You start saving as soon as you start your working life.

It's much easier to save, whilst still living with your parents.

LydiaJ

Sorry for coming a little late to this discussion, but just wanted to put in a few points.

ILW wrote: »

Hostels for single mothers (not divorced etc), not nearly as attractive a prospect as the thought of a nice council flat once you have a baby. I would suspect that it would make many think twice.

And what do you suggest should be done with these women when their children aren't babies any more? All well and good for the ones who've managed to sort themselves out while they've been living in the hostel, but what about the others? Do you think a hostel is a good place to bring up a child of 2, 5, 11, 14?

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Of course it's close to logical.

Flats are built because they are cheaper than houses.

In the same way that hostels are cheaper to run than individual houses, with individual benefits, with individual maintenance, working with individual partnerships and individual HA's and individual landlords.

Come on chucks. I'm sure even you can see it would be far cheaper in the medium term. What's more, it would offer much much better socail inclusion and help to those that need it...i.e. those lemon pointed out earlier in the thread.

:rotfl:

You can't really think that! The hostels that are being suggested on this thread are described as providing advice and education and support to get these young women redirected onto a better path in life. That means they will need STAFF, who will need salaries, and all the rest of the cost of employing people. It would cost way more than just bunging the girls into council flats and leaving them to muddle through.

Don't get me wrong, I can see that providing that kind of support and advice would be an excellent thing, for the girls themselves and for society as a whole. But it wouldn't be cheap. In fact, it wouldn't be in any way affordable, which is why it hasn't been done.

It may work affordably in Denmark, or wherever it is, but that's a different context - a much smaller country with a very much more homogeneous social structure. You can't just transplant the idea to this country, with its much bigger population, and already exisiting multi-generational workless underclass, and expect the economics of the plan to work out the same way as they did in Scandinavia.

Jimmy_31

ninky wrote: »

and were you the father to any of them?

No, luckily I was blessed with a bit more common sense than all the proud new fathers at my school.

chucky

LydiaJ wrote: »

Sorry for coming a little late to this discussion, but just wanted to put in a few points.



And what do you suggest should be done with these women when their children aren't babies any more? All well and good for the ones who've managed to sort themselves out while they've been living in the hostel, but what about the others? Do you think a hostel is a good place to bring up a child of 2, 5, 11, 14?



:rotfl:

You can't really think that! The hostels that are being suggested on this thread are described as providing advice and education and support to get these young women redirected onto a better path in life. That means they will need STAFF, who will need salaries, and all the rest of the cost of employing people. It would cost way more than just bunging the girls into council flats and leaving them to muddle through.

Don't get me wrong, I can see that providing that kind of support and advice would be an excellent thing, for the girls themselves and for society as a whole. But it wouldn't be cheap. In fact, it wouldn't be in any way affordable, which is why it hasn't been done.

It may work affordably in Denmark, or wherever it is, but that's a different context - a much smaller country with a very much more homogeneous social structure. You can't just transplant the idea to this country, with its much bigger population, and already exisiting multi-generational workless underclass, and expect the economics of the plan to work out the same way as they did in Scandinavia.

oh yes they do... thinking logically isn't something very common on this forum unfortunately. great post!!

Jimmy_31

evenasus wrote: »

No.

You start saving as soon as you start your working life.

It's much easier to save, whilst still living with your parents.

Well yes that's how it's supposed to work, I was lucky enough to have parents who didn't mind me carrying on living with them whilst I started out in my working life, but some people don't get this chance so that's were the cheaper housing option enables them to save a deposit for a place of their own.

CLAPTON

LydiaJ wrote: »

Sorry for coming a little late to this discussion, but just wanted to put in a few points.





:rotfl:


It may work affordably in Denmark, or wherever it is, but that's a different context - a much smaller country with a very much more homogeneous social structure. You can't just transplant the idea to this country, with its much bigger population, and already exisiting multi-generational workless underclass, and expect the economics of the plan to work out the same way as they did in Scandinavia.

out of curiousity why is it affordable in a small country and not in a large country?

surely the cost per capita (i.e. per person) will be similar?
a bit like saying that only small countries can afford to educate children where as big countries can't afford it