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

Graham_Devon

LydiaJ wrote: »

: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.

Yes it would need staff. But then we already have thousands of staff dealing with people on benefits at the moment. Housing staff, HA staff, Government benefits staff....the staff on the TV running around checking houses etc etc.

So I'm unsure the staff argument really holds up. It may do if we didn't have any staff running existing services, but we do....many different staff across many different agencies, all working on very individual houses, individual cases, individual localities etc.

I'd be quite happy to state this would be a cheaper staffing option than the current situation. It's cheaper to have hospitals which hold most staff and services than it is to have individual units all over the local area, holding individual specialists etc etc.

Say someone wants to see a counsellor now. First they have to go to their GP. Then get referred. So it goes through secretaries and the referral system. It's picked up by admin the other end. Then the councillor sends out appointments. Finally, the person get's to see the councillor.

How many people have we paid and how much admin costs are there in that process? If there was a councillor on site, it's all done on site.

Theres loads of potential issues and problems with the system I propose, mainly the horror factor that we'd be going backwards in terms of human rights and living standards. We wouldn't really, everyone would have their own homes, much like the copious amounts of flats all over the country at the moment people live in. But the costs and services, I'm pretty sure, would be cheaper when you add up all the costs involved in running the system as it is now.

ninky_2

ILW wrote: »

Thinking about it, but when the power is in the hands of the consumer (the market) it is probably a pretty good form of democracy.

not really. spending power is governed by access to capital which is not evenly distributed.

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Yes it would need staff. But then we already have thousands of staff dealing with people on benefits at the moment. Housing staff, HA staff, Government benefits staff....the staff on the TV running around checking houses etc etc.

So I'm unsure the staff argument really holds up. It may do if we didn't have any staff running existing services, but we do....many different staff across many different agencies, all working on very individual houses, individual cases, individual localities etc.

I'd be quite happy to state this would be a cheaper staffing option than the current situation. It's cheaper to have hospitals which hold most staff and services than it is to have individual units all over the local area, holding individual specialists etc etc.

Say someone wants to see a counsellor now. First they have to go to their GP. Then get referred. So it goes through secretaries and the referral system. It's picked up by admin the other end. Then the councillor sends out appointments. Finally, the person get's to see the councillor.

How many people have we paid and how much admin costs are there in that process? If there was a councillor on site, it's all done on site.

Theres loads of potential issues and problems with the system I propose, mainly the horror factor that we'd be going backwards in terms of human rights and living standards. We wouldn't really, everyone would have their own homes, much like the copious amounts of flats all over the country at the moment people live in. But the costs and services, I'm pretty sure, would be cheaper when you add up all the costs involved in running the system as it is now.

and who's going to pay to buy the land to build these hostels or buy the property for these hostels. do you think that will be free...

have you got your head in your hands yet lemonjelly?

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

and who's going to pay to buy the land to build these hostels or buy the property for these hostels. do you think that will be free...

have you got your head in your hands yet lemonjelly?

The concensus was to build more council houses.

Who's going to pay for that land?

Either way, you have to pay for land.

Look, I don't like the hostel type idea that much myself. It seems somehow wrong. BUT, we have problems. We need to find a solution to start fixing those problems.

We could start by looking at other countries.

We could look at America, where you will be told to look to your own family and there simply is no help (but also lower pregnancies).

We could look at Holland, Denmark, Switzerland, who seem to have very strict rules on benefits, but also very good services. (and lower pregnancies).

We need to look at not only the lack of accomodation problems, but also teenage pregnancy problems, overcrowding problems which are caused by further pregnancies, alcoholism problems. They are all interlinked, and unfortunately, at the moment, were topping the graphs for alcohol problems and topping the list for teenage pregnancies in the EU I believe.

Whatever we are doing at the moment, it aint working. It's givign people houses, but thats as far as it goes. Ask some americans for their opinion and they simply cannot believe we treat our continually unemployed better than we do our own forces in many cases.

There was absolutely nothing stopping the peope on the prgramme getting pregnant and then holding their hands out. THAT is what needs to be looked at and I truly believe a hostel situation would certainly make people think twice, but also, not only be cheaper to run, but also give much MUCH better help for those in need....i.e. those who have been raped, have mental or physical illness, have found themselves victim of abuse, or victim of a relaionship breakdown. Sticking these people in B&B's isn't helpful. A year in a hostel type situation with access to services, help, childminding for restbite, and education / jobs advice....or shoved into a B&B while awaiting a house and told to get on with it. Which would YOU prefer?

As a victim of abuse or something, you'd probably prefer the hostel type arrangement, unless you have the means to do whatever you want off your own back. Be that family helping you out, or your own financial standing.

If you are thinking of ways to get a house, and get pregnant to do so....or are thinking of getting pregnant but currently on housing benefits and unemployed....the throught of a hostel situation rather than a house upgrade...and you'd probably HATE the hostel type arrangement and see it as a total removal of human rights.

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Look, I don't like the hostel type idea that much myself. It seems somehow wrong. BUT, we have problems. We need to find a solution to start fixing those problems.

which is exactly what Lemonjelly and I have said all along but you decided that it was better to go on creating the usual Graham Devon show instead of agreeing with what we had said.

it's not really that hard to agree with others on this forum - you should try it sometime...

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

which is exactly what Lemonjelly and I have said all along but you decided that it was better to go on creating the usual Graham Devon show instead of agreeing with what we had said.

it's not really that hard to agree with others on this forum - you should try it sometime...

I didnt' disagree with you anywhere at any point in the thread.

You've asked me who is going to pay for hostels. I've asked you who is going to pay to build more houses that you proposed.

That's not disagreement. It's just you have been at my heels ever since I pulled lemon up on suggesting this thread wanted to see the return of the workhouse. Which was a completely untrue slur towards everyone who had so far taken part.

I don't like the idea of hostels.

I don't like the idea of building more homes only to fill them with the type of people on the programme.

I don't like the idea of the american system, whereby there is no help.

All I'm looking for, is a system which costs less, helps more, and prevents abuse. The hostel type situation is the one that comes closest to ticking all of those boxes.

ninky_2

i don't know why everyone is banging on about teen pregnancies. where are the stats that show these are the biggest issue when it comes to council housing demand? if we suddenly miraculously stopped teen pregnancy would be enough council homes to go around? i don't think so.

Graham_Devon

And chucky, I shall ask you this...

Would those two lads who didn't work, be sat there doing nothing, moaning for accomodaiton if they knew they would be offered a hostel type arrangement where they are expected to sign up to education and job skills?

Like **** would they. They may aswell just go to work.

As it is, they've taken a much needed house, that could have been given to someone who's truly in need, through no fault of their own.

ninky_2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

And chucky, I shall ask you this...

Would those two lads who didn't work, be sat there doing nothing, moaning for accomodaiton if they knew they would be offered a hostel type arrangement where they are expected to sign up to education and job skills?

Like **** would they. They may aswell just go to work.

As it is, they've taken a much needed house, that could have been given to someone who's truly in need, through no fault of their own.

why do you think they'd see work as the only alternative. crime does pay you know.

Graham_Devon

ninky wrote: »

i don't know why everyone is banging on about teen pregnancies. where are the stats that show these are the biggest issue when it comes to council housing demand? if we suddenly miraculously stopped teen pregnancy would be enough council homes to go around? i don't think so.

There wouldn't be enough no.

But fewer teen pregnancies would reduce the demand on the current stock.

Not sayign it fixes the problem completely, and I don't think anyone can be expected to come up with a solution which does that. But I am saying it eases the problem.