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

Graham_Devon

ninky wrote: »

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

Why would they turn to crime?

They'd either continue to live in the house, as they do now, without feeling the need to carry out crime.

Move to the hostel.

Work, and finance themselves off their own backs, skipping a year or more in the hostel where they would be expected to undertake education and job training.

Where does crime come into it? They weren't commiting crime when they didn't have the house. Why would they commit crime in the circumstances I outline?

It's a pretty sad state of affairs if you are suggesting we should bend hand over foot for people and give them everything they demand, while doing nothing, because otherwise they will commit crime.

ninky_2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

and by easing that problem (very insignificantly i imagine) by shoving the teen mums in a hostel or what have you who are you thinking would be the more rightful recipients of said home that teen mum is no longer getting? (remembering it has to be people who are currently lower priority than teen mums).

Graham_Devon

ninky wrote: »

and by easing that problem (very insignificantly i imagine) by shoving the teen mums in a hostel or what have you who are you thinking would be the more rightful recipients of said home that teen mum is no longer getting? (remembering it has to be people who are currently lower priority than teen mums).

I've already said, if you read my posts. The hostel is a years placement (unless they wanted to stay or, I'd imagine, there was a case for them to stay, i.e. they haven't taken part in the requirements).

After that they move onto the same path as we have now.

It's all about reducing the amount of people out there taking little responsibility for actions and expecting the government to hand out houses and cash for whatever that person decides to do. As I say, works elsewhere. Or at least, seems to.

ninky_2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I've already said, if you read my posts. The hostel is a years placement (unless they wanted to stay or, I'd imagine, there was a case for them to stay, i.e. they haven't taken part in the requirements).

After that they move onto the same path as we have now.

It's all about reducing the amount of people out there taking little responsibility for actions and expecting the government to hand out houses and cash for whatever that person decides to do. As I say, works elsewhere. Or at least, seems to.

but the government doesn't hand out cash or houses for whatever a person decides to do. it only hands out cash or houses for a very specific set of circumstances and i'd say those circumstances are fair enough. regarding people taking responsibility...well maybe if your considered best bet is getting a council house by getting pregnant (and that's what you are talking about, not just accidents) then that is actually taking responsibility of sorts. personally i just don't see that it is that big a problem given the numbers and i certainly don't think waving a stick is going to improve things. far better to improve education / aspiration / job opportunites.

Graham_Devon

ninky wrote: »

but the government doesn't hand out cash or houses for whatever a person decides to do. it only hands out cash or houses for a very specific set of circumstances and i'd say those circumstances are fair enough.

So those two lads, who didn't work, but wanted their own space, were fair enough circumstances?

That's not giving out cash and houses for whatever a person decides to do?

Righty-o.

regarding people taking responsibility...well maybe if your considered best bet is getting a council house by getting pregnant (and that's what you are talking about, not just accidents) then that is actually taking responsibility of sorts. personally i just don't see that it is that big a problem given the numbers and i certainly don't think waving a stick is going to improve things. far better to improve education / aspiration / job opportunites.

Again....righty-o.

I can't really argue with what you are saying can I. You believe people having babies to get houses doesn't really happen. You believe people not working and sitting moaning for a house, doesn't really happen, and it seems, you believe, people don't get pregnant through their own choice with no means of actually providing for the child.

And you also, seem to see a hostel arrangement with a vareity of services, help and support...as a "stick". I cannot get my head around that.

Your choice to believe all that. But I reserve the right to accuse you of being completely blinkered.

LydiaJ

CLAPTON wrote: »

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

I don't fully know, but it does seem to work that way. My brother's a civil servant. He used to be in Whitehall, but moved to Scotland some years ago. He says there are various things that they can do in Scotland with their smaller population that would be prohibitively enormous and bureaucratic if you tried to do them in England.

I think also in larger societies, there's more scope for people to get dropped off the bottom of the social ladder, and the people in charge are less in touch with what's going on at the sharp end. The whole thing is more impersonal somehow.

I suppose it's a bit like the difference between a huge city like London, a town like Salisbury, and a tiny village. It's easier to create and maintain social cohesion in a village - and easier to maintain high standards in village schools, too. It's a bit harder in a town, but to find the really intractable difficulties look to pockets of deprivation in London.

In a smaller place, rich and poor, successful and unsuccessful get mixed up together. They use the same services, and everyone has a stake in the same things. With more people, societies start to separate out and the poor get stuck in the ghetto.

So the size of the country is quite possibly linked to the biggest difference between us and the Danes (or Norwegians or Swedes or whoever in that part of the world) is that our social history is very different, we have a much bigger class divide, and much bigger economic difference between rich and poor too. The girls being helped in the Danish hostels almost certainly don't come from families where nobody has had a job in living memory. It's easier to encourage someone to get back on track, than to try to induce them to get onto a track they've never imagined, let alone experienced.

Jimmy_31

ninky wrote: »

and by easing that problem (very insignificantly i imagine) by shoving the teen mums in a hostel or what have you who are you thinking would be the more rightful recipients of said home that teen mum is no longer getting? (remembering it has to be people who are currently lower priority than teen mums).

If these hostels appeared tonight then my estate would be like a ghost town tomorrow, due to the fact that the majority of people who are in the council houses are young single mums.

The more rightful recipients of the now empty houses would be people who work but have to private rent at a lot more expense to them.

Graham_Devon

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

If these hostels appeared tonight then my estate would be like a ghost town tomorrow, due to the fact that the majority of people who are in the council houses are young single mums.

The more rightful recipients of the now empty houses would be people who work but have to private rent at a lot more expense to them.

Not quite.

It's very difficult, and often pointless for single parents to work. A raft of tax credits and benefits makes it even harder to work out.

I certainly wouldn't want to see people currently in homes chucked into a type of hostel.

What I would like to see is upcoming people, people who still have a choice of which path to take, thinking twice, as the lure of a house isn't there for at least a year.

I'd like to see people taking responsibility and making sure they can afford to look after a child before making the child. Rather than as now, making the child and then ringing the appropriate people with their new circumstances and asking "how much more am I entitled to" (example here was when the girl on the programme knew exactly how much more she was entitled to for the baby, but didn't really know how much debt she actually had, rather she just had debt....weird how when it comes to extra payments she knew the amounts well before she had them).

Same with the unemployed and the example of the two lads in the house. Would they sit there protesting that they haven't been given a house if they faced a year in a hostel arrangement? I highly doubt it. The incentive is now gone, and if they are going to spend a year in education and job training, they may aswell just get on with it and go get experience in jobs...by working.

ILW

ninky wrote: »

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

I was referring to the Murdoch "empire" which many seem to have a problem with.

CLAPTON

LydiaJ wrote: »

I don't fully know, but it does seem to work that way. My brother's a civil servant. He used to be in Whitehall, but moved to Scotland some years ago. He says there are various things that they can do in Scotland with their smaller population that would be prohibitively enormous and bureaucratic if you tried to do them in England.

I think also in larger societies, there's more scope for people to get dropped off the bottom of the social ladder, and the people in charge are less in touch with what's going on at the sharp end. The whole thing is more impersonal somehow.

I suppose it's a bit like the difference between a huge city like London, a town like Salisbury, and a tiny village. It's easier to create and maintain social cohesion in a village - and easier to maintain high standards in village schools, too. It's a bit harder in a town, but to find the really intractable difficulties look to pockets of deprivation in London.

In a smaller place, rich and poor, successful and unsuccessful get mixed up together. They use the same services, and everyone has a stake in the same things. With more people, societies start to separate out and the poor get stuck in the ghetto.

So the size of the country is quite possibly linked to the biggest difference between us and the Danes (or Norwegians or Swedes or whoever in that part of the world) is that our social history is very different, we have a much bigger class divide, and much bigger economic difference between rich and poor too. The girls being helped in the Danish hostels almost certainly don't come from families where nobody has had a job in living memory. It's easier to encourage someone to get back on track, than to try to induce them to get onto a track they've never imagined, let alone experienced.

in most villages I know, the local school has long since shut, the post office has long since shut, the pub has long since shut, the local district hospital has long since shut, even the churches have either shut or have part time cleryman and support for difficult families is virtually nonexistant

this is mainly because the economics of scale simply aren't there so it should be cheaper per capita in a large country than a small one.
If things were really that diffferent between the UK and denmark then one would think there is more need here and not less.