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

Jimmy_31

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

I would be quite happy to see a lot of the people from my estate put into a hostel, this may sound harsh but if you met some of the people on my estate it may change your mind.

Its hard to have sympathy for the people who tell me i must be f*****g stupid to work for a living. From what i see going on around me, the whole benefit situation is getting worse and worse and i hope these cuts sort it out but i doubt they will to be honest.

ninky_2

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.

so are you in a council home out of interest? you're not a single mum are you?

ninky_2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

and why would they turn to work? they weren't working when they didn't have the house either.

ninky_2

look i can't say i had sympathy for any of the cases featured on the show - certainly not for those two fat lazy !!!!!!!s on the sofa. i bet the poor producer had to work really hard even to get them to show any slight emotion over their situation. the words blood and stone come to mind.

what i'm talking about is not the moral rights and wrongs of giving lazy !!!!!!!s a 'free' home but rather a situation that suits me. i'm quite happy for the stupid, lazy and !!!!less to be given !!!!!! council homes if that's what they want because it keeps the streets looking nice and it means i don't have to endure them struggling to work out the correct change to give me at the tills of m&s. it means their poor sprogs are fed and housed and maybe if they've fared well and come out better in the genetic lottery despite their useless parents they might get half a chance to make a better life for themselves. if not shove them in a social house and give them enough to keep the value cider flowing.

B'stard

I don't read The Sun newspaper, but I remember that it was mentioned on Have I Got News For You that Bob Crow lived in subsidised housing while earning a six figure salary.

http://www.sunvote.co.uk/cms/news/166769/should_bob_crow_live_in_a_subsidised_council_house

FAT-CAT rail union boss Bob Crow lives in a housing association home meant for low-income families - despite pocketing a six-figure salary.
His rent, subsidised by taxpayers, is only £150 a week but would be £300 in the private renting sector according to estate agents.

Over the past ten years the deal is believed to have saved him and his partner Nicola Hoarau £78,000. Mr Crow, 49, head of the Rail, Maritime and Transport union (RMT), rakes in £145,000 a year.

Neighbours accused him of denying those in need. Brenda Barnard said: "He shouldn't be there." The three-bedroom property in North East London is owned by London and Quadrant housing association. Most of its tenants come from council housing waiting lists.

Housing minister Grant Shapps said: "With nearly five million people on waiting lists, I'd have thought a highly-paid union baron would feel awkward taking advantage of publicly subsidised housing."

An RMT spokesman said: "Bob makes no apology for living in social housing at the heart of his local community."

Should Bob Crow be living in a council home where his rent is subsidised by the taxpayer?

LydiaJ

I watched this on the iPlayer. Having some more time to fill, I decided to watch another Panorama afterwards. Perhaps I was influenced by my time on this board and the issues it's introduced me to, but for whatever reason, I watched one from a few weeks ago about the property crash in Ireland.

Afterwards, it suddenly struck me that here were two opposite situations, and that in some kind of ideal world it would be nice if something could be done to use each to sort out the other. The Irish were in deep trouble because they have far too many houses and not enough people to live in them, with people leaving the country every day. Our problem is too many people (with more arriving) and not enough houses.

I know there aren't many jobs in Ireland, but the people featured weren't working, and many of them weren't likely to start working either, by the looks of them. What a pity we can't send them to live in big beautiful new builds on empty estates in Ireland, where people are so desperately needed. Then our council housing stock could be used for people who have jobs or whatever and are tied to a particular location. (That includes you, Sue. I consider what you do with your boys to be a more valuable job than the paid work that many of the rest of us do, and I consider that job needs to be done in proximity to your family, for obvious reasons.)

I know, I know, there are dozens of reasons why it couldn't be made to work. But seeing the two episodes back to back just made me wish....

sticky23

The reason why Britain has so many teenage pregnancies, is my opinion, lack of prospects. Lack of good education, lack of housing, and lack of good careers for people who aren't academically minded.
Denmark has great education, generous benefits, and good quality housing - available to everybody. In Britain, generous benefits and council housing is only available to people with kids. That's why, for some, having kids become a viable career. In Denmark the advantages to having kids are much smaller - single mums are expected to work or train, when the child turns one (childcare is cheap or free), and the housing situation won't improve through pregnancies..
Another huge difference between these otherwise similar countries, is the way working class jobs are regarded. In Denmark apprenticeships are highly regarded - people often laugh when I tell them that you can do a three year apprenticeship to work in a supermarket... Cleaning jobs are well paid, so aren't always done by immigrants (when was the last time you saw a white British cleaner?)
Denmark has also tightened up immigration (a bit too much in my opinion), and it's virtually impossible to be an illegal immigrant there...

Graham_Devon

ninky wrote: »

and why would they turn to work? they weren't working when they didn't have the house either.

So then they stay sat on their butts sleeping on their mums sofa, in that taxpayer paid for house. Doesn't bother me what they do, so long as they don't live at our expense...and further their living again, at our expense when they could quite easily make at least some effort.

Giving those two a house is beyond ridiculous. Surely you can see this? You do realise they got a house...don't you?

ninky_2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

So then they stay sat on their butts sleeping on their mums sofa, in that taxpayer paid for house. Doesn't bother me what they do, so long as they don't live at our expense...and further their living again, at our expense when they could quite easily make at least some effort.

Giving those two a house is beyond ridiculous. Surely you can see this? You do realise they got a house...don't you?

i did hear the update that they got a house (or a flat anyway - think it just said they were 'housed'). lots of things are at my expense that i could moan about but when i think of the wider picture i see they do actually benefit me in some way. even housing those two oafs. it's such small fry it's not worth sweating over anyway.

for all you know they got a job too.

Graham_Devon

ninky wrote: »

i did hear the update that they got a house (or a flat anyway - think it just said they were 'housed'). lots of things are at my expense that i could moan about but when i think of the wider picture i see they do actually benefit me in some way. even housing those two oafs. it's such small fry it's not worth sweating over anyway.

for all you know they got a job too.

Hard work ninky.

Those 2 lads are small fry, yes.

But extrapolate that across the country.