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

Wee_Willy_Harris

[quote=[Deleted User];43460966]Yes, if people that thick have to correct your posts it doesn't say much for you does it?

There is a tragic irony to the supposed intellectual arrogance in your posts despite the lack of intelligence within them.[/QUOTE]

Having seen your original suggestion, which has lead to this exchange, I really don't think your opinion of my intelligence is anything I need to worry about. I love a decent battle of wits, but I refuse to attack the unarmed.

ILW

Shakethedisease wrote: »

That you're probably living in the wrong century...workhouses and splitting up families ( using them as free labour ) was popular 100 or so years ago. But thankfully things have progressed a little. It's only people like you that look back on these times as some sort of 'golden age'. Where those that are fortunate like to give the less fortunate a good kicking when they're down. Most of us have moved on... That's what I think.

Problem is that the current system does not differentiate between the "less fortunate" and the bone idle. That is what gets up the noses of many people.

[Deleted User]

Shakethedisease wrote: »

That you're probably living in the wrong century...workhouses and splitting up families ( using them as free labour ) was popular 100 or so years ago. But thankfully things have progressed a little. It's only people like you that look back on these times as some sort of 'golden age'. Where those that are fortunate like to give the less fortunate a good kicking when they're down. Most of us have moved on... That's what I think.

Not suggesting anything draconian so there is no need for emotive (and false) comparisons to workhouses etc.

Many working people move or work away from home. If they genuinely can't find work in their local area then relocating them could give them a good opportunity. It would also improve the chances of those that remained.

It is not unreasonable to expect someone who is living their life at the cost of the taxpayers to make some effort.

[Deleted User]

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Having seen your original suggestion, which has lead to this exchange, I really don't think your opinion of my intelligence is anything I need to worry about. I love a decent battle of wits, but I refuse to attack the unarmed.

Thank god for that! It would be like being savaged by a puppy.

Any chance of you saying what you don't like about the idea or suggesting an alternative to get those that abuse the system at the expense of the taxpayers and the other claimants to stop? It is a discussion forum after all...

Shakethedisease

Problem is that the current system does not differentiate between the "less fortunate" and the bone idle. That is what gets up the noses of many people.

NO system has ever managed this.

The original policy was that a workhouse should be a place of 'last resort', therefore conditions inside a workhouse should be less comfortable that a state of homeless destituion outside.Strict rules for admission were introduced and enforced nationwide, and those rules were intended to deter the idle and shiftless from seeking admission. But the result, in a mixed workhouse was that all classes of paupers suffered. Nobody could come up with an answer to the question of how to deter the idle without penalising the defenceless.

From 'Shadows of the Workhouse'. And if you can come up with a definative answer to this age old problem ( it actually hasn't just been a 21st century problem, this 'getting up noses' thing )..where many have failed. Do feel free to let us all know.

Not suggesting anything draconian so there is no need for emotive (and false) comparisons to workhouses etc.

Many working people move or work away from home. If they genuinely can't find work in their local area then relocating them could give them a good opportunity. It would also improve the chances of those that remained.

Your post reeked of spite, a bit of 'superiority' and draconian measures I'm afraid. You failed to expand on just where these people would be constantly shunted around to and from ? Places of work ? Like where ? London ? The south east ? Scotland ? And who gets to choose 'who remains' to 'improve the chances' of those who remained ?

You did suggest 'breeders', and breaking community ties so I'm assuming you mean all currently workless families, and single parents right ?

I will be waiting with baited breath for you to explain this to us all fully, since you were good enough to ask what everyone thought of your little fantasy 'shunt the breeders' policy. So please, go ahead. This is a discussion forum after all...

Wee_Willy_Harris

[quote=[Deleted User];43461742]Thank god for that! It would be like being savaged by a puppy.

Any chance of you saying what you don't like about the idea or suggesting an alternative to get those that abuse the system at the expense of the taxpayers and the other claimants to stop? It is a discussion forum after all...[/QUOTE]

Are you serious?

Assuming that you are....

[quote=[Deleted User];43459022]I think we could remove some of the incentives for breeders and scroungers by moving them every six months and making sure that its at least 50 miles away each time including the first one. Breaking the communities of these scroungers would help destroy the benefits culture as they would have to make an effort to enjoy some stability.[/QUOTE]

So, you want to treat housing like a cheap hotel for millions of people, turning them into rootless nomads with no possible sense of ownership or belonging for the communities you dump them in, destroying family links and support networks which will just create further barriers to employment and social inclusion.

[quote=[Deleted User];43461742] Obviously people who are working or disabled would not have to move.[/QUOTE]

But, of course, you wish to discriminate against the disabled by not allowing them to benefit from this massive incentive of yours, unless it is simply an act of social spite?

[quote=[Deleted User];43461742]Long term I think that would produce incentives to work and gradually relocate people from high unemployment areas to areas with better opportunities, which would be best for both areas.[/QUOTE]

Or, if you prefer, create empty wastelands in some parts of the country, occupied by an ageing /infirm population without the necessary support networks around them, while at the same time creating overpopulated ghettos in other parts of the country. Wherever there is high employment, there is also a massive housing shortage. What do you suggest we do about that? Built endless streets of social housing in already overcrowded and expensive parts of the land? Are you aware of the cost implications of that?

[quote=[Deleted User];43461742]Just a thought off the top of my head, what do you think?[/QUOTE]

See the reply I gave a few posts ago.

[quote=[Deleted User];43461500]Not suggesting anything draconian so there is no need for emotive (and false) comparisons to workhouses etc.[/QUOTE]

Forceable eviction and removal of the poor away from their family and community support? Twice a year? And you don't think that's draconian?

[quote=[Deleted User];43461500]Many working people move or work away from home. If they genuinely can't find work in their local area then relocating them could give them a good opportunity. It would also improve the chances of those that remained.[/QUOTE]

How would flooding an area with, effectively, employment refugees help those already out of work in the recipient area?

[quote=[Deleted User];43461500]It is not unreasonable to expect someone who is living their life at the cost of the taxpayers to make some effort.[/QUOTE]

But your plan doesn't demand any effort on their part, just effort from those who would have to be employed (at public expense) to administer the scheme. The cost of re-housing and a 50 mile move every 6 months would be far greater than any perceived saving you would hope to make. And, of course, even this bright idea is open to abuse. The savy victim of your, frankly, mental idea would just keep moving until they landed somewhere nice then get a little short term job for a couple of weeks every 6 months. And the cost of administering the end of claim, tax credit adjustments, rapid reclaim etc would fall on the taxpayer yet again.

So, your bright idea to decimate communities, break up families and support networks and throw the massive bill at the taxpayer is, frankly, the ramblings of a swivel eyed lunatic.

Anything else I can do for you?

[Deleted User]

I despise people who chose to scrounge rather than make an effort to find work. It is wrong for these people to just expect endless handouts.

I have no issues with those that are genuinely looking for work or unable to work through no fault of their own.

Under the current system the number of what I see as false claimants (ie alcoholics and drug addicts on DLA those that haven't worked throughout the 10+boom years prior to this recession, people who irresponsibly breed despite not being able to contribute towards their family's upkeep) has been increasing. It is unacceptable and needs fixing.

With regards to where to move people, there would be several factors in the decision process (local resources, etc) but moving them away from places where they have been unsuccessful and keep moving them every six months might just give them the opportunity and the incentive to get a job.

You won't like it, but what do you suggest we tax payers do? Just keep quiet and watch these people waste our money rather than make an effort instead of spending it on better things and more deserving cases?

Wee_Willy_Harris

[quote=[Deleted User];43462086]I despise people who chose to scrounge rather than make an effort to find work. It is wrong for these people to just expect endless handouts.

I have no issues with those that are genuinely looking for work or unable to work through no fault of their own.

Under the current system the number of what I see as false claimants (ie alcoholics and drug addicts on DLA those that haven't worked throughout the 10+boom years prior to this recession, people who irresponsibly breed despite not being able to contribute towards their family's upkeep) has been increasing. It is unacceptable and needs fixing.

With regards to where to move people, there would be several factors in the decision process (local resources, etc) but moving them away from places where they have been unsuccessful and keep moving them every six months might just give them the opportunity and the incentive to get a job.

You won't like it, but what do you suggest we tax payers do? Just keep quiet and watch these people waste our money rather than make an effort instead of spending it on better things and more deserving cases?[/QUOTE]

Well, here's a crazy idea that might just work. How about we reinstate York as the administrative governmental capitol of the country? That alone would see a massive influx of jobs to the high unemployment areas of the north, where there is cheaper housing, cheaper land costs and a willing workforce betrayed by successive governments stripping this country of heavy industry and consigning millions to the scrap-heap. Then the north could be given the special treatment the south east currently enjoys and the rewards attached. It would be far cheaper to move the employment opportunities rather than repeatedly shuffling individual unemployed.

Shakethedisease

I despise people who chose to scrounge rather than make an effort to find work. It is wrong for these people to just expect endless handouts.

I have no issues with those that are genuinely looking for work or unable to work through no fault of their own.

You haven't said how you'll prove which is which.

what I see as false claimants (ie alcoholics and drug addicts on DLA those that haven't worked throughout the 10+boom years prior to this recession, people who irresponsibly breed despite not being able to contribute towards their family's upkeep)

And who exactly is going to employ alcoholics, drug addicts or 'breeders' with 2 or 3 children (and provide childcare for them). Won't the children's schooling suffer tremendously as well being moved every 6 months ? You'd be damning those children to a terrible education, if they even bother after the first 3 or 4 moves... and ultimately to endlessly repeat the cycle which you claim you're trying to stamp out.

Face it. It's a terrible idea.

[Deleted User]

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Are you serious?
So, you want to treat housing like a cheap hotel for millions of people, turning them into rootless nomads with no possible sense of ownership or belonging for the communities you dump them in, destroying family links and support networks which will just create further barriers to employment and social inclusion.

lol, moving 50 miles to keep their all expenses paid lifestyle seems like a good deal to me. Plenty of people work 50 miles+ from home to support their families why should workshy scroungers be any different? If they disagree they could always get a job.

But, of course, you wish to discriminate against the disabled by not allowing them to benefit from this massive incentive of yours, unless it is simply an act of social spite?

They are likely to be more limited as to the work they can do and require services that take time to setup.

Or, if you prefer, create empty wastelands in some parts of the country, occupied by an ageing /infirm population without the necessary support networks around them, while at the same time creating overpopulated ghettos in other parts of the country. Wherever there is high employment, there is also a massive housing shortage. What do you suggest we do about that? Built endless streets of social housing in already overcrowded and expensive parts of the land? Are you aware of the cost implications of that?

You would be swapping people about between council houses not just dumping them in one place so the scenario you describe would not happen. There would only be a a very slow shift towards areas of higher work as people found work there otherwise they would be moved on again.

Forceable eviction and removal of the poor away from their family and community support? Twice a year? And you don't think that's draconian?

Moving from one free home provided for them to another free one somewhere else is hardly the end of the world. Their existing support and 'community' obviously isn't helping them anyway, quite possibly holding them back.

How would flooding an area with, effectively, employment refugees help those already out of work in the recipient area?

There would be no 'flood' see above comment. People would only be staying somewhere if they got a job otherwise they would be moved on again after 6 months. Therefore any net influx would only be gradual and would benefit the area as they would be working there and actually contributing to the local economy instead of being a burden upon it.

But your plan doesn't demand any effort on their part, just effort from those who would have to be employed (at public expense) to administer the scheme. The cost of re-housing and a 50 mile move every 6 months would be far greater than any perceived saving you would hope to make. And, of course, even this bright idea is open to abuse. The savy victim of your, frankly, mental idea would just keep moving until they landed somewhere nice then get a little short term job for a couple of weeks every 6 months. And the cost of administering the end of claim, tax credit adjustments, rapid reclaim etc would fall on the taxpayer yet again.

The fact that you would be rotating them through the existing stock of council houses means the additional costs wouldn't be so great. If as a result only 10% of these parasites got a job so they could settle somewhere it would save tax payers a fortune.

So, your bright idea to decimate communities, break up families and support networks and throw the massive bill at the taxpayer is, frankly, the ramblings of a swivel eyed lunatic.

The only families affected would be those that didn't work. Maybe it would be incentive enough to get a job. If they genuinely can't find work where they are it is better for everyone if they are moved on. If they are adults and are not disabled then they don't need a 'support network' other than what they get of the state anyway.

Anything else I can do for you?

Yes, suggest an alternative or would you rather we just let people scrounge in peace?