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

geri1965_2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Probably the fact they had been trying for a year to get a council house, as the debts (due to discrepancy between rent and benefits) over the year were racking up.

Just a thought. :sigh:

You are of course aware that people in low paid jobs are entitled to housing benefit, so it is not necessarily the case that they were both unemployed when she got pregnant.

She struck me as a nice woman who was down on her luck and just wanted a decent place to bring up a kid in.

Not unreasonable IMHO.

chucky

lemonjelly wrote: »

these people (& remember that is what they are) are in the situation they are in for a reason. We have to deal with the reasons they are there now, not with the where they are.

if you read the Express or the Mail you only think one way...

Percy1983

geri1965 wrote: »

You are of course aware that people in low paid jobs are entitled to housing benefit, so it is not necessarily the case that they were both unemployed when she got pregnant.

She struck me as a nice woman who was down on her luck and just wanted a decent place to bring up a kid in.

Not unreasonable IMHO.

Not unreasonable, I too want a decent place to bring my kids up in, so we aren't having any until we have said decent place.

ILW

chucky wrote: »

me? i'm not prime minister. i don't need to address anything.

but if you had bothered to read the thread you might have seen some suggestions.

Sorry I havn't noticed any apart from vague references to education etc.

Graham_Devon

lemonjelly wrote: »

What about these lone parents who's husbands/partners are in Iraq/Afghanistan? What about the victims of domestic violence? What about rape victims or victims of other heinous forms of sexual abuse and incest which resulted in childbirth? According to this thread, we should shove em in the workhouse.

What about them? Are they the ones having extra kids while moaning their accomodation isn't big enough?

That's what the programme, and this thread, is about.

No ones said shove them in the workhouse either, as far as I'm aware? Hostel type accomodation is what's been said. Accomodation like in other countires where help and education is on tap to provide for these people when and if they need it, helping not only the parents, but the kids too. Giving social and educational mobility, alongside childcare to all those who find themselves in such situations.

A house is great. But it lacks ALL of that.

Edit: Just done a search, and the ONLY person to mention the word workhouse on this entire thread, is yourself. Yet you try and imply that thats what we are wanting?

geri1965_2

Percy1983 wrote: »

Not unreasonable, I too want a decent place to bring my kids up in, so we aren't having any until we have said decent place.

That's fair enough, but we don't know if their baby was planned.

Percy1983

geri1965 wrote: »

That's fair enough, but we don't know if their baby was planned.

Its quite easy to plan how to not have children, we have managed perfectly well so far.

chucky

ILW wrote: »

Sorry I havn't noticed any apart from vague references to education etc.

hmmmm.... are you feeling ok??

there's this post that you replied to... are you sure you're feeling ok? because both you and the Devon bloke seem to have deliberately ignored it...

chucky wrote: »

here's a couple... that aren't as Victorian as a hostel for single mothers.

• reduce the dependency on benefits instead of working.
• make the qualifying level of benefits more strict.
• build more houses.
• create more incentive to invest for job creation in areas outside the south east.

ILW wrote: »

I think that the first two points actually agree with me.

lemonjelly

Graham_Devon wrote: »

No one is anti single mum. Not that I can see anyway.

What people are anti is the benefits increasing with every child. People already unemployed and in taxpayer funded housing having yet more kids and sitting back, moaning that they are not given a bigger house.

It's far too easy for you to simply tarnish everyone speaking about this as "anti single mum". And to be honest, pretty darn annoying when throughout the thread, people have detailed what their issues actually are, which you have completely ignored and gone for the easy line.

This thread is not about benefits. Read the title of the thread and also michaels 2 opening posts. It is about the availability of council housing, and the subsequent lack of investment post 1980's, and the impact of the RTB scheme on that.

I trust you will note & acknowledge that I, nor chucky brought the benefits issue into this debate?

Do you have a comment on the availability (or lack of) social housing, and/or the impact of the Right to Buy scheme?

Is it alarming that LA's were building thousands of properties 20-30 years ago, but are now not even building a hundred?

Do you think that this impacts on housing, house prices and the economy?

I repeat, absolutely none of the above has anything whatsoever to do with lone parents, or welfare benefits. However people with their own agenda & perceptions appear to have brought these in & had a go about them, without considering their relevance or merits on the thread subject.

ILW

chucky wrote: »

hmmmm.... are you feeling ok??

there's this post that you replied to... are you sure you're feeling ok? because both you and the Devon bloke seem to have deliberately ignored it...

The suggestions you have made are just ideas with no specifics of how they could be done (except for the building more houses bit). I would suggest the hostel idea would reduce reliance on benefits in the medium term by decreasing the number of never worked households for starters.