Listening to housing debate on Radio 2

ILW

hildosaver wrote: »

Listen to yourselves, honestly. Let's just get rid of the poor so us who are well off don't have to look at them. That's what it sounds like.

Being poor is no excuse for being lazy, druggie,alky !!!!less, promiscuous, anti social etc. Although many of your leftie types seem to think it is.

dktreesea

We don't have to pay housing benefit, or provide social housing to the poor, provided we are prepared to put up with the consequences. For example, an expansion of the illegal housing we already have in West London, where thousands of sheds are rented out to illegals, sheds without running water or sewage services connected in many cases. Or how about the large homeless community living in Southall under the bridges? Or go Madrid's way and put up with a slum settlement like Real Canada Galiana.

And to those who think the well off can afford to take care of the poor, the government spends around £8 billion a month more than it collects from the taxpayer. And we put up with such huge borrowings and printy printy on the money supply side, in part because British people, by and large, are not prepared to tolerate people taking up residence for free on the outskirts of their towns. Look at the furore over Dale Farm.

ukcarper

I see that sent out Chloe Smith again they must be expecting trouble.

John_Pierpoint

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

I have long advocated the use of 40 foot containers for the purpose of housing. These things are made so cheaply in China, that they are used once, and have become a big issue regarding disposal.

A sort of modern equivalent of the cardboard box, really.

I'm sure there must be some innovative people out there who can devise a way of taking, say, a budget of about £500 a container to instal a potty, washstand, and a ladder to get up to it.

Then these things could be piled up, miles high and miles wide in waste areas of Britain. Surely this beats the USA "Tent City" concept? And it's cheap, cheap, cheap.

This fine idea could, of course, be developed further over time. I have in mind possibly leaving these things on the ships, thus providing the 'residents' with opportunities to relocate to, say, Equador and start a new life elsewhere if they (or the local council) wish.

Job done.

Forget trailer trash we now have the box kids claiming their free school lunches.

John_Pierpoint

wotsthat wrote: »

The OP is simply pointing out that housing is allocated on ability to pay or need and wondering if there should be a mechanism for 'deserve' to enter the equation.

I don't mind looking at the poor - I just wish they'd drop less litter that's all.

I have a part time "hobby" collecting garbage from 300 yards of road verge as I drag my two wheely bins to the collection point.
Interestingly the major contributor is Mc D followed by vendors of expensive sugar solutions in PET bottles or ali cans (The latter are still worth half a point each at Mr T ).
There is an over representation of this vehicle originated garbage from foreign sources, got a spring water bottle from "Tr" (Turkey) yesterday - how many useless food miles is that?.

PasturesNew

chewmylegoff wrote: »

What would you do with all the people who you don't think should be on the list.

Gulags
.... well, a form of.... where you earn points for good behaviour, good manners and a good attitude..... and those points get you better accommodation in the project until one day you wake up and think "I hate this place, I'm off to get a job so I can apply for social housing".

BobQ

chewmylegoff wrote: »

What would you do with all the people who you don't think should be on the list. Whilst I agree generally that it is counter-intuitive to prioritise the "biggest f*** up"s you also do need to either execute them, house them, have them roaming the streets. Option (i) tends to be deemed to be socially unacceptable, and option (iii) means that they will steal all of your stuff. with respect to option (ii), you do have the option to house them in a secure facility with barbed wire around the top and guards, but that is more expensive so costs you more in tax than putting them in a corner on wotsthat's estate.

I agree. Maybe the solution is to offer the better council housing to the hard working lowly paid conscientious people and the less good to the less well behaved. Of course you need enough of these affordable houses to meet the demand. THe problem with selling off but not replacing stock is that you do not have this option, but you do need to incentivise people to move on when they no longer qualify for the housing!

homelessskilledworker

BobQ wrote: »

I agree. Maybe the solution is to offer the better council housing to the hard working lowly paid conscientious people and the less good to the less well behaved. Of course you need enough of these affordable houses to meet the demand. THe problem with selling off but not replacing stock is that you do not have this option, but you do need to incentivise people to move on when they no longer qualify for the housing!

Just for the reord....

I am a massive fan of the welfare state, and had I been around when the welfare state was being proposed and then introduced for those who had every intention of supporting themselves or had just been dealt a stinker of a hand in life and were unable to take care of themselves, I would have been overjoyed.

My biggest worry today is that the welfare system will be destoyed by those on the welfare system.
It was never meant as a way of life, it was put in place for those that fell on hard times through no fault of their own.

If you want one example of why I think it has gone so wrong(and there are 100's), why is nobody approaching women/girls who become pregnant while claiming welfare and say "what are the hell are you playing at". There are true poor people in this world like those in the slums of India that would kiss your feet with joy if you gave them a third of what we give our claimants, only ours snatch the money from your hand with a sense of entitlement.

treliac

homelessskilledworker wrote: »

.
If you want one example of why I think it has gone so wrong(and there are 100's), why is nobody approaching women/girls who become pregnant while claiming welfare and say "what are the hell are you playing at". There are true poor people in this world like those in the slums of India that would kiss your feet with joy if you gave them a third of what we give our claimants, only ours snatch the money from your hand with a sense of entitlement.

The horse has already bolted on this one though.

homelessskilledworker

treliac wrote: »

The horse has already bolted on this one though.

I tend to agree, but what I find really insulting to "the poor" is that bad anti social behaviour and having very little money go hand in hand or should go hand in hand.
I even remember in my lifetime where parents with nothing raised their children with ethics and a respect for others, and worked hard. Men have gone to the the grave who stormed the beaches of Normandy in WW2 later to return to work their socks for their remaining life as honest hardworking people who passed away not having two pennies to rub together.

Many of todays "poor" seem to increase the size of their predicament ten fold, they ask the state to help them because they cannot take care of themselves, and what do they do, introduce kids into the equation or a drug or drink problem the list is endless.

This is not being critical at "the poor" by the way, it is more a question of what the hell is going on??