People not councils will beat new housing rules

Fire_Fox

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

And infant mortality rates in India are far higher than in the West..... wonder why?

Then there is foreign aid to factor in, Government funded research and development of cures/treatments for child related diseases, the wealth/employment generated by all those kids toys made overseas.... etc etc etc.

Talk about shifting the goalposts, you claimed the human race would last another three generations at best! Don't confuse clean water and access to healthcare with the cash benefits to income most families get in this country. Infant mortality in third world countries is more diarrhoea than starvation. People could afford to raise healthy children on far less than they do at present, providing we still had the NHS and basics like refuse collection and water services.

Many UK families run cars they don't need, make public transport journeys they don't need (could walk or cycle), have media packages they don't need, eat food they don't need (veggie/ vegan homecooked diet can be cheap and healthy), turn up the heating higher or heat more rooms than necessary, wash more often or for far longer than is needed for cleanliness, smoke or drink alcohol. People have been taking in lodgers, growing their own produce, 'make do and mend' for generations - it's only the last couple of generations where most of us have forgotten how to do this.

My sibling and I were not raised malnourished, in fact neither have even broken a bone, no major physical health complaints, no fillings until our thirties. Our parents were far from wealthy, so most of our garden was fruit and vegetables, an allotment they tended at weekends for more veg, we kept chickens and bred rabbits which we ate. We lived in a small town semi in a regular residential street, not somewhere with an acreage. Granted you cannot do all that in a flat or a back to back, but if you are a family in a flat your council tax and heating bills are likely to be lower than a family in a semi.

ILW

I would stick her in a hostel as a lesson to other women in her position.
Getting yourself knocked up should not be a way of getting a bigger home.

Why is the father of this child not paying for a bigger place for his offspring?

lighting_up_the_chalice

Madjock wrote: »

Don't try to tell your granny how to suck eggs. I work in social housing.

From Shelter's website:
The amount of space in each room
Rooms that are counted include living rooms, bedrooms and large kitchens. For the space and floor area calculations:

children under one year old are ignored

Linky: http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/repairs_and_bad_conditions/home_safety/overcrowding

Yup, Section 10, 1985 Housing Act, which defines OVERCROWDING, not ENTITLEMENT. What would you like to know about sucking eggs? I'm sure I can help.

lighting_up_the_chalice

Fire_Fox wrote: »

Talk about shifting the goalposts, you claimed the human race would last another three generations at best! Don't confuse clean water and access to healthcare with the cash benefits to income most families get in this country. Infant mortality in third world countries is more diarrhoea than starvation. People could afford to raise healthy children on far less than they do at present, providing we still had the NHS and basics like refuse collection and water services.

Many UK families run cars they don't need, make public transport journeys they don't need (could walk or cycle), have media packages they don't need, eat food they don't need (veggie/ vegan homecooked diet can be cheap and healthy), turn up the heating higher or heat more rooms than necessary, wash more often or for far longer than is needed for cleanliness, smoke or drink alcohol. People have been taking in lodgers, growing their own produce, 'make do and mend' for generations - it's only the last couple of generations where most of us have forgotten how to do this.

My sibling and I were not raised malnourished, in fact neither have even broken a bone, no major physical health complaints, no fillings until our thirties. Our parents were far from wealthy, so most of our garden was fruit and vegetables, an allotment they tended at weekends for more veg, we kept chickens and bred rabbits which we ate. We lived in a small town semi in a regular residential street, not somewhere with an acreage. Granted you cannot do all that in a flat or a back to back, but if you are a family in a flat your council tax and heating bills are likely to be lower than a family in a semi.

You must have been one of the very few who were raised by parents who could afford to pay for your education and health insurance, as an example. For the majority, those costs are subsidised by the rest of us.

Fire_Fox

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

You must have been one of the very few who were raised by parents who could afford to pay for your education and health insurance, as an example. For the majority, those costs are subsidised by the rest of us.

:rotfl: Again you are trying to shift the goalposts and not bothering to read posts, education has little direct influence over the infant mortality rate or survival of the species and I clearly acknowledged the contribution of public health initiatives in this country.

And as it happens my parents are both (now retired) teachers so we could have been home schooled, they could probably have afforded health insurance if there had been no state school system and NHS to be paid for out of their taxes.

Madjock

I'm not too sure what country you live in, but in the one that I and a lot of other people occupy, the girl from the original post is not going to be housed in a 2 bed flat, nor is she going to have hb paid for a 2 bed place after April.

And why do you need to have health insurance in order to have grown up healthy and well-fed? Perhaps Fire Fox went to university when there were still grants available, or perhaps (OMG) they didn't go to university at all, but made do with a state education.

In case you're not aware , we have a tory govt that doesn't deal in entitlement to anything.

lighting_up_the_chalice

Fire_Fox wrote: »

:rotfl: Again you are trying to shift the goalposts and not bothering to read posts, education has little direct influence over the infant mortality rate or survival of the species and I clearly acknowledged the contribution of public health initiatives in this country.

But it does impact on affordability if parents were to fund their childs education, and affordability was the issue under discussion. My goalposts are quite stable, thanks. You missing the goal must be down to something else.

lighting_up_the_chalice

Madjock wrote: »

I'm not too sure what country you live in, but in the one that I and a lot of other people occupy, the girl from the original post is not going to be housed in a 2 bed flat, nor is she going to have hb paid for a 2 bed place after April.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrjwaqZfjIY

Madjock wrote: »

In case you're not aware , we have a tory govt that doesn't deal in entitlement to anything.

But it has to adhere to legislation.... until it gets round to changing it. That's how a parliamentary democracy works. How are you getting on with those eggs? Need some help?

Fire_Fox

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

I think if everyone only had children when they could afford them, the human race would last another 3 generations at best. Realistically, very few can afford children and the VAST majority are given assistance from the public purse to some extent.

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

But it does impact on affordability if parents were to fund their childs education, and affordability was the issue under discussion. My goalposts are quite stable, thanks. You missing the goal must be down to something else.

Define affordability, I would contend the definition has to change across the millenia and for third and first world countries for your claims to make any sense. Thus throwing in the infant mortality rate in India is disingenuous. because it is not a like-for-like comparison. The reality is the human race thrived fine without a welfare state, if we had not had survival of the fittest and adaptation Homo sapiens would likely have gone the same way as other Homo species.

Fire_Fox

Madjock wrote: »

And why do you need to have health insurance in order to have grown up healthy and well-fed? Perhaps Fire Fox went to university when there were still grants available, or perhaps (OMG) they didn't go to university at all, but made do with a state education.

Perhaps I left home at 17 with just GCSEs and worked my way through my first two degree level qualifications! Perhaps I saw a little too much teenage pregnancy in a deprived place I moved to after the semi with allottment and kept my knickers on until I left both my teens and the area.