Costs soar as Labour voters told to pay their way

StevieJ

Fella wrote: »

No it's not. The UK already has much more council housing than many other countries in Europe including Germany etc. People have repeated the lie that Thatcher sold it all so often that most people are too stupid to actually question it & think it's true.

They certainly sold all the best ones, and at knocked-down prices

atush

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

It is available to most if they wish to do so.

It was available to my state educated, grammar school OH who went to Uni?

I personally think all those in Westminster who no longer have council accommodation should be relocated to where there is some. Forcibly if necessary.

I've never seen social housing in DT Manhattan/5th avenue so Westminster shouldn't have any either. Can't afford to live there (and we can't and are millionaires on paper) you should move out until it is cheap enough you can afford to live there.

It is how the rest of us do it?

kabayiri

Oh dear, I feel so old school.

I genuinely believed growing up that I should aim for those things which I could afford. Housing is no exception.

Sadly, in bananas-gone-mad-multi-cultural-lefty-britain this is an outdated notion. Just turn up at one of the most expensive places in the country to live. The state will provide (brother) !

Also, I don't care if abuse of the system is the exception and not the rule. It should be as near to zero as dammit.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

atush wrote: »

It was available to my state educated, grammar school OH who went to Uni?

It was available to a family member of mine, state educated, comprehensive school, left school at 16, never went to Uni.

Working overseas isn't that hard to do with a bit of gumption.

ruggedtoast

One of the most strongly held belief of left wing middle class intellectuals is that the working classes require endless dispiriting patronage.

Like the fat child at sports day who will never win anything but gets a prize anyway, the 'poor' must be represented in places they can't afford to live and be further addicted to the sickly teat of the state.

The reality of the world is that not everyone can afford everything they want, but like the backward adult child who will never marry and leave home, the Left considers working class people to be too stupid and fragile to be able to cope with this fact.

Hence the web of benefit dependency.

Don't get me wrong I have think benefits for people who need them are a fantastic idea, and I wish there were more of them and they paid out more; but I think the crucial thing is a common sense definition of "need".

It is absurd that we have disabled people facing eviction and contemplating suicide due to the recent benefit cuts, while we simultaneously pay billions of pounds for able bodied healthy people to sit on their backsides for most of the week in Central London (and I am including the corporate welfare recipients in that group.)

BobQ

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

I wonder how many children in the UK are required to change schools as their parents change jobs, etc. For myself, I went to 3 primary schools and one secondary one.

As opposed to "misery", I quite enjoyed it. My ex-boss's children have now been to schools in 3 different countries and two different areas of the UK.

I don't think it's misery-inducing, and, in fact, I think it builds strength and flexibility.

I take your point that enforced change is something that happens and its quite possible that its beneficial for children.

When it happens to people in work who have opportunities to move or are required to move, most employers help with the costs and dates can be negotiated to minimise disruption to education.

But is it really something that should be imposed on people on low incomes at times that are disruptive of their education? Sure some may enjoy it and if it helps the parents get a job there are some benefits for the children in the longer term. But in many cases it will just serve to reduce opportunities for the children who become casualties of this process.

kabayiri

London is well and truly broken isn't it. The main reasons it is broken all boil down to housing issues at the end of the day.

Spiralling house prices and rents are outpricing wage inflation. We can't afford for the state to just increase the subidies to those who can't keep up with these changes. Any government knows this.

The irony is that London prices are held up as some kind of model for the rest of us stuck out in the impoverished regions.

We may be relatively impoverished up here in NW, but we certainly don't all flock to the footballer parts of leafy cheshire demanding to be rehomed at taxpayer expense. It's a challenging notion, but here poor people live in poor areas!

CLAPTON

BobQ wrote: »

I take your point that enforced change is something that happens and its quite possible that its beneficial for children.

When it happens to people in work who have opportunities to move or are required to move, most employers help with the costs and dates can be negotiated to minimise disruption to education.

But is it really something that should be imposed on people on low incomes at times that are disruptive of their education? Sure some may enjoy it and if it helps the parents get a job there are some benefits for the children in the longer term. But in many cases it will just serve to reduce opportunities for the children who become casualties of this process.

So your solution is for ordinary taxpayers to continue paying rents of up to £100,000pa to unemployed people?

olly300

BobQ wrote: »

I take your point that enforced change is something that happens and its quite possible that its beneficial for children.

When it happens to people in work who have opportunities to move or are required to move, most employers help with the costs and dates can be negotiated to minimise disruption to education.

You live in a nice bubble.

The multi-nationals I've worked for haven't given a damn about forcing people to move at a moments notice. I ended up taking one of them to an employment tribunal with this point as one of my many complaints.

Talking to other people it's the same - as soon as companies get Americanised they expect you to move locations at the drop of a hat.

In regards to moving countries I've found that it's people in the other country not the British or Americans who are more flexible and reasonable with dates.

chewmylegoff

BobQ wrote: »

I take your point that enforced change is something that happens and its quite possible that its beneficial for children.

When it happens to people in work who have opportunities to move or are required to move, most employers help with the costs and dates can be negotiated to minimise disruption to education.

But is it really something that should be imposed on people on low incomes at times that are disruptive of their education? Sure some may enjoy it and if it helps the parents get a job there are some benefits for the children in the longer term. But in many cases it will just serve to reduce opportunities for the children who become casualties of this process.

Your point would have more weight if many of the state schools in central London weren't among the very worst in the entire country. Moving people out of central London will more than likely result in them going to better schools and receiving a better education.