We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Ben cap
Comments
-
the description you give of the brick lane area happened over a long period., not in one or two decades.
where i lived, generations had been born, lived and died on the same few streets.
you behaved because, even if your own parents didn't see you, another adult would. if they didn't clip you round the ear, you knew for certain, that by the time you got home, your parents would already have been told!
i grew up in the 60's on onne of the largest council estates in europe.
fathers worker and mothers stayed home with the kids. ( not exclusively, but on the whole)
then people started buying their council houses and gradually moved to 'better' areas.
in the past 20 years or so, these houses have largely fallen into the hands of the 'buy to let' landlords.
ridiculously high rents for such a dump, and no communities.
massive immigration and the demise of manufacturing industry in the area has seen the decline speed up.
yet it is all the fault of the poor?0 -
it does everyone good to live in places with a mixture of other people
not really, because:you behaved because, even if your own parents didn't see you, another adult would. if they didn't clip you round the ear, you knew for certain, that by the time you got home, your parents would already have been told!
... this does not have a place nowadays - you are more likely to be knifed in the stomach for telling someone's "darling" off for vandalising your property0 -
the description you give of the brick lane area happened over a long period., not in one or two decades.
where i lived, generations had been born, lived and died on the same few streets.
you behaved because, even if your own parents didn't see you, another adult would. if they didn't clip you round the ear, you knew for certain, that by the time you got home, your parents would already have been told!
i grew up in the 60's on onne of the largest council estates in europe.
fathers worker and mothers stayed home with the kids. ( not exclusively, but on the whole)
then people started buying their council houses and gradually moved to 'better' areas.
in the past 20 years or so, these houses have largely fallen into the hands of the 'buy to let' landlords.
ridiculously high rents for such a dump, and no communities.
massive immigration and the demise of manufacturing industry in the area has seen the decline speed up.
yet it is all the fault of the poor?
I never mentioned anything about fault.
If you returned social housing to low waged workers, you might actually find that those sort of communities developed again - although some might then call them ghettos.;)
ETA
On rereading your post, if you were brought up on the "largest council estate in Europe", how was this idyll a mixed community? Did you have a bank manager living on one side of you and an aristocrat on the other side of the road?
I somehow doubt it.0 -
gettingready wrote: »not really, because:
... this does not have a place nowadays - you are more likely to be knifed in the stomach for telling someone's "darling" off for vandalising your property
Or be arrested for child abuse.0 -
i personally know of very few people where no one in their household works ( apart from a couple that are disabled and a couple that are VERY full time carers for elderly parents) yet i know a lot of people that live in social housing.
i also know quite a dew non workers that privately rent, along with workers that privately rent.
it sounds like london would become a great place to live. ghetto's where the menial workers live , and then the rich that can afford to pay their own way with the ever increasing private rents/house prices.
rather like the plantation owners that have their workers housed nearby, so they can be called upon when needed, but far enough away not to offend ..../B]
You seem to be suggesting that the "menial" workers will not look after their home environment, or perhaps are criminals that will rob their neighbours and do drugs in communal areas. If that is not what you mean, then perhaps you could explain why housing low paid workers in the same area will lead to said area becoming a "ghetto"?0 -
gettingready wrote: »not really, because:
... this does not have a place nowadays - you are more likely to be knifed in the stomach for telling someone's "darling" off for vandalising your property
youve just proved my point!
its like that in areas of london and other big cities because there is no sense of community!
everyone is out for the,selves!
i moved to a market town in derbyshire ... and i can assure you that community is still alive and well.
the kids here are fairly well behaved, but no one would think twice about putting them in their place if they step out of line!0 -
missbiggles1 wrote: »I never mentioned anything about fault.
If you returned social housing to low waged workers, you might actually find that those sort of communities developed again - although some might then call them ghettos.;)
ETA
On rereading your post, if you were brought up on the "largest council estate in Europe", how was this idyll a mixed community? Did you have a bank manager living on one side of you and an aristocrat on the other side of the road?
I somehow doubt it.
you can't return the social housing to the people that earn low incomes because the social housing doesn't exist anymore. its in the hands of the buy to let landlords.
and yes, there was a mix of people ( though not aristocrats obviously)
there were professional people, the self employed businessmen and the factory workers living side by side.
on our terrace, there was a factory worker ( my dad) a civil servant, a self employed mechanic with his own garage and the landlord of the local working mans club.
or isn't that diverse enough?0 -
missbiggles1 wrote: »But the benefit cap doesn't kick in until rather longer than that.
"If you are recently unemployed, the Benefit Cap won't be applied for the first 39 weeks if you were in paid employment or self-employment (this doesn't have to be full-time) for 50 of the 52 weeks immediately before your last day of work."
50 of 52 weeks is a very substantial amount of time.
The policy makes complete sense if it is simple to get, and remain in work.
It works lots well for people who are low-skilled, and may have to work round available childcare so have limited work to them.
Working several jobs a year, and managing to have a gap of only a week between them due to aggressive jobseeking for example would disqualify you from that protection.0 -
-
You seem to be suggesting that the "menial" workers will not look after their home environment, or perhaps are criminals that will rob their neighbours and do drugs in communal areas. If that is not what you mean, then perhaps you could explain why housing low paid workers in the same area will lead to said area becoming a "ghetto"?
its just the oppose!
the lower paid workers will be kept away from their more affluent neighbours, and house in the generally poorer quality housing with fewer amenities ( businesses will want to base themselves where the money is)
as i said preciously .... the low paid workers in the big cities will exist merely to do the bidding of the wealthy, with poor facilities and a worse quality of life0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards