If we vote for Brexit what happens

cells

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

I'd consider myself a conservative voter but this is beyond the pale even for me. I can understand the financial problems you're describing but uprooting these people surely isn't the answer? Providing them with the opportunities should be, no?

This reads to me like "lets move all the undesirables to the rest of the UK, they'll be living side by side with similar people out there".

So all the people in their social homes in London, when their kids grow up what happens to their kids and family unit?

Second question. Why should places like hackney or Islington or tower hamlets (all inner London zone 2) have more than 40% of all the homes as social stock while some London boroughs have 20% or less? Why do we need the poor within walking distance to the three employment hubs of westminster/city/docklands? The current system is such that the poor live close to the jobs that they dont work in while maybe a million poor sods have to spend 10-20 hours a week just commuting in and out of central london because the inner London councils think its smarter to put the poor next to the jobs and the workers far out

Inner London should go towards 10% social.
If you are so unhappy about moving the poor out of inner London then give them £100k to go to stoke and buy a nice big house mortgage free

TrickyTree83

cells wrote: »

So all the people in their social homes in London, when their kids grow up what happens to their kids and family unit?

Surely they should be at least attempting to give these kids a good education and then the ability to get a good job, whether that's in London or not. If they can get a good job in London then they ought to be able at some point to get on the property ladder. If they don't get a good job or don't apply themselves then there is no one to blame for their situation but themselves and they may well find themselves forced out of London because of that. But to say the mass re-location of poor people from London to the rest of the UK will alleviate the problems for the have's is an awful thing to suggest.

CLAPTON

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

I'd consider myself a conservative voter but this is beyond the pale even for me. I can understand the financial problems you're describing but uprooting these people surely isn't the answer? Providing them with the opportunities should be, no?

This reads to me like "lets move all the undesirables to the rest of the UK, they'll be living side by side with similar people out there".

London is a vibrant city : one has to ask why there are so many people who are unemployable in such a city.
Anyway, increasingly the choice will be move out the unemployables who live on state benefits or make it a no-go area for other London born people like teachers, utility workers, nurses etc who can't afford housing on their incomes but don't receive state benefits.

Of coure we could build a couple of million new homes.

TrickyTree83

CLAPTON wrote: »

London is a vibrant city : one has to ask why there are so many people who are unemployable in such a city.
Anyway, increasingly the choice will be move out the unemployables who live on state benefits or make it a no-go area for other London born people like teachers, utility workers, nurses etc who can't afford housing on their incomes but don't receive state benefits.

Of coure we could build a couple of million new homes.

Unemployable, like disabled people, terminally ill people?

Do you seriously think there are vast swathes of dole-dossers?

Do both of you live in London?

cells

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Surely they should be at least attempting to give these kids a good education and then the ability to get a good job, whether that's in London or not. If they can get a good job in London then they ought to be able at some point to get on the property ladder. If they don't get a good job or don't apply themselves then there is no one to blame for their situation but themselves and they may well find themselves forced out of London because of that. But to say the mass re-location of poor people from London to the rest of the UK will alleviate the problems for the have's is an awful thing to suggest.

its not a mass forced relocation, all you do when a home within walking distance to the city/Westminster/docklands (eg central/inner london) becomes available is sell it to someone who works in those places to buy and live in.

That means a person can walk and cycle to work as they are only a mile or two out. Even if they use a bus or trains they are only taking up a small amount of usage.

The current system is such that when the flat becomes vacant as the old tenant died or left the council puts in a low paid or no paid or retired person in. That means the person working in the city instead of being close to where they work needs to live further out and take up more transport resources and waste more of their life and money on commuting


More importantly there is absolutely no justification for the inner London zone 2 boroughs like Islington/Hackney/TowerHamlets and many more to have 40% social housing when some councils in England have less than 10%. If nothing else is done at all at least accept that instead of inner London having 40% social housing the councils should sell them down until they get to the national average of about 17%

TrickyTree83

cells wrote: »

its not a mass forced relocation, all you do when a home within walking distance to the city/Westminster/docklands (eg central/inner london) becomes available is sell it to someone who works in those places to buy and live in.

That means a person can walk and cycle to work as they are only a mile or two out. Even if they use a bus or trains they are only taking up a small amount of usage.

The current system is such that when the flat becomes vacant as the old tenant died or left the council puts in a low paid or no paid or retired person in. That means the person working in the city instead of being close to where they work needs to live further out and take up more transport resources and waste more of their life and money on commuting


More importantly there is absolutely no justification for the inner London zone 2 boroughs like Islington/Hackney/TowerHamlets and many more to have 40% social housing when some councils in England have less than 10%. If nothing else is done at all at least accept that instead of inner London having 40% social housing the councils should sell them down until they get to the national average of about 17%

No I don't accept that at all.

There's so many people that commute around the UK, not just in London. What you're saying is lets make life even better for the people who earn well above the national average because they chose originally to put up with the rat run but it's becoming a bit tiresome. These people could quite easily choose to live elsewhere in the UK and earn less, or the world in fact. If they're unable to buy in London because of the prices then they should be looking to progress their careers. I would put myself in the bracket that chose to live outside of London and earn less than I would if I was in the City. I'm still an ABC1 and a higher rate taxpayer and I absolutely don't agree that these people should be turfed out for people like me who want it easy.

For the people who do not have these opportunities who clean the toilets, who collect your garbage, who clean your hospitals, who serve you drinks, who clean your windows, who staff your local Waitrose you want to make them commute instead?

cells

lots of social house tenants are employed but often in the very lowest paid sectors.

lets say for example a single woman with no children working in Tesco living in a one bedroom flat in Hoxton (Area of Hackney within easy walking distance of the city)

Meanwhile there may be say a couple who works near liverpool street station who lives in say Luton. That couple travils via train then tube every working day about 80 miles at great cost of time and money.

In a logical world the two households would swap.
The savings if nothing else are 40,000 miles fewer needed on train and tube infrastructure.


Inner London has far too many social flats without a doubt that is true if for no other reason than the fact that it has more social homes than virtually any other part of London or the rEngland

TrickyTree83

cells wrote: »

lots of social house tenants are employed but often in the very lowest paid sectors.

lets say for example a single woman with no children working in Tesco living in a one bedroom flat in Hoxton (Area of Hackney within easy walking distance of the city)

Meanwhile there may be say a couple who works near liverpool street station who lives in say Luton. That couple travils via train then tube every working day about 80 miles at great cost of time and money.

In a logical world the two households would swap.
The savings if nothing else are 40,000 miles fewer needed on train and tube infrastructure.


Inner London has far too many social flats without a doubt that is true if for no other reason than the fact that it has more social homes than virtually any other part of London or the rEngland

I completely agree that in a logical world that would happen.

We also wouldn't have money or religion. Inventions that are not required for the human race to prosper.

We don't live in a world which is ruled by logic. These are people you're talking about. They live, love, laugh and cry. Their roots might be in those areas, but you want to turf them out so the upper-middle class and upper class can buy up the land/property and re-develop it into a yuppie, DINKY, socialite paradise.

Sorry, no. I'll never get on board with any of this so you're wasting your time I'm afraid.

We should be helping these people to elevate themselves, not punishing them.

cells

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

No I don't accept that at all.

There's so many people that commute around the UK, not just in London. What you're saying is lets make life even better for the people who earn well above the national average because they chose originally to put up with the rat run but it's becoming a bit tiresome. These people could quite easily choose to live elsewhere in the UK and earn less, or the world in fact. If they're unable to buy in London because of the prices then they should be looking to progress their careers. I would put myself in the bracket that chose to live outside of London and earn less than I would if I was in the City. I'm still an ABC1 and a higher rate taxpayer and I absolutely don't agree that these people should be turfed out for people like me who want it easy.

it is not about turfing people out, you would sell the flats as they become vacant.

or think of it this way in a logical world what would be the best net outcome for a social one bedroom flat that becomes vacant in hoxton. To rent it to a couple that work in the city a 15 minutes walk away that will pay £2000 a month that can be used to improve the remaining social stock or to rent it for £400 a month to a single woman age 55 working in Tesco a mile north further out who will be retiring in 10 years time and will still be in that flat until age 95 when she dies?

For the people who do not have these opportunities who clean the toilets, who collect your garbage, who clean your hospitals, who serve you drinks, who clean your windows, who staff your local Waitrose you want to make them commute instead?

the poor who are moved out, lets say a million of them or about half the social stock, would take demand and jobs with them so the working age would work in the jobs in their new towns.

As for what remains of London who will do the low paid work. There would still be a million or so social tenants after you sell half the stock. also plenty of owners and private renters work low paid jobs its not just the social tenants that work in tesco

TrickyTree83

cells wrote: »

As for what remains of London who will do the low paid work. There would still be a million or so social tenants after you sell half the stock. also plenty of owners and private renters work low paid jobs its not just the social tenants that work in tesco

LOL what?!

This is like some kind of modern day serfdom!

Why should these people not have the opportunity to do better than a low paid job so that the local Waitrose has staff at the checkouts?