If we vote for Brexit what happens

cells

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

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.

you are being silly and closing your mind. let me ask you another question that will hopefully allow your mind to think for itself

What portion of the housing stock in say Hackney should be social?

Here are a few rough numbers

17% of all homes in the UK are social
24% of homes in London are social
>40% of homes in Hackney are social


I need a figure from you. What percentage of homes in Hackney should be social and why?

Your thinking before was simply on the lines of 'whatever the number is that is the perfect number for all places' as if by magic every single council build the exact perfect number of social homes none build too many none too few and they did this decades ago with perfect knowledge of what the future held for each and every area. Clearly stupid


My views are far more reasonable and likely to be correct. That hackney having more social homes than the London average which itself has more than the UK average probably has too many social homes and that inner London moving towards the national average of 17% would be a net positive thing

cells

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

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?

they should and I hope they do get better paid work. But if a 55 year old single woman living in a one bed social flat in Hackney is not able to retrain as a world class programmer and continues to work in tesco for 10 more years and then retires and lives in the flat for another 30 years is the nation better off having her within walking distance of the jobs while the people with the jobs need to travel in and out each working day?

More importantly what percentage of the housing stock in inner London should be social? 100%? more than the nationall average? less? the same?

TrickyTree83

cells wrote: »

you are being silly and closing your mind. let me ask you another question that will hopefully allow your mind to think for itself

What portion of the housing stock in say Hackney should be social?

Here are a few rough numbers

17% of all homes in the UK are social
24% of homes in London are social
>40% of homes in Hackney are social


I need a figure from you. What percentage of homes in Hackney should be social and why?

Your thinking before was simply on the lines of 'whatever the number is that is the perfect number for all places' as if by magic every single council build the exact perfect number of social homes none build too many none too few and they did this decades ago with perfect knowledge of what the future held for each and every area. Clearly stupid


My views are far more reasonable and likely to be correct. That hackney having more social homes than the London average which itself has more than the UK average probably has too many social homes.

It's not stupid at all. There are areas of London where "the poor people" have been priced out by the very people you want to supplant these "poor people" who have lived there for generations. These (I hate using this term) poor people are not the cause of the problem, which is high house prices. You're essentially saying to millions of people "you're not fit to live in London".

TrickyTree83

cells wrote: »

they should and I hope they do get better paid work. But if a 55 year old single woman living in a one bed social flat in Hackney is not able to retrain as a world class programmer and continues to work in tesco for 10 more years and then retires and lives in the flat for another 30 years is the nation better off having her within walking distance of the jobs while the people with the jobs need to travel in and out each working day?

More importantly what percentage of the housing stock in inner London should be social? 100%? more than the nationall average? less? the same?

It's a very cold and logical assessment of the situation, and on that basis you're correct. I can exactly see what you are saying and why you are saying it. But it's a terrible thing to do, you can see that right? What have these people done wrong in order to deserve this kind of treatment?

cells

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

It's not stupid at all. There are areas of London where "the poor people" have been priced out by the very people you want to supplant these "poor people" who have lived there for generations. These (I hate using this term) poor people are not the cause of the problem, which is high house prices. You're essentially saying to millions of people "you're not fit to live in London".

no what I am saying is that the councils of inner London made a big mistake by building so many social homes there that the resources should have been spread more evenly in the country

What you are saying is that for example Hackney has too few social homes (or just the perfect number) which puts your argument in the bin because hackney has more social homes than about 98% of all councils

Thrugelmir

CLAPTON wrote: »

your suggestion of moving 400,000 social poor may have merits but doesn't really address the issue either immediately or longer term.

The people of West Bromwich aren't enamoured with the relocation from Wandsworth....

Polarisation could create any number of issues in the future.

Rinoa

Looks as though the EU are now in panic mode.

Forget Cameron's World War 3 and economic armageddon, he's just an amateur.

Donald Tusk, president of the European Council, has today claimed Brexit will be the end of Western Civilization as we know it.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-tusk-idUSKCN0YZ0Q9

Can't wait for June 23.

cells

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

It's a very cold and logical assessment of the situation, and on that basis you're correct. I can exactly see what you are saying and why you are saying it. But it's a terrible thing to do, you can see that right? What have these people done wrong in order to deserve this kind of treatment?

the problem is that like many you equate change with having to be negative and see none of the potential benefits to all sides.

one more, does hackney have too few, too many, or by magic just the right number of social homes? keeping in mind its got more social homes as a percentage than virtually any other council in the country.

cells

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

It's not stupid at all. There are areas of London where "the poor people" have been priced out by the very people you want to supplant these "poor people" who have lived there for generations. These (I hate using this term) poor people are not the cause of the problem, which is high house prices. You're essentially saying to millions of people "you're not fit to live in London".

Also this is not about price the arguments hold today, just as they did 5 years ago when prices were about half what they are in London.

Its about logistics and allocation of resources. It simply makes no sense for the Zone 1 and 2 boroughs to have more social homes than the national average.

I am suggesting that a sale until their stock is about the same as the national average would be a net positive.

TrickyTree83

cells wrote: »

no what I am saying is that the councils of inner London made a big mistake by building so many social homes there that the resources should have been spread more evenly in the country

What you are saying is that for example Hackney has too few social homes (or just the perfect number) which puts your argument in the bin because hackney has more social homes than about 98% of all councils

I've said nothing of the sort.

I've not mentioned Hackney or any other borough. I never once said anywhere has too few social homes, nor the perfect amount of social homes. However your statement of reducing the number of over 800k to around 250k is the social cleansing I took exception to.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/housing/articles/housingsummarymeasuresanalysis/2015-08-05#social-housing-stock

This seems to suggest that picking on Hackney proves a point you're trying to make by ignoring a load of London boroughs that don't supply social housing on the same scale.