If we vote for Brexit what happens

TrickyTree83

cells wrote: »

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.

I can only see the benefits to the exchequer and the upper-middle class.

There's no benefit to those who require this social housing, they'll be uprooted and sent to other areas of the UK where they will harbour a grievance for many generations. Not to mention the impact of this on the areas of the UK you want to move these people to.

cells

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

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.

Yes I particularly have a problem with inner London, close to the jobs, being more social homes than the national average

Thanks for the link. It shows

Southwark 43.5% social
Hackney 43.5%
Islington 41.8%
TowerHamlets 39.3%
Lambeth 36%

So why should these places have more than twice the national average of 17.4%? Why do you think inner London needs twice as many poor people displacing others?

cells

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

I can only see the benefits to the exchequer and the upper-middle class.

There's no benefit to those who require this social housing, they'll be uprooted and sent to other areas of the UK where they will harbour a grievance for many generations. Not to mention the impact of this on the areas of the UK you want to move these people to.

I wont be moving anyone, when they die or leave of their own accord instead of looking at a list of poor people on the council housing waiting list to decide which one of them should get to live in Hoxton I would sell the unit

I think something like 40,000 social units in London become vacant each year that is a sufficient rate to shrink the stock.

Unless you can think of a good reason to maintain a social stock more than twice the national average in inner London whats wrong with shrinking it to a more normal average uk level?

TrickyTree83

cells wrote: »

Yes I particularly have a problem with inner London, close to the jobs, being more social homes than the national average

Thanks for the link. It shows

Southwark 43.5% social
Hackney 43.5%
Islington 41.8%
TowerHamlets 39.3%
Lambeth 36%

So why should these places have more than twice the national average of 17.4%? Why do you think inner London needs twice as many poor people displacing others?

If these people are close to the jobs that the upper-middle class require them to do as I mentioned previously it doesn't impact their wages as much. Someone working in the city on £70k plus can afford to ride the tube and not notice the cost as much as someone working in a Tesco local or collecting the rubbish or cleaning the hospitals.

Where is the problem in having the higher earners commute if they can afford to do so?

TrickyTree83

cells wrote: »

I wont be moving anyone, when they die or leave of their own accord instead of looking at a list of poor people on the council housing waiting list to decide which one of them should get to live in Hoxton I would sell the unit

I think something like 40,000 social units in London become vacant each year that is a sufficient rate to shrink the stock.

Unless you can think of a good reason to maintain a social stock more than twice the national average in inner London whats wrong with shrinking it to a more normal average uk level?

Why does the social housing stock need to be at the national average? If the social housing is being used then clearly there is a demand for it. You're saying if there's a single mum on a waiting list for social housing you'd rather sell the unit than give it to her and her child and tell them to go elsewhere?

CLAPTON

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Why does the social housing stock need to be at the national average? If the social housing is being used then clearly there is a demand for it. You're saying if there's a single mum on a waiting list for social housing you'd rather sell the unit than give it to her and her child and tell them to go elsewhere?

The issue is how you allocate scarce housing : there is insufficinet housing for the children of people living in London

if one such child grows up and becomes a teacher/nurse/junior doctor etc they have little change of affording a flat or house
if one gorws up and can become a single mum , they have a flat/house for life.

Its a matter of judgement : there isn't space for both: how would you choose?

wotsthat

Only 10 days to go. Thank god.

CLAPTON

mayonnaise wrote: »

No, he didn't claim it will be the end of Western Civilization and you know that.
Neither did Cameron mention WW3, and you know that too.

what he said was or was reported as saying

"Why is it so dangerous? Because no one can foresee what the long-term consequences would be," Tusk said. "As a historian I fear that Brexit could be the beginning of the destruction of not only the EU but also of western political civilization in its entirety."

TrickyTree83

CLAPTON wrote: »

The issue is how you allocate scarce housing : there is insufficinet housing for the children of people living in London

if one such child grows up and becomes a teacher/nurse/junior doctor etc they have little change of affording a flat or house
if one gorws up and can become a single mum , they have a flat/house for life.

Its a matter of judgement : there isn't space for both: how would you choose?

Who has the right to choose?

Who has the right to say that the single mother who works in Tesco has less right to social housing than a doctor, nurse, teacher?

The moment you're unable to fill social housing stock is the only time you should be thinking of selling it. Not before. Right now, there is a waiting list so I don't see this happening any time in the near future, if at all.

This has gone massively off topic now and I can't see me ever agreeing to this cleansing of poor people from central London. Sorry. Lets just agree to disagree and let others talk about the EU.

CLAPTON

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Who has the right to choose?

Who has the right to say that the single mother who works in Tesco has less right to social housing than a doctor, nurse, teacher?

The moment you're unable to fill social housing stock is the only time you should be thinking of selling it. Not before. Right now, there is a waiting list so I don't see this happening any time in the near future, if at all.

This has gone massively off topic now and I can't see me ever agreeing to this cleansing of poor people from central London. Sorry. Lets just agree to disagree and let others talk about the EU.

as you wish
but politically some-one always has to choose: you are just turning your back, ignoring the problem and feeling virtuous.

We will never fill the waiting list for free or sub market price housing.