More Social Cleansing from Dave

cells

kabayiri wrote: »

I've lived and worked in different parts of stoke on trent.

It might not be mayfair, but it's far better than the environment the Iranian couple fled.

We have 100,000+ Somali refugees here, the vast majority are unemployed. They could be housed in any one of dozens of cheaper estates up North and it would still be better living standards than back in Somalia.

Could the real reason behind placing desperate people in London be that it supports a myriad of social worker and other council jobs in the region?

There can not be an economic rationale.

government could buy and pay the interest on ~ 15 average terraces in stoke-on-trent by not paying the rent on 1 inner London 3 bed flat.....

There needs to be a lot more of this movement of people from inner London to cheaper parts in the midlands and north. It will also help the economies of the north and midlands as each family sent up there will spend some £20k or more on goods and services

stator

CLAPTON wrote: »

if you are against replacing 2k homes by 5.5k then what is your solution; complete social cleansing of everyone with a job?

The answer is simple. Build houses. Abolish the green belt and build houses by the hundreds of thousands.

stator

cells wrote: »

There needs to be a lot more of this movement of people from inner London to cheaper parts in the midlands and north. It will also help the economies of the north and midlands as each family sent up there will spend some £20k or more on goods and services

Your vision will end up a bit like The Hunger Games. Hope I don't end up in Sector 12.

mayonnaise

My first job was near Baker Street tube station.
We couldn't afford to buy there so we bought a 1 bed terrace in Watford.

Never realised we were socially cleansed.
We called it 'life' and got on with it.

csgohan4

danothy wrote: »

Maybe it would be better to not reduce the build quality and size, but sell them very cheaply anyway, and only to people who can't afford what they're actually worth. I defy anyone to find a flaw in that plan.

Ergo the RTB scheme lolz, people abused the system where poor old Bernard was forced into a nursing home while his home was bought and then sold for a large profit by his children who squabbled over the inheritance later.

The scheme was not thought of thoroughly and was unfortunately abused and took more housing from the social sector.

There should have been a Right to live scheme where you got the house for the rest of your living life for minimal rent. No RTB schemes as there too many unknowns and too much bickering and abuse.

cells

csgohan4 wrote: »

Ergo the RTB scheme lolz, people abused the system where poor old Bernard was forced into a nursing home while his home was bought and then sold for a large profit by his children who squabbled over the inheritance later.

The scheme was not thought of thoroughly and was unfortunately abused and took more housing from the social sector.

There should have been a Right to live scheme where you got the house for the rest of your living life for minimal rent. No RTB schemes as there too many unknowns and too much bickering and abuse.

sounds a particular example rather than the norm

there can be bickering and abuse in normal bought homes too


there is also abuse the other way around, eg people who could afford to buy a home deciding that they are better off staying in the council home

CLAPTON

mayonnaise wrote: »

My first job was near Baker Street tube station.
We couldn't afford to buy there so we bought a 1 bed terrace in Watford.

Never realised we were socially cleansed.
We called it 'life' and got on with it.

you misunderstand

nurses, shop assistants, teachers, plumbers, refugees, economic migrants etc all can travel a few miles to get to work
however, unemployed people can't be expected to get onto a bus to visit granny without the left screaming 'social injustice'

CLAPTON

csgohan4 wrote: »

Ergo the RTB scheme lolz, people abused the system where poor old Bernard was forced into a nursing home while his home was bought and then sold for a large profit by his children who squabbled over the inheritance later.

The scheme was not thought of thoroughly and was unfortunately abused and took more housing from the social sector.

There should have been a Right to live scheme where you got the house for the rest of your living life for minimal rent. No RTB schemes as there too many unknowns and too much bickering and abuse.

would your 'right to live' scheme apply to all or only the unemployed?

thequant

cells wrote: »

government could buy and pay the interest on ~ 15 average terraces in stoke-on-trent by not paying the rent on 1 inner London 3 bed flat.....

There needs to be a lot more of this movement of people from inner London to cheaper parts in the midlands and north. It will also help the economies of the north and midlands as each family sent up there will spend some £20k or more on goods and services

We need to outsource as much as possible of the public sector to regions, especially the north. Where they have a much better standard of living on the same wages (or maybe reduce them a little a bit)

That will free up more space for the wealth producers and provide more trickle down for the rest of the country.

CLAPTON

stator wrote: »

The answer is simple. Build houses. Abolish the green belt and build houses by the hundreds of thousands.

yes, I agree we need to build more properties and we should use some of the green belt

however, do you have an evidence that council building standards (size and number of rooms) is less when they develop estates than was formally the case and so replace 2k homes by 5k quality homes?