In work poverty due to overpriced housing costs

Zero_Sum

triathlon wrote: »

I have 100's of family members and friends whose roots go back centuries in London mixed in with a little Irish later, all of which were roll your sleeves up hard grafting types who to this day talk over Christmas dinners about their London history going way back or talking about people who went even further back

At a rough estimate I would guess that 85% of my family have now had to leave London for various reasons, reasons such as it becoming unaffordable for just average working people and also the communities having being all but destroyed by forced immigration and crime.

So I would be very careful playing the sympathy card using certain sections of todays modern society

Which is entirely down to londoncentrism & ignoring the regions which is what im arguing against. Immigration is a symptom not a cause.

pickledonionspaceraider

Jonathan_Kelvin wrote: »

No, putting up people who won’t (please notice, won’t, not can’t) work right next to the jobs that commuters do will have to stop, and hopefully we’ll be seeing that implemented soon.

Gentrification

This Social Cleansing implemented by the government has been was started some years ago.

Earmarking council estates for demolition, and standing back whilst outside agencies remove social housing and make huge amounts of profit whilst making residents homeless.

With Heygate, a council blunder revealed that it had sold the 9-hectare estate to Lend Lease Group for just £50m, having spent £44m emptying the site and £21.5m on planning its redevelopment. The site was sold to foreign investors who then replace the social homes with luxury developments ..the majority of which is brought up by other foreign investors.

As the UKs stock of social housing plummets to it's lowest level ever...I can see no good coming of any of this, at all

Housing displaced families in temp accommodation is costing hundreds of millions each year

pickledonionspaceraider

MobileSaver wrote: »

Is this not what you meant by the following?



Or do you accept that just because someone "has lived there all their life" doesn't give them any more entitlement than anyone else to live in a particular place?

Oh the old fail safe, overuse of the buzz word 'entitled'.

Do you have sentiments, that are your own?

pickledonionspaceraider

Zero_Sum wrote: »

Which is entirely down to londoncentrism & ignoring the regions which is what im arguing against. Immigration is a symptom not a cause.

Yep and it will only get worse...with the council estates being torn down and foreign investors moving in

After all, the people who chose to work in the city, can they actually even afford a home there? It seems the proof is in the pudding and no they can not, or as in the case of Elephant Park, it would be UK citizens buying homes there, not foreign investors

So the whole thing about people being aggro about social housing in London is a moot point. Even if there are no social housing tenants, they still cannot afford to live there.

So it is just a chip on their shoulder really

phillw

Zero_Sum wrote: »

There are London boroughs where people are being told that if they want a council house they have to move hundreds of miles away from family otherwise theyd be classed as actively turning down a council house offer. How can that be right.

It's a tough problem. As families living in council houses get bigger then they need more houses, should they squeeze out ever increasing families that don't require a council house?

I couldn't afford to live in London, when is it my turn for someone to subsidize me living there?

It doesn't mean I don't feel sorry for them, but it's an unsolvable problem.

pickledonionspaceraider

phillw wrote: »

It's a tough problem. As families living in council houses get bigger then they need more houses, should they squeeze out ever increasing families that don't require a council house?

I couldn't afford to live in London, when is it my turn for someone to subsidize me living there?

It doesn't mean I don't feel sorry for them, but it's an unsolvable problem.

It really is an unsolvable problem

I think that is what is the bug bear with a lot of people, thinking 'when is it my turn for an easy life on benefits'....and for us working , the answer is, hopefully never.

I wouldn't swap my lifestyle with that and do I envy it, or want it? God no.

I am jealous of lottery winners, folk who really have melted off from the rat race that we are in, anyway

Although I am against the forced moving of people who have little income and no where else to go, there are other ways...

I know that Councils will only accept people on to the waiting list, under a certain level of ££ income....and often, over time, that income changes dramatically. Someone who was a single parent, give it a decade, could be on a decent wage or be a trained professional. Circumstances change

I don't know why the Councils don't do earnings reviews every few years. If a person has gone above the threshold in which they would be allowed on the housing register, then they leave. Give them a good decent amount of notice, but then they leave, as they can afford to live elsewhere or get a mortgage.

The only downside to this scheme that I have dreamed up, is would it hold some people back? As in, well I won't bother going for that job, cos we will lose council housing? I know there would be the pee takers....

But to be fair, any uptake on this scheme, would be better than the situation we have now...I am sure there would be a better way of implementing it than I have said, but just an idea

With the low amount of council housing, council housing for life - is it something we can readily provide?

Getting_greyer

pickledonionspaceraider wrote: »

It really is an unsolvable problem

I think that is what is the bug bear with a lot of people, thinking 'when is it my turn for an easy life on benefits'....and for us working , the answer is, hopefully never.

I wouldn't swap my lifestyle with that and do I envy it, or want it? God no.

I am jealous of lottery winners, folk who really have melted off from the rat race that we are in, anyway

Although I am against the forced moving of people who have little income and no where else to go, there are other ways...

I know that Councils will only accept people on to the waiting list, under a certain level of ££ income....and often, over time, that income changes dramatically. Someone who was a single parent, give it a decade, could be on a decent wage or be a trained professional. Circumstances change

I don't know why the Councils don't do earnings reviews every few years. If a person has gone above the threshold in which they would be allowed on the housing register, then they leave. Give them a good decent amount of notice, but then they leave, as they can afford to live elsewhere or get a mortgage.

The only downside to this scheme that I have dreamed up, is would it hold some people back? As in, well I won't bother going for that job, cos we will lose council housing? I know there would be the pee takers....

But to be fair, any uptake on this scheme, would be better than the situation we have now...I am sure there would be a better way of implementing it than I have said, but just an idea

With the low amount of council housing, council housing for life - is it something we can readily provide?

Interesting idea. Earnings would have to reviewed regionally or you could up getting your notic2 to vacate as you can now afford a home elsewhere. When in practice you can only afford a place miles away from family/school/ the new job you just got. In your scheme could you instead of enforced eviction, just incrementally increase rent contributions.

MobileSaver

MobileSaver wrote: »

Is this not what you meant by the following?

pickledonionspaceraider wrote: »

Oh the old fail safe, overuse of the buzz word 'entitled'.

Oh, you're one of those! When asked a question that you cannot answer truthfully as it will make you look a fool, just ignore it and deflect instead.

pickledonionspaceraider

Getting_greyer wrote: »

Interesting idea. Earnings would have to reviewed regionally or you could up getting your notic2 to vacate as you can now afford a home elsewhere. When in practice you can only afford a place miles away from family/school/ the new job you just got. In your scheme could you instead of enforced eviction, just incrementally increase rent contributions.

I know, it is really a very flawed idea, but maybe someone sensible could make it into something more user friendly, so no one ends up feeling victimised or homeless. I just don't know..I agree with you, that makes more sense

pickledonionspaceraider

MobileSaver wrote: »

Oh, you're one of those! When asked a question that you cannot answer truthfully as it will make you look a fool, just ignore it and deflect instead.

How very dare you. Hey - I look a fool much of the time anyway without your assistance, don't take that away from me!

What exactly was the question?

I tend to bypass comments that use the word 'entitled', or are of the ilk 'Well you said that, so you really must mean this'...as those type of comments are not even questions - the poster has already jumped to a conclusion what a complete stranger must think - so what is the point in my engaging?

I do avoid it when I feel people are baiting instead of any kind of topic based conversation, yes - I am glad you noticed that. It is so 1990, people baiting and arguing with each other on forums.

I am happy to debate/chat, with you. But if you jump back on the patronising bandwagon- like your above post, then I am uninterested.

What are your thoughts, what do you think should happen?