Mecky Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 All they're hoping to do is give priority to working families. That is an entirely just and fair thing to do - after all, why should people who get everything for nothing not have less priority than those who pay their own way in life? When I go to the toilet I think of you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balpin Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 All they're hoping to do is give priority to working families. That is an entirely just and fair thing to do - after all, why should people who get everything for nothing not have less priority than those who pay their own way in life? Do you understandwhat council housing was about? It was to give working class people a decent home. Not to give them a proprety for nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rollwithit Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 Controversial, but a good idea. Council's and the government cannot sustain their housing stock with just housing benefit payments as there are not enough taxpayers to do so. The artical did say, people who make themselves more employable would be given priority housing, or able to continue in residence. Not people who haven't got a job. Too many people who work god dam hard on the minimum wage look at others getting things on a plate. Its about time it worked the other way for a change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anywebsite Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 So what happens if people lose their council home? The council are still obliged to house those people somewhere. It costs more to house people in temporary accommodation than have them in council properties so whats the advantage in doing that? How about some figures also as to how many people claiming JSA are refusing to work as the rules on claiming JSA are simple and clear, if you cant be bothered to look for work then you get chucked off. Just another bit of propaganda and scare tactics from a Wandsworth councillor because of the riots in Wandsworth. Hope people have sense and vote him out at the next local election. Spot on, it's just meaningless propaganda to try to appease daily mail readers. If they do actually try it (they wont/can't), then it will cost the council more money to put these people up in B&Bs instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davyjones Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 right hers an example of how crazy this country is, my mate has been out of work for more or less 10yrs since he left school with a few jobs for very short periods of time now he and my other mate who has been out of work since 2006 have just managed to get a privately rented house payed for by the council its 3 bed as well and not ex council does anyone on here think thats right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marshlad Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 I think it is a great idea. People should not be housed for free if they don't want to work. The choice should be work or starve. I support the government on the clamp down on welfare. We need workfare not welfare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anywebsite Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 right hers an example of how crazy this country is, my mate has been out of work for more or less 10yrs since he left school with a few jobs for very short periods of time now he and my other mate who has been out of work since 2006 have just managed to get a privately rented house payed for by the council its 3 bed as well and not ex council does anyone on here think thats right? Would you rather see your 'mate' homeless & begging on the streets? Do you think that would make him more attractive to potential employers? There aren't enough jobs for everybody due to the lack of available credit for private sector firms & government cutbacks in the public sector. It's been like that since about 2006. If more council houses were built the council wouldn't need to pay so many private landlords. More people would be employed building them, they could then spend their wages with other businesses who in turn provide more jobs. Instead the government are doing the opposite, putting more people out of work, which in turn puts even more people out of work at the places where they would've spent their wages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 Would you rather see your 'mate' homeless & begging on the streets? I think we'd all rather see him doing something for his money after ten years of being out of work... wouldn't we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anywebsite Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 I think we'd all rather see him doing something for his money after ten years of being out of work... wouldn't we? Of course we would, but there are a lot of unemployed people & not many jobs at the moment. Being unemployed for 10 years doesn't do much for your job prospects, being a homeless starving beggar makes those prospects even worse. Cutting people of benefits without an increase in the number of available jobs is only going to create more crime, more extreme poverty & more homelessness. Mass unemployment doesn't happen because a million more people decided to be lazy this year, so why punish them for failings in government policy? They're the victims, not the cause of the problem. What about those unemployed people that have families? Should their children be punished too? Maybe we could have whole families unemployed & in severe poverty, just so that we have somebody to point at & abuse for being less well off than ourselves despite our own wages being low, or so that the shareholders of large companies can make more money because they can pay workers less in wages, because of the high unemployment. This is the Tory way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iansheff Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 Would you rather see your 'mate' homeless & begging on the streets? Do you think that would make him more attractive to potential employers? There aren't enough jobs for everybody due to the lack of available credit for private sector firms & government cutbacks in the public sector. It's been like that since about 2006. If more council houses were built the council wouldn't need to pay so many private landlords. More people would be employed building them, they could then spend their wages with other businesses who in turn provide more jobs. Instead the government are doing the opposite, putting more people out of work, which in turn puts even more people out of work at the places where they would've spent their wages. They don't need to build new houses, I am watching ch4 now all about houses all over the country that are empty because councils have run out of money when redeveloping areas. Eighty eight percent of empty homes are privately owned but there are thousands of council houses laying empty that could be renovated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.