wednesday1 Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 Remind me how many council houses labour built and how many they demolish? Remind us which government, atfter introducing the 'right to buy' policy also prevented councils reinvesting the proceeds of the sales in new council housing, which has lead to the shortage we have now. Give you a clue, they were lead by a woman who's name rhymes with milk snatcher! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wednesday1 Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 When you say themselves, you mean using the money to pay for other things apart from housing. I don't think they shared it out between the members of the conservative party. They would have if they could have! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*_ash_* Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 They would have if they could have! So they didn't then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Remind us which government, atfter introducing the 'right to buy' policy also prevented councils reinvesting the proceeds of the sales in new council housing, which has lead to the shortage we have now. Give you a clue, they were lead by a woman who's name rhymes with milk snatcher! If the council houses hadn't been sold there would still be a shortage because there would be more people in need of a council house, remember the Conservatives sold them to council tenants, many of whom couldn’t have afforded to buy a private house. Many people that have bought ex council houses because they couldn’t afford new build houses, would also need a council house. Ex council houses contribute to affordable private housing and they are generally in better shape than the remaining council stock. Labour on the other hand just took homes away from people and demolished them. So the Conservatives sold houses to the less well off and Labour took houses away from the less well off and demolished them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 This thread has nothing to do with the availability of social housing and is all to do with social cleansing but people just won't admit it. As I said, there are 700,000 vacant properties in the UK and enough housing for everyone who wants it, but it's evident that people don't want council tenants living in their midst. The U-Turn of moving council tenants out of London proved this and this latest proposal to, “Test the water,” is just another attempt at the same sort of thing. That said, I suspect most people didn't want social housing until their houses started getting repossessed and quite enjoyed stigmatising and putting the boot into council tenants as many people on here have done in this thread alone. Now the boot is on the other foot and suddenly it’s ok to rent; it sounds a bit hypocritical to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 But the proposal being discussed has nothing to do with social cleansing, it's not about selling off all the houses in a particular area, it's about selling off a few very valuable houses in whatever area they happen to be in. Hardly social cleansing if a few 8 bedroom victorian mansions are sold off, but hundreds of normal houses are left in the same area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 As I said, there are 700,000 vacant properties in the UK and enough housing for everyone who wants it, Are they in locations where people want to live? Are they abatable? Who owns them? Why aren’t they occupied? Would you be happy for councils to buy them and refurbish them? Would you be happy if people from a different location are moved into them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Prime Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 This thread has nothing to do with the availability of social housing and is all to do with social cleansing but people just won't admit it. As I said, there are 700,000 vacant properties in the UK and enough housing for everyone who wants it, but it's evident that people don't want council tenants living in their midst. The U-Turn of moving council tenants out of London proved this and this latest proposal to, “Test the water,” is just another attempt at the same sort of thing. That said, I suspect most people didn't want social housing until their houses started getting repossessed and quite enjoyed stigmatising and putting the boot into council tenants as many people on here have done in this thread alone. Now the boot is on the other foot and suddenly it’s ok to rent; it sounds a bit hypocritical to me. Nobody 'admits' it because nobody agrees that it is social cleansing. You must also realise those 700,000 belong to people, are you suggesting the Bolsheviks requisition them? The majority of the 'squeezed middle' are tired of subsidising households living in areas they can only dream of living in where nobody has worked for years. Moderate people have no problem with the working poor who's council houses look normal. David Lammy's book told their story well. Then there's the other sort, mattresses in the garden, cars on bricks on the drive, oil stains and dog dirt outside and people in tracksuits hanging around swigging beer and shouting all day. No normal person would mind the latter group being cleansed and sent to Droitwich. Those people aren't victims, they're parasites. As long as there's protection for those who need to continue living near their place of work then most of the UK will be happy with 'social cleansing'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 There is protection - no-ones talkign about forcibly removing people from their houses, so you will stay near your place of work until you decide to move yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubydazzler Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 ... Then there's the other sort, mattresses in the garden, cars on bricks on the drive, oil stains and dog dirt outside and people in tracksuits hanging around swigging beer and shouting all day. No normal person would mind the latter group being cleansed and sent to Droitwich. Those people aren't victims, they're parasites....Why should Droitwich have to suffer? Maybe every town should have an area where all these people could be housed together, there'd be no-one to complain about them and they could do as they liked. A van could deliver essentials every week and they need never leave the place. Would that suffice to make you happy? Or would it be better to provide counselling, life coaches, parenting classes, rehab? I personally think that they aren't happy, no-one really wants to live in squalor, but sometimes life just doesn't work out for people and they need help to turn themselves around. That's got to better for all of us, surely? . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.