Corbyn Promises Homes For The Homeless

[emmie]

8,000 in fact, if he wins the next election..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42851024

[nailit]

Maybe you need to, ignorance is heavy!

[Khandro]

"Squatting" - the occupation of empty houses by the "homeless" - wasn't the answer, in fact it produced hundreds of thousands of more "homeless" young people than had existed before the vogue began.

[Baldric]

It was not a question of Talbots, it was myself who queried a point you raised at 20:48, but as you seem to be incapable of following the thread I don't hold out much hope of getting an answer.

[nailit]

If you keep moving the goal posts Baldric, then I don't blame you for not holding much hope of getting an answer....

[nailit]

don't even know what your question is, can you elucidate?

[Baldric]

The goalposts have not moved I assure you.

[nailit]

can you elucidate then Baldric?
What exactly is ur question?

[Khandro]

P.S. in other words, following Corbyn's Marxist momentum agenda; the more free accommodation you provide, the more customers you will create.

[NoMercy]

I wouldn't waste your energy, Khando. This thread has fallen.

[naomi24]

I haven’t read all the posts but …

//Corbyn Promises Homes For The Homeless//?

Corbyn has promised a lot of things he can’t and won’t deliver on. Yet another large pinch of salt required.

[Deskdiary]

Let's assume for the sake of the argument that Corbyn could produce the money for this fanciful idea and take into public ownership 8000 houses for the homeless - if I was one of the many 1000s of people/families who have been patiently sitting on the council house waiting list, I'd be mightily peeved about Corbyn's largesse.

[naomi24]

//Party leader Jeremy Corbyn said they would also help councils "take over" properties kept empty deliberately.//

^That should worry everyone.

[Kromovaracun]

Corbyn is referring to rough sleepers here rather than all homeless (there are plenty more people who end up homeless and either couch surf or sleep in their cars or something similar). Falling under the technical definition of "homeless", that situation covers some 250,000 people according to shelter. There is a rough sleeper population of typically a few hundred in every major city, and that is considered quite high.

So it's actually a very targeted solution to a specific problem in big cities. It's not pie in the sky at all.

Also while I'm here, to insist that rough sleepers are "homeless by choice" is a bit of a sick fantasy. It's so disingenuous so as not to be worth arguing about. It's plainly the fantasy of someone who desperately, desperately wants to believe that we live in a perfect meritocracy where everybody gets exactly their just rewards based on how hard they work. This is plainly not how society functions.

[emmie]

maybe he will make people share their homes with the homeless, now that would be something to see,
i don't like it when threads go so off topic, but
i had to sleep.

[mikey4444]

Kromo....well said !

[emmie]

i also don't like properties that stand empty for years, ones that could be done up by the local council, or by the new tenants given a small grant to make them habitable, or is that too radical an idea.

[Kromovaracun]

https://www.homeless.org.uk/facts/homelessness-in-numbers/rough-sleeping/rough-sleeping-explore-data

Looking at the figures above, this would in practice mean housing for fewer than 80 people per region (with the exception of Westminster, Brighton and Cornwall). This is hardly going to devastate the property market.

Rough sleeping is, furthermore, something that only the government really has the ability to do anything about. Charities like St. Mungo's or the Castle Project cannot command the resources to run property - certainly not to increase the limited accommodation they already have - in anything like the required numbers, however excellent those services are. Private philanthropists are also not forthcoming on the issue, so there isn't really another alternative but to a) let rough sleepers continue living on the street or b) have the government do something.

[murraymints]

Ditto Krom

[mikey4444]

Emmie...08:04.....no, not terribly radical, but you have to ask why it isn't being done more often.

[fiction-factory]

Theis is a real problem that doesn't seem to have any easy answers. Maybe the starting point should be to provide hostel type accommodation- it would be interesting to see how many of the homeless take up offers and start to turn their lives around. Providing homes could well make the problem worse as it would encourage those who are currently couch surfing or struggling to pay rent deliberately going on the streets in the hope of getting new accommodation