Is Keir Starmer Really Going To Arrest...
News3 mins ago
this is so wrong?
whilst there are long queues for social housing this is going on,
why can't councils stop it.
http://www.walletpop....-by-living-in-social/
why can't councils stop it.
http://www.walletpop....-by-living-in-social/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by emmie. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
"Why? He says it's because he's a 'social democrat' and wants to 'connect with the community'. Well, his wealth is certainly in contrast to these humble beliefs, It's like he thinks he's appearing in an episode of The Secret Millionaire that has no ending"
If the rich live 'where they belong', they are hated for it. If they live in Council houses, they're called hypocrites.
"Ayesha Chowdhury, who is herself a serving Labour councillor on Newham council, has been living in a housing association home despite owning 17 other properties worth £1m."
People are constantly complaining about how 'out-of-touch' politicians are because of their material status/perks. And then complain when they live alongside low-income voters.
---
To be quite honest, I find it a little hard to make a call on this issue. I understand what people are saying re: pressure on housing, but I just can't help but notice a wider societal hypocrisy in public opinion which your article demonstrates. People always complain about 'them and us' scenarios in society but, apparently, aren't willing to tolerate people who for whatever reason buck the trend.
[I should probably also say I made this post before reading the rest of the thread.]
If the rich live 'where they belong', they are hated for it. If they live in Council houses, they're called hypocrites.
"Ayesha Chowdhury, who is herself a serving Labour councillor on Newham council, has been living in a housing association home despite owning 17 other properties worth £1m."
People are constantly complaining about how 'out-of-touch' politicians are because of their material status/perks. And then complain when they live alongside low-income voters.
---
To be quite honest, I find it a little hard to make a call on this issue. I understand what people are saying re: pressure on housing, but I just can't help but notice a wider societal hypocrisy in public opinion which your article demonstrates. People always complain about 'them and us' scenarios in society but, apparently, aren't willing to tolerate people who for whatever reason buck the trend.
[I should probably also say I made this post before reading the rest of the thread.]
"The infuriating thing is that Mr Haque and Mrs Chowdhury are just two people who have been caught diddling the taxpayer."
Pardon my ignorance but by the sound of it, they are taxpayers....
"Makes you laugh at the Government proclamations at a time of austerity that 'we're all in this together'. It's simply not true"
Which is exactly what everyone always says when they look at the comfortable/average living standards among the wealthy who live in correspondingly wealthy areas. What exactly do people expect the rich to do? "Stop existing" is the implicit answer I'm getting from this article.
Pardon my ignorance but by the sound of it, they are taxpayers....
"Makes you laugh at the Government proclamations at a time of austerity that 'we're all in this together'. It's simply not true"
Which is exactly what everyone always says when they look at the comfortable/average living standards among the wealthy who live in correspondingly wealthy areas. What exactly do people expect the rich to do? "Stop existing" is the implicit answer I'm getting from this article.
If some hate the rich, it won't be because they live 'where they belong'.
Continuing to grab resource provided by society as a whole, for helping the less well off section of society, at a time when one can no longer can claim to be less well off, is the sort of trend bucking I'd rather was stamped out. Perhaps I should buck the trend and go out mugging on a Friday night. I don't think too many do that.
Continuing to grab resource provided by society as a whole, for helping the less well off section of society, at a time when one can no longer can claim to be less well off, is the sort of trend bucking I'd rather was stamped out. Perhaps I should buck the trend and go out mugging on a Friday night. I don't think too many do that.
"If some hate the rich, it won't be because they live 'where they belong'. "
I disagree. I think that's exactly what people do fairly often. It's practically become fashionable. Peruse some of the more fringe left-wing publications and you see the kind of sentiment quite regularly - 'we're all in this together except if you're rich'*. For understandable reasons, people do seem to resent the rich for living comfortably during times of hardship. My point is that now they seem to resent them for living in the same places as the disadvantaged.
"Perhaps I should buck the trend and go out mugging on a Friday night. I don't think too many do that"
Fair point and well made. I accept it was a badly-considered phrase to use. I just think the questions I've raised are worth considering is all - especially in the case of the councillor, when people are always complaining (not unreasonably) about politicians being out-of-touch. It's a good example of how schizophrenic public opinion can be.
*Note: I do not intend this to represent left-wing views generally. Like anything, I have nothing against views that are well-considered. These are not.
I disagree. I think that's exactly what people do fairly often. It's practically become fashionable. Peruse some of the more fringe left-wing publications and you see the kind of sentiment quite regularly - 'we're all in this together except if you're rich'*. For understandable reasons, people do seem to resent the rich for living comfortably during times of hardship. My point is that now they seem to resent them for living in the same places as the disadvantaged.
"Perhaps I should buck the trend and go out mugging on a Friday night. I don't think too many do that"
Fair point and well made. I accept it was a badly-considered phrase to use. I just think the questions I've raised are worth considering is all - especially in the case of the councillor, when people are always complaining (not unreasonably) about politicians being out-of-touch. It's a good example of how schizophrenic public opinion can be.
*Note: I do not intend this to represent left-wing views generally. Like anything, I have nothing against views that are well-considered. These are not.
No I'm not saying that. i am saying that they have become a dumping ground for lowlifes. The decent people that have been there a long time, who work and take pride in their community are being suffocated by this infestation. We should go back to how it was, only decent working people should get council houses as long as they pay the going rate. If you cant pay your way then you dont get one.
haven't had time to look through the thread until now, just one thing, not all council tenants are hard up, not all council tenants are lowlifes, as some seem to think, and not all who have shared that home with their loved ones, and seen them depart, through children leaving or death of a spouse wish to vacate, if you have had 40 years in a property, and grown up with a community how hard would it be to leave, nigh on impossible. This is about people who can well afford to live the high life someplace else, and those who own lots of homes should be using ones of those, instead of a much needed council property. As to means testing, our council does, they ask for bank statements, and any assets, and usually if you have over a certain sum, dont qualify.
Boxtops is right, these properties are subsidised by the taxpayer, they are getting fewer, because some were bought, and many now go over to housing associations, so out of direct control of the local council.
There are endless council properties that need tlc, are left abandoned by the council and if done up to a degree could go to needy families.
Boxtops is right, these properties are subsidised by the taxpayer, they are getting fewer, because some were bought, and many now go over to housing associations, so out of direct control of the local council.
There are endless council properties that need tlc, are left abandoned by the council and if done up to a degree could go to needy families.
"just one thing, not all council tenants are hard up, not all council tenants are lowlifes, as some seem to think, "
I agree. Which is why I'm surprised to see people so adverse to this kind of diversity.
"not all who have shared that home with their loved ones, and seen them depart, through children leaving or death of a spouse wish to vacate, if you have had 40 years in a property, and grown up with a community how hard would it be to leave, nigh on impossible."
I agree. I just wish the same empathy would apply to those who happen to be wealthy and want to reside in the community.
"Boxtops is right, these properties are subsidised by the taxpayer,"
Both of the people in your link are also taxpayers.
Please forgive me if I sound ignorant here, but I'm not convinced that evicting people who are wealthier than the intended recipients of council accommodation will solve the housing problem or free up a significant enough number of houses to even make a dent in it. The only solution I can see is for more housing to be built (which is hardly an easy or simple solution, but it's hardly an easy or simple problem). From a government perspective, if you're going to make people do something then you need to think very carefully before you do so.
I agree. Which is why I'm surprised to see people so adverse to this kind of diversity.
"not all who have shared that home with their loved ones, and seen them depart, through children leaving or death of a spouse wish to vacate, if you have had 40 years in a property, and grown up with a community how hard would it be to leave, nigh on impossible."
I agree. I just wish the same empathy would apply to those who happen to be wealthy and want to reside in the community.
"Boxtops is right, these properties are subsidised by the taxpayer,"
Both of the people in your link are also taxpayers.
Please forgive me if I sound ignorant here, but I'm not convinced that evicting people who are wealthier than the intended recipients of council accommodation will solve the housing problem or free up a significant enough number of houses to even make a dent in it. The only solution I can see is for more housing to be built (which is hardly an easy or simple solution, but it's hardly an easy or simple problem). From a government perspective, if you're going to make people do something then you need to think very carefully before you do so.
The difficulty with this issue is that “social” housing has become very much housing of last resort. Because of the way it is allocated it is inevitable that most social housing will be occupied by the “dispossessed”. Any survey will show that social housing is predominantly occupied by the unemployed, the feckless, new arrivals to this country, single parents (mainly mothers) and criminals recently released from prison. I am not saying that this is exclusively so, but it will become ever more so because of the allocation process.
There is no reason social housing should be the exclusive preserve of the dispossessed any more than the National Health Service should only select as its patients people who are in similar straits. Both services are funded (heftily) by the taxpayer and both should be available to all members of society. It is well known that if you behave irresponsibly and need accommodation you will be “given” a council flat or house (as befits your circumstances). Furthermore, your accommodation will automatically be upgraded if your circumstances change (for example if you knock out more children when you cannot afford to maintain the ones you already have) at no cost to you.
These are luxuries not available to people who work hard and manage to hold down a job to pay their way. They have to consider the implications of their actions. The working couple who try to pay their way (incurring hefty accommodation charges either in the form of rent or mortgage repayments) very often have no chance of starting a family because they cannot afford to do so. Meantime the feckless pair living next door can breed as much as they like, safe in the knowledge that their accommodation requirements will be catered for.
The result of this is, of course, more children who see fecklessness as a “normal” way of life and less who believe self reliance is a virtue.
There is no reason social housing should be the exclusive preserve of the dispossessed any more than the National Health Service should only select as its patients people who are in similar straits. Both services are funded (heftily) by the taxpayer and both should be available to all members of society. It is well known that if you behave irresponsibly and need accommodation you will be “given” a council flat or house (as befits your circumstances). Furthermore, your accommodation will automatically be upgraded if your circumstances change (for example if you knock out more children when you cannot afford to maintain the ones you already have) at no cost to you.
These are luxuries not available to people who work hard and manage to hold down a job to pay their way. They have to consider the implications of their actions. The working couple who try to pay their way (incurring hefty accommodation charges either in the form of rent or mortgage repayments) very often have no chance of starting a family because they cannot afford to do so. Meantime the feckless pair living next door can breed as much as they like, safe in the knowledge that their accommodation requirements will be catered for.
The result of this is, of course, more children who see fecklessness as a “normal” way of life and less who believe self reliance is a virtue.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles21 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles22 mins ago
Should We Be Taking Nuclear Threats More...
News26 mins ago
