Turn on thread page Beta

Luxury flats rented to council tenants for only £75 a week watch

    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Collingwood)
    Why does it matter? The Daily Mail has an editorial viewpoint; that doesn't mean every story it contains is pulled out of thin air by a cackling band of BNP activists. The OP was referring to the facts stated, not the editorial viewpoint.
    The OP made a very ignorant generalisation. The stereotype that everyone in a counci house is unemployed and can't be bothered working.

    He has as much a bias as the Daily Mail.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Thats a *****ing joke!! Why should people who lay about all day, have 10 babies before they're 20 and sponge off the state get luxury housing?! They shouldn't!!

    This is kinda similar to the situation near my house... I live in the wealthiest area of my town, its overlooking the Bristol channel and its really beautiful, yet right in the middle of my area are plonked a block of scabby council flats and rows of council houses.. Yet these houses and flats have panoramic views over the Bristol channel and are in the nicest area of town... where is the sense in this?! It also means that you get lots of chavvy and unpleasant people in my area, which is another thing that bugs me about this!
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    This is ridiculous. Its even more ridiculous that the law states that builders have to provide council housing if they build more than 15 houses.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I love how all the tax-payers in the article are portrayed as great people, and the council-placed ones are all trouble. Good to see good old fashioned snobbery lives on.

    All that was said about the woman on benefits was that she was a pregnant single-mum. So we're all meant to jump to the conclusion that she must also therefore be on drugs, causing havoc and putting her poor neighbours through hell? Riiight.

    I read an article the other day about the luxury flats in Cardiff Bay. A big percentage (estimated one third to a half) of them lie empty because they're so overly priced that few people can afford them. At the same time 4,500 people in Cardiff are on the housing list.

    Ultimately, they're just flats. Decking and fancy view aside they're just flats. You'd struggle to fit a family of four in them anyway, and the main worry in the article I read was that they'd end up being slums eventually due to the fact they don't encourage community and people will need to move to proper housing once they decide to have a family.

    A lot of council housing is disgusting. As the woman said, she expected a cockroach-ridden dump. But we're happy to say ok let the unemployed live there because they're all scum and that's what they deserve?

    Only a tiny tiny proportion of those on benefits will actually get to live in places like these, so don't worry yourselves too much. Frankly if places are going empty and people are getting to live somewhere clean as a result then there's some logic in the world.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by River85)
    Also, this brings an interesting debate. The government are trying to provide more social housing at a time when we have been seeing rising house prices. How do you suggest we address this? After all it was the Tories that brought in the right to buy, creating this shortage of social housing.
    No, right to buy did not cause a shortage of social housing. Every house that was removed from government ownership by right to buy also removed its occupants' demand for government housing. If the houses were still owned by the government there would be no difference in the ratio of houses to people who require homes.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Boo_2)
    Thats a *****ing joke!! Why should people who lay about all day, have 10 babies before they're 20 and sponge off the state get luxury housing?! They shouldn't!
    Yes, again. Because everyone who is in social housing is like that, aren't they? :rolleyes:

    I'm not denying there are some like that, even the majority. However it is far from being all.

    I don't even think the OP wanted a debate here. I just think he wanted to have a thread about "lets insults and attack the poor!". I will again ask.

    We have a problem with a lack of affordable housing in this country. It is NOT just the lazy who can't afford them but also those who are genuinely unemployed and seeking for a job and also low paid,but still hardworking, singles and families.

    How do you suggest we solve this?

    You see, this is what you actually do in a debate. Not just take the piss out of those you think you're better than.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Collingwood)
    No, right to buy did not cause a shortage of social housing. Every house that was removed from government ownership by right to buy also removed its occupants' demand for government housing. If the houses were still owned by the government there would be no difference in the ratio of houses to people who require homes.
    Pardon? Houses were sold off on the private market and few were built to replace them? How isn't that partly responsible for causing a shortage?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Boo_2)
    Thats a *****ing joke!! Why should people who lay about all day, have 10 babies before they're 20 and sponge off the state get luxury housing?! They shouldn't!!

    This is kinda similar to the situation near my house... I live in the wealthiest area of my town, its overlooking the Bristol channel and its really beautiful, yet right in the middle of my area are plonked a block of scabby council flats and rows of council houses.. Yet these houses and flats have panoramic views over the Bristol channel and are in the nicest area of town... where is the sense in this?! It also means that you get lots of chavvy and unpleasant people in my area, which is another thing that bugs me about this!
    Good heavens what an outrage! Soon those plebs might even have the nerve to start speaking to you. This country's going to the dogs.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SolInvictus)
    Its even more ridiculous that the law states that builders have to provide council housing if they build more than 15 houses.
    Yup that is pretty shocking.

    I sure as hell wished I lived in an apartment as nice as those!

    Obviously council houses/flats shouldn't be made to poor standards, but the standard of those properties looks amazing. And I don't think it's fair on the neighbours of the people paying £75 a week when they are paying God knows how much more.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by River85)
    Pardon? Houses were sold off on the private market and few were built to replace them? How isn't that partly responsible for causing a shortage?
    Suppose there are 10 families who want government houses and only 5 such houses available.

    5 families receive a house. There is therefore a shortage of 5 houses.

    The 5 families who received a house purchase it under right to buy. Is the shortage of houses now more, less or equal to 5?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    The demand for council housing increases in line with, or greater, than population growth.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by River85)
    Yes, again. Because everyone who is in social housing is like that, aren't they? :rolleyes:

    I'm not denying there are some like that, even the majority. However it is far from being all.

    I don't even think the OP wanted a debate here. I just think he wanted to have a thread about "lets insults and attack the poor!". I will again ask.

    We have a problem with a lack of affordable housing in this country. It is NOT just the lazy who can't afford them but also those who are genuinely unemployed and seeking for a job and also low paid,but still hardworking, singles and families.

    How do you suggest we solve this?

    You see, this is what you actually do in a debate. Not just take the piss out of those you think you're better than.
    I am not anti-poor, I am though anti-lazy. What I found wrong with the article is that why should someone pay the third of the rent of someone who is paying £900 a month for a half a million pound flat?

    How the hell is that fair that the tax payer should be subsiding this?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renal)
    The demand for council housing increases in line with, or greater, than population growth.
    Quite possibly. This doesn't mean, though, that right to buy has added to a shortage, only that one would have happened anyway.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Collingwood)
    Suppose there are 10 families who want government houses and only 5 such houses available.

    5 families receive a house. There is therefore a shortage of 5 houses.

    The 5 families who received a house purchase it under right to buy. Is the shortage of houses now more, less or equal to 5?
    Yes, I understand that. But those families are not going to lie for for ever are they? They either move away (selling the house on the market) or die (leaving a relative to inheritit and possibly sell it off). The house remains private.

    Am I missing something here and being totally thick? I'm not just thinking the short term here, rather over a whole generation.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by River85)
    Pardon? Houses were sold off on the private market and few were built to replace them? How isn't that partly responsible for causing a shortage?
    I see where he is coming from (the people who buy the council house no longer need a council house so there is one less family on the waiting list, and one less house available).

    However, some people are able to move on from a council house to their own, so although most people won't/can't, there would still be a slight loss in the housing available, but not really hugely significant.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I knew about this stuff months ago. They put a set of these flats behind my grandparents house for single mothers specifically and it's taken a fortune off the value of their house. Whenever I put an article in a post I always find it in the times first, they write the pretty similar stories and you get to side step the pricks who prefer to attack sources than the viewpoints in question.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by River85)
    Yes, I understand that. But those families are not going to lie for for ever are they? They either move away (selling the house on the market) or die (leaving a relative to inheritit and possibly sell it off). The house remains private.
    When they move away they occupy another private house, and someone else occupies theirs. Suppose the 5 families who received a house in my previous example began swapping who was resident - would it change the magnitude of the shortage then? You seem to be assuming that the number of people requiring council houses will return to the same level over time. Assuming a stable population (increases due to population growth are evidently not due to right to buy), the only way this is possible is if private houses become unoccupied, something that is more or less impossible in a free market, particularly one in which there is high demand.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tory Dan)
    I am not anti-poor, I am though anti-lazy. What I found wrong with the article is that why should someone pay the third of the rent of someone who is paying £900 a month for a half a million pound flat?

    How the hell is that fair that the tax payer should be subsiding this?
    Perhaps it's not, no.

    However, again you seem to be under the impression that someone living in a council house or flat is lazy.

    You can criticise the system by all means. There certainly are many lazy, feckless benefit cheats around. They do deserve contempt. However THIS IS NOT ALL.

    I'm using an example from two generations ago, when it was harder to get onto the housing market than it is even now. Perhaps not thebest example but, still. Anyway my grandparents lived in a council house (until they bought it under Thatcher).

    My grandfather was grammar school educated and worked as an accounts clerk. My grandmother was a housewife and part-time cleaner. Both perfectly decent and hardworking people.

    Now, because they lived in a council house, did that make the lazy? If not where do you get off suggesting that anyone who is on the social housing waiting list, or curretly lives in one, is lazy?

    Given that I'm currently living in an ex-council house now (spacious rooms, solidly built, good gardens - don't know why more don't) and am only a stones throw away from some current council houses I can give present day examples.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I find it hard to believe that the majority of univeristy students pay more than that for a single room per week.

    sigh. The housing market is out of control, its only going to get worse.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by River85)
    Perhaps it's not, no.

    However, again you seem to be under the impression that someone living in a council house or flat is lazy.

    You can criticise the system by all means. There certainly are many lazy, feckless benefit cheats around. They do deserve contempt. However THIS IS NOT ALL.

    I'm using an example from two generations ago, when it was harder to get onto the housing market than it is even now. Perhaps not thebest example but, still. Anyway my grandparents lived in a council house (until they bought it under Thatcher).

    My grandfather was grammar school educated and worked as an accounts clerk. My grandmother was a housewife and part-time cleaner. Both perfectly decent and hardworking people.

    Now, because they lived in a council house, did that make the lazy? If not where do you get off suggesting that anyone who is on the social housing waiting list, or curretly lives in one, is lazy?

    Given that I'm currently living in an ex-council house now (spacious rooms, solidly built, good gardens - don't know why more don't) and am only a stones throw away from some current council houses I can give present day examples.
    Near enough everybody lived in a council house before Thatcher, your point sucks ass.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you have a role model?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.