Turn on thread page Beta

Britsih armed forces veterans with PTSD refused Council housing-given to immigrants? watch

  • View Poll Results: Who should get priority for council housing?
    British citizens
    11
    78.57%
    Immigrants/Refugees
    3
    21.43%

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/603...tress-disorder

    Is it fair the British people particularly veterans with PTSD are being refused council housing meanwhile David Cameron has said he will take at least 15,000 refugees/immigrants who will get council housing?

    Who should get priority for council housing?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    It doesn't have to be a competition. There is a housing crisis which the current conservative government is not willng to address.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Here's a crazy idea: how about we:
    - stop allowing ourselves to be divided,
    - stop believing in the stupid Procrustean idea that there is a fixed amount of infrastructure in the country and the population has to bloody well prune itself to fit rather than the other way round
    - insist that a second house be built next door so both the soldier and the refugee can live a decent life and make friends and help each other through the fallout of the situation in the Middle East which affected both of them.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    Here's a crazy idea: how about we:
    - stop allowing ourselves to be divided,
    - stop believing in the stupid Procrustean idea that there is a fixed amount of infrastructure in the country and the population has to bloody well prune itself to fit rather than the other way round
    - insist that a second house be built next door so both the soldier and the refugee can live a decent life and make friends and help each other through the fallout of the situation in the Middle East which affected both of them.
    So where and how shall we
    -plant the magic money growing trees
    -find the space to build all these new houses
    ?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    we need some imagination here.... why does everyone have to live in their own separate house ? if people lived communally in groups of 20 they could share the tasks of daily living and not be lonely.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ace123)
    http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/603...tress-disorder

    Is it fair the British people particularly veterans with PTSD are being refused council housing meanwhile David Cameron has said he will take at least 15,000 refugees/immigrants who will get council housing?

    Who should get priority for council housing?
    Asylum seekers often get put in hotels not houses. Adittionally this man could afford to pay fr non council housiing which most likely why he got rejected.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Skip_Snip)
    So where and how shall we
    -plant the magic money growing trees
    -find the space to build all these new houses
    ?
    There is plenty of space held in the first place by local authorities. Then brownfield, some green belt. This will get us through the immediate crisis in London. Liberalisation of planning laws would stimulate building, I didn't use to think this due to the reports of land banking by property developers but apparently this is a bit of a red herring.

    In the longer term we need a comprehensive cadastral survey of the entire country the same as the wonderful SNP are doing in Scotland so we can find out who owns the land. (As we haven't had a challenge to the continuity of the ruling class, we literally haven't even attempted to do this properly since the Domesday Book, the last time the ruling class was overrun.) After this we impose a Georgist land tax and abolish most income taxes and taxes on UK domiciled non offshoring small businesses.

    Aside from the land tax, note that houses pay for themselves as long as the present value of future rents exceeds the cost of building. To the extent that rents are a perpetuity - and they would be in London, which has been the economic centre of the British Isles since before the Romans - building houses to rent is always a profitable activity.

    The thing about the fallacy of Procrustean infrastructure spending is that in theory every new person broadens the tax base and/or adds to demand which itself broadens the tax base. So the addition to infrastructure is paid for just the same as the people already here pay for theirs - except each extra person costs a little less due to economies of scale.

    Question why the government aren't spending the money we pay them on us but rather racking it up so they can show a surplus for political reasons. A surplus is unnecessary for a country at the centre of global finance and geopolitics like we are, and particularly not one which can issue its own currency. A surplus simply shows we are not taking advantage of our position in the world to borrow at what are historically low, risk-free rates and we are not spending the money we do bring in on inward investment to the people. A surplus, in short, indicates economic mismanagement.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    There is plenty of space held in the first place by local authorities. Then brownfield, some green belt.
    Nah. I think most people would rather preserve the green belt than build over it just to bring more people in.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    Here's a crazy idea: how about we:
    - stop allowing ourselves to be divided,
    - stop believing in the stupid Procrustean idea that there is a fixed amount of infrastructure in the country and the population has to bloody well prune itself to fit rather than the other way round
    - insist that a second house be built next door so both the soldier and the refugee can live a decent life and make friends and help each other through the fallout of the situation in the Middle East which affected both of them.
    Here's another, less crazy idea: how about we:
    - come back to reality.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    The original article gives one side of the story.
    Then a quote from a ukip spokesman.

    Single males are very low priority, no matter what nationality.
    As it says in the article, there are 20k people on the TH list.
    The Tories insisting that public housing is sold and removed from the available pool will not make matters any better.

    The ex soldier has a place to stay, and a job.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Skip_Snip)
    Nah. I think most people would rather preserve the green belt than build over it just to bring more people in.
    Selfish, selfish, selfish. It's not about nature, it's about the richest income decile in the country, i.e. the upper middle class, seeking to preserve the artificially high house prices they enjoy.

    I would not build over the whole green belt as London's expansion must be contained and nature is nice.

    Are you minded to engage with any of the rest of my post or are you content to pick on individual things?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    Selfish, selfish, selfish. It's not about nature, it's about the richest income decile in the country, i.e. the upper middle class, seeking to preserve the artificially high house prices they enjoy.
    I don't own high cost property in the London area, and I'd still rather see the green belt preserved.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ace123)
    http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/603...tress-disorder

    Is it fair the British people particularly veterans with PTSD are being refused council housing meanwhile David Cameron has said he will take at least 15,000 refugees/immigrants who will get council housing?

    Who should get priority for council housing?
    The former soldier has been given low priority because he is already adequately housed in his mother's spare bedroom. Presumably he is separated from his partner and wants his own two-bedroom house for himself and his daughter when she visits (and will rely upon housing benefit judging by his income, though this is not factored in allocation decisions). The news story provides very little information on this which is actually the most important as far as housing allocation is concerned.

    There are systematic inequalities which prevent men accessing social housing but the man's income and diagnosis of PTSD are not relevant to this. In fact, the fact he has an 'invisible' illness actually makes him more likely to gain housing than someone with a physical disability as there will only be a fixed number of properties adapted for people with disabilities (the same applies for old people).

    The refugee issue is a red herring. This has nothing to do with local councils. Refugees are housed by the government directly and have no choice where they live. In addition, almost all social housing stock has local connection allocation criteria attached to it so the people who get it will almost always be local themselves. The only time 'outsiders' get housing is when the council has advertised a property a number of times and no one suitable was found.

    In reality this decision makes the best use of social housing capacity and saves the taxpayer thousands of pounds per year.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by york_wbu)
    Here's another, less crazy idea: how about we:
    - come back to reality.
    That is to say, doff our caps for the thirtieth generation since 1066 and submit to what the large land-owners desire.

    It's not hard: the SNP are doing it, today, right now. In a country with the largest concentration of land ownership in the world.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Skip_Snip)
    I don't own high cost property in the London area, and I'd still rather see the green belt preserved.
    As do I (also not owning property there) which you may have undersrood if you'd cared to read all the way to the second sentence of my post.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I think all that needs to be said has been said, we need to build more housing, a significant potion of which needs to be social housing. The current waiting lists are out of control. The ex-army officer seems to have a job and somewhere to stay, more than some on the waiting lists can boast of having. And to end with refugees, they would likely be held in hotels, hostels and people's houses (if they offer to house a family or two depending on how big their house is, how much money they have ect.). They might get social/council housing if it is empty and nobody is moving in, or aren't going to be moving in for a while. But the real issue is the housing crises, and I fear the refugees might become a scapegoat group to hate on and fear if it gets any worse and we do bring them over in their thousands (which I think we should, but that is another matter)
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    You're given points and are then put in a band depending on points. If you're already suitably housed, you'll be waiting a very long time to be housed.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the bear)
    we need some imagination here.... why does everyone have to live in their own separate house ? if people lived communally in groups of 20 they could share the tasks of daily living and not be lonely.
    no thanks
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the bear)
    we need some imagination here.... why does everyone have to live in their own separate house ? if people lived communally in groups of 20 they could share the tasks of daily living and not be lonely.
    People do houseshares, to be fair, have flatmates.

    But I wouldn't want to live in a "communal house", especiallly once I'd started a family.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: September 6, 2015
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
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.