• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

You''ll live where we put you

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #21
    Originally posted by The Spartan View Post
    Homeless families to be expelled from London by councils | Society | The Guardian

    I was very pleased reading this article as people who are working cannot afford to rent in the city. So now that the housing benefit cap will be coming into play families will be relocated to more affordable property in the surrounding areas.
    I'm not sure it's healthy that someone who is privileged enough to be able to live and work in Zurich should have such strong views about who gets to live in the capital of a country they don't even reside in or pay tax towards. Of course, if you do pay taxes here, you're entitled to think what you like about how your taxes get spent. Even if as in this case I would happen to disagree with you. I don't think anyone should be forced to move hundreds of miles from the communities they've grown up in and are familiar with just because the local council can't afford to house them. Policies like that are how ghettos from which there's no hope of social advancement develop.

    Comment


      #22
      Originally posted by Gentile View Post
      I'm not sure it's healthy that someone who is privileged enough to be able to live and work in Zurich should have such strong views about who gets to live in the capital of a country they don't even reside in or pay tax towards. Of course, if you do pay taxes here, you're entitled to think what you like about how your taxes get spent. Even if as in this case I would happen to disagree with you. I don't think anyone should be forced to move hundreds of miles from the communities they've grown up in and are familiar with just because the local council can't afford to house them. Policies like that are how ghettos from which there's no hope of social advancement develop.
      Please just stop giving lazy fe<kers an excuse - everybody gets the chance to have an education - ok not everyone's home life is sweet n cozy (mine wasn't) but also there are plenty of chavs that come from middle class pampered backgrounds.

      "It is not what god gave you but what you do with it"

      Comment


        #23
        Originally posted by The Spartan View Post
        But then if you live on a lovely estate and have people living in the neighbourhood who don't give a toss as it's not their property, so they have parties, block the street with cars they're fixing up and have piles of junk in the garden. Is it really fair on those people who have bought in that area?
        There are legal remedies to deal with people who behave in the ways you've described. This article isn't about such people. It's about people who can't afford rent. Whilst there may be some overlap, you do need to differentiate between the two when you're discussing fair housing policies.

        Comment


          #24
          Originally posted by Gentile View Post
          I'm not sure it's healthy that someone who is privileged enough to be able to live and work in Zurich should have such strong views about who gets to live in the capital of a country they don't even reside in or pay tax towards. Of course, if you do pay taxes here, you're entitled to think what you like about how your taxes get spent. Even if as in this case I would happen to disagree with you. I don't think anyone should be forced to move hundreds of miles from the communities they've grown up in and are familiar with just because the local council can't afford to house them. Policies like that are how ghettos from which there's no hope of social advancement develop.
          and also why not??

          why should anybody's taxes go on housing people more expensively than it needs to be? fact is if you are a charity case then accept that you get what you are given not what you want.

          Comment


            #25
            Originally posted by original PM View Post
            Please just stop giving lazy fe<kers an excuse - everybody gets the chance to have an education - ok not everyone's home life is sweet n cozy (mine wasn't) but also there are plenty of chavs that come from middle class pampered backgrounds.

            "It is not what god gave you but what you do with it"
            Tell me about it. I hardly come from a privileged background myself, yet I've done OK for myself financially and socially. I wonder if I'd have done as well if I'd been forced to move to some backwater with less opportunities for social advancement at a young age?

            Comment


              #26
              Originally posted by original PM View Post
              and also why not??

              why should anybody's taxes go on housing people more expensively than it needs to be? fact is if you are a charity case then accept that you get what you are given not what you want.
              Why should anyone support anyone else in society? You could argue that point all day. But there's no denying that the countries that do adopt socially-responsible policies (e.g., the Scandinavian countries) are regularly rated much nicer places to live than countries that don't (the USA, the UK). They have less crime, the average standard of living is comparatively high, and they're safe to live in.

              In answer to your specific question, though, the reason I think people shouldn't be forced to move hundreds of miles from the communities they know and have grown up is the same reason that people shouldn't have been subjected to forced migration during the Stalin era. By applying such a draconian policy and forcing people to move out to the sticks where housing may be cheap but there's no industry and no jobs, you create ghetto communities that don't have the same opportunities for employment as more prosperous regions. If you think that's OK, then fine, I'm happy to disagree with you.

              Comment


                #27
                Originally posted by mudskipper View Post
                The problem with that sort of policy is that you don't get a good community mix. Is it healthy to have entire areas (the whole of the south east?) where there are no poor people?

                I'd say that if you've grown up in an area, you should be able to stay there. But you should be discouraged from moving to an expensive area just coz you fancy it.
                Its not healthy hence the provision of affordable housing in new developments. Many councils are looking to preserve this mix.

                However with a small purse is it fair paying for someone who has never worked or has no prospect of working to live in a 6 bedroom house in a nice area when a similar family that works couldn't afford it?

                It's a cap, the result is rent's will fall and there will be an exodus from London.

                What they need to do is create employment elsewhere (which I'll admit the previous government actually did by moving Government departments out of London) and move people out to these new jobs.

                If the workers move out of London then wages will rise or be taken by people living in cheaper housing.
                Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much.

                Comment


                  #28
                  Originally posted by Gentile View Post
                  Why should anyone support anyone else in society? You could argue that point all day. But there's no denying that the countries that do adopt socially-responsible policies (e.g., the Scandinavian countries) are regularly rated much nicer places to live than countries that don't (the USA, the UK). They have less crime, the average standard of living is comparatively high, and they're safe to live in.

                  In answer to your specific question, though, the reason I think people shouldn't be forced to move hundreds of miles from the communities they know and have grown up is the same reason that people shouldn't have been subjected to forced migration during the Stalin era. By applying such a draconian policy and forcing people to move out to the sticks where housing may be cheap but there's no industry and no jobs, you create ghetto communities that don't have the same opportunities for employment as more prosperous regions. If you think that's OK, then fine, I'm happy to disagree with you.
                  It's a far point - but we are taking extremes - one the one had we have the people living in Chelsea etc - which is not acceptable due to the high rent - on the other hand you are saying the only alternative is to house them in out of town estates with no jobs etc - this is also not acceptable.

                  It is about getting the people in the right level of property with the relevant infrastructure to support them.

                  But also giving them a need to get off their asses and become a productive member of society.

                  Comment


                    #29
                    One of London's strengths is that poor and rich live cheek by jowl.
                    Look at Fulham, parts of Chelsea, Battersea or Clapham, Tower Hamlets.
                    It's healthier that way - look at Paris for a counterexample where the poor ar shoved into banlieus (sp?), leading to no-go areas and sink estates.
                    London used to have these no-go areas in the 80s: Chalkhill, stonebridge Park, Tottenham - they were all demolished and converted into mixed use social housing with good results.
                    Hard Brexit now!
                    #prayfornodeal

                    Comment


                      #30
                      Originally posted by original PM View Post
                      It's a far point - but we are taking extremes - one the one had we have the people living in Chelsea etc - which is not acceptable due to the high rent - on the other hand you are saying the only alternative is to house them in out of town estates with no jobs etc - this is also not acceptable.

                      It is about getting the people in the right level of property with the relevant infrastructure to support them.

                      But also giving them a need to get off their asses and become a productive member of society.
                      I think it's perfectly reasonable to require poorer people to move to less afluent parts of the same city or area (but where they'd still be within the same employer/educational catchment areas and commuting distances as the more expensive parts of town). However, I'd hate to see the day in the UK where we'd end up with the sort of insular, gated communities you get in the likes of the US. Where black kids get shot by vigilantes merely for looking wrong, and young children literally need to go past police check points to get into certain areas whilst out at Halloween.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X