How cool is [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19311364 ]THIS?![/url]
A totally brilliant idea! Clearly the common sense represented by Dame Shirley Porter still lives on in the Tory Party. Thank God! She was a much maligned but frankly misunderstood woman.
All she was trying to do was to create areas where those who have made something of their lives don't have their hard-won property prices dragged down by living in close proximity to the [s]peasants[/s] lower paid.
And the [s]scum[/s] more modest earners will be much happier if they [s]are rounded up into ghettos[/s] can all happily live together in happy, if slightly less well-appointed areas
Who's looking forward to getting rid of some of their less desirable locals then? And what will you be spending your increased equity on?
I am my areas less desirable local.. 🙂
or the non red flag waving version
So the value of the house rises and economically you can sell it and house 2 or 3 families with the proceeds is that a bad thing?
Not exactly ethnic clensing
You're only bitter 'cos they threw you out of Chorlton for making the place look scruffy.
What a testament of despair that report is! Obviously the Policy Exchange have no faith in the economic recovery that is ongoing. Instead the poor must scrap with the destitute for whatever scraps the rich deign to throw them...
Policy Exchange... reminds me of a Needle Exchange... and like the sort of people who use needle exchanges they and their dirty products should be treated as hazardous and kept securely quarrentined.
IHN I was actually thrown out for being too right wing 😉
So, you are part of a council housed area; you and the rest of your street take a bit of pride in where you live,making the area nicer,then they council sells your house from under your feet and evicts you? Why would they even think about this,perhaps it is the usual worst case scenario/feel a sense of relief when they only screw you a little bit that the current Government uses to mask it's policies.
It's a brilliant idea.
Binners, sorry, when have the allocation of social housing places had anything to do with pay or wealth?
Social housing is allocated on a basis of need, for example on a points based system, with points awarded for ties with the local area, health issues, dependent children etc - nothing to do with income or wealth.
In fact I know of a few well paid people who have council houses...
It does sound like a tamed down version of the Final Solution, turn the north of the country into a ghetto and move all the unemployed, ill and disabled away from the affluent South and leave them to rot in the North.
Of course in the real world there are very few 'council houses' left. But let us turn our spotlight on the Policy Exchange: Who are they? Who funds them? And why do they get off on proposing to make the lives of others such a misery?
I'm leaving this country so I can afford enough land, fence and weaponry to ensure the proles are kept at a sufficient distance.
Goodbye, good riddance.
About 3.5% of the total stock becomes vacant every year owing to people moving out or dying, the think tank said. But we're working hard on both issues to improve this figure.
If only the common peasantry would die off a bit quicker, eh?
Eat the rich!
[i]So, you are part of a council housed area; you and the rest of your street take a bit of pride in where you live,making the area nicer,then they council sells your house from under your feet and evicts you?[/i]
<policy understanding fail>
I drop the average guns-per-household figures for Streford by me living there 🙂
No fail. That's exactly how they see everyone who isn't one of them or seen to be living as they perscribe. There seems to be a growing, almost neo-Maoist tendency, among all three parties, to see people as objects to be moved around, taxed, controlled, surveilled, and coererced at the whim of the ruling corporate classes. This is a forwarning of what we will see if we allow them to continue as they are.
Also, Cameron is supposed to be 'close' to these loonies. You can tell a man by the company he keeps...
mikewsmith - Member
or the non red flag waving version
So the value of the house rises and economically you can sell it and house 2 or 3 families with the proceeds is that a bad thing?
Not exactly ethnic clensing
So the value of inner London social housing has risen, therefore "we" can sell them all off to property investors who can then rent them to young upwardly acceptable professionals who work in "the city".
Meanwhile, the lower paid fringes of society, whom social housing was originally designed, are shipped out to the new "better" homes, being built on the brown field sites (wastelands) of the Thames estuary, away from their places of work, thus creating a populance dependant on Housing Benefit.
But it's ok as long as there are new houses to buy and property developers to make profit.
FWIW, I've seen "low cost social housing" projects first hand, and it's a green light for property developers to build cheap nasty houses not suitable for the intended occupants, whilst being able to build cheap nasty larger houses to sell at a huge profit to the guilable.
Sorry /RANT.
If only the common peasantry would die off a bit quicker, eh?
I'm doing my best.
[img] 
[/img]
Oh, sorry. I see what you mean now.
😉
I wonder if the members of Policy Exchange were abused when they went to public school? And did they use to pull the legs off spiders and the wings off flies when they were children?
Social housing is allocated on a basis of need, for example on a points based system, with points awarded for ties with the local area, health issues, dependent children etc - nothing to do with income or wealth.
that sounds very much to me like you are half correct, and half completely talking bollocks mate
How about just shipping them out to the 'burbs?
Oh hang on....
So, you are part of a council housed area; you and the rest of your street take a bit of pride in where you live,making the area nicer,then they council sells your house from under your feet and evicts you?
From the article:
"Selling top homes [u][b]when they become vacant[/b][/u] would raise £4.5bn a year, enough to build 80,000 to 170,000 new social homes, providing building jobs... About 3.5% of the total stock becomes vacant every year owing to people moving out or dying"
No mention of the Council Stasi evicting you at gunpoint 🙄
Policy Exchange = Bullingdon Club = Ruling Class = .001 % of population
Not yet... But of course if you can't afford to pay your rent due to cuts in housing benefit you'll soon get evicted...
Big fail. Did you read the detail or just the alarmist scare mongering? How about the bit where they said that nobody would be evicted and houses would only been sold when the we empty due to people leaving etc.No fail. That's exactly how they see everyone who isn't one of them or seen to be living as they perscribe. There seems to be a growing, almost neo-Maoist tendency, among all three parties, to see people as objects to be moved around, taxed, controlled, surveilled, and coererced at the whim of the ruling corporate classes. This is a forwarning of what we will see if we allow them to continue as they are.
Not saying its a particularly good policy but on the face of it it appears to be well intentioned, just needs some sensible interpretation based on local issues rather than a blanket sell off of expensive council house.
For example how you difine "above average for the area" is particilalry sensitive.
But of course if you can't afford to pay your rent due to cuts in housing benefit you'll soon get evicted...
are we in line for another round of the wholesale homelessness which gave rise to the new age traveller movement, as caused by the last tory government..?
I think what we will see is an awful lot more of this type of [url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/apr/24/london-exporting-council-tenants ]class cleansing[/url]
So... not quite ethnic cleansing, no, but the principle is the same
not quite ethnic cleansing, no, but the principle is the same
aaaaaaah.. that'll be what the massive new towns that are springing up on Greenbelt land are for then..
Ideally, all except the very rich in society will move to the North of England to work long hours in factories with few employment rights, poor education and no health service.
Big fail. Did you read the detail or just the alarmist scare mongering?
Hmmm, tricky one...
It does sound like a tamed down version of the Final Solution,
Sorry but that comment and others along the 'ethnic cleansing' line are among the most offensive things I've read on STW.
To even begin to compare a housing policy, however it may offend your political sensibilities, with the extermination of whole groups of people in the Holocaust, shows a level of insensitivity that is frankly beyond the pale.
This is ideology taken to extreme, there is a hatred of 'social' housing and its opposition to privatisation among Tory supporters, this is just a continuation of the thatcher programme of destroying communities, especially ones where there are alternatives to the 'market'-- the ruling class are just acting in their interests, its the so called labour Party that has gone along with all this that gets my goat-- wolf in sheep's clothing......
I don't think anyone's actually seriously comparing the actions of Tory Thinktanks to that of the Third Reich
By my reckoning they'd need at least another.... erm... well realistically.... at least another 18 months in power until they're proposals become that drastic 😉
I don't think anyone's actually seriously comparing the actions of Tory Thinktanks to that of the Third Reich
Well, yes they were, they specifically compared the policy to a 'watered down version of the Final Solution'.
I don't know any other historical moments that are also referred to as 'The Final Solution' other than the Holocaust.
Do you?
So I guess we should just give up on that one and think of another way of funding building new council houses.
whilst the intentions sound plausible, I can't help but think that it's sugar-coating for another simplistic money-rules-all Tory ideal.
what I like about London (especially North and Central London) is that there is a broad and diverse mix of people. what I don't like is that the councils don't maintain their social housing to a good enough standard, which can be upsetting for occupiers of privately owned homes in close proximity.
So I guess we should just give up on that one and think of another way of funding building new council houses.
Like maybe take advantage of the lowest borrowing costs in history to fund capital projects?
I think you'll find, according to this lot, that's tantamount to Communism. There is no Plan B remember, as Gideon never tires of reminding us. Though I've not heard him utter the phrase 'we're all in this together' recently, which was another popular mantra of his and Dave's a couple of years back
Like maybe take advantage of the lowest borrowing costs in history to borrow even more billions than we already owe and can't pay back to fund capital [s]projects[/s] white elephants that will never make a profit let alone break even?
Sorry but that comment and others along the 'ethnic cleansing' line are among the most offensive things I've read on STW.
You've obviously led a very sheltered life, I suggest you avoid the internet, you will find all sorts of things on it you might not agree with.....
Same tory ideology that shattered communities in the 1980s. Some things never change and putting profit first whatever the cost to 'little' people is a cornerstone of all conservatives.
Same tory ideology that shattered communities in the 1980s. Some things never change and putting profit first whatever the cost to 'little' people is a cornerstone of all conservatives.
"Selling top homes when they become vacant would raise £4.5bn a year, enough to build 80,000 to 170,000 new social homes, providing building jobs... About 3.5% of the total stock becomes vacant every year owing to people moving out or dying"
So were looking at selling 3.5% of council houses per year and building more with the profits. How many per area is that? 2/3 houses per estate?
Is it wrong if the same number of tenants buy their houses?
Knowing what the Tories are like, and bearing in mind that this:
[i]selling 3.5% of council houses per year and building more with the profits[/i]
is only a proposal at this point, who's putting money on, [i]when[/i] it becomes a policy, them doing the first bit, but then conveniently forgetting the second part?
