dessiato
🇪🇸 my spirit is crying for leaving
Fun for you, not me!It doesn't, because even when he's broke, we can still rely on him to have slapstick "near-misses" with death as he bumbles from one accident to another.
Give up Bingo and Booze if your Benefit is being cut!
- Thread starter ElizabethofYork
- Start date
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
it's one of those tea on screen momentsIt doesn't, because even when he's broke, we can still rely on him to have slapstick "near-misses" with death as he bumbles from one accident to another.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Fun for the whole world except you, dess. Surely you can see that your sacrifice is for the greater good?
kenny g
Sheeple Awake!
barney_pig
Po-cha-na-quar-hip
Just round the corner is a small close of HA houses, oitside one is always parked a brand new BMW and a sports car, once it was a lambourghini, but recently this has been replaced by a succession of arbarth models. The husband is a senior partner in a car dealership and I wondered why they had a HA property until I discovered that the wife had worked briefly for the HA, long enough to ensure they were allocated a house. Housing associations are as corrupt as hell.
SikhWarrioR
And the Worms ate into his brain
The are making enough money to buy and run expensive cars they should be thrown out and the property allocated to someone a lot more deserving
audiotech
wav, aiff, mp3, ogg, flac
I've a document in my possession that a tenant board member of one HA passed my way some years ago and it makes for very interesting reading indeed and was featured in Inside Housing. Another HA was implicated in financial shenanigans that saw one of the directors leave with a handy £60,000 payoff, whilst the poor sods on the front-line had to all re-apply for their posts, with some not being successful.
The are making enough money to buy and run expensive cars they should be thrown out and the property allocated to someone a lot more deserving
No, no, no - Council estates were originally built with the intention of housing people of different income levels, they were never intended as ghettoes for the very poorest or "most deserving" - Now there's a piece of rhetoric right there that you've swallowed whole & regurgitated. The fact that there's now not enough social housing to go round isn't because council estates are over run with college principals and the like, it's due to the fact that too many of them have been sold off or demolished. Council housing isn't a diminishing resource in the same way that, say, oil is - Just stop selling off estates and build some more - Problem solved.
Start introducing market rents into social housing and you might as well throw in the towel. Indeed, I'd go further than that and question the validity of the very concept of "market rents" - There's no way such a fundamental need as a roof over one's head should be left to the lunacies of some nonsensical concept as "the housing market".
E2a - Otherwise what we'll be left with is something akin to the US projects - Deliberately created ghettoes.
scifisam
feck! arse! girls! drink!
The "market rents" on the properties in my local paper are the same as actual rents in private properties on the same estates. They took 80% of similarly-sized properties in the borough, but unfurnished ex-council flats with very basic decoration, bathrooms, etc, on estates and in dodgy-looking tower blocks in Poplar do not rent for the same as a warehouse conversion with an enormous living room, granite worktops and modern bathrooms in Hoxton.
By not comparing like-for-like, they're actually charging the same as full private rent.
True, mines gone up from £56pw to £62pw in two years. People might well think that's still a low rent but as a percentage increase it's quite high.
I don't know how to work out percentages
According to my ropey maths, that's nearly a 10% increase.True, mines gone up from £56pw to £62pw in two years. People might well think that's still a low rent but as a percentage increase it's quite high.
I don't know how to work out percentages
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
I've been preaching about residualisation for the last 25 years, but even now people don't take it seriously - even though it's so much more blatant than it was 25 years ago. Back then people never thought that RtB would bite as big a chunk out of local authority social housing as it did (nigh on 50% UK-wide now, already over 60% in Greater London, IIRC, with some estates in "good" areas almost entirely council tenant-free), and they believed Thatcher's bullshit about social housing continuing to be built by HAs via the Housing Corporation and its' system of grants. Those grants became very thin on the ground very quickly, and HA developments haven't and won't ever even dent the increased need per annum, let alone actually make inroads into the "waiting lists" of local authorities.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
no one likes a preacher
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Just over.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Wrong, everyone who hadn't sold their soul to Kenny Rogers liked Johnny Cash!
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
audiotech
wav, aiff, mp3, ogg, flac
People are always going to put the essentials first - food, water, heating, keeping a roof over their head - you self-deluded fool.
dessiato
🇪🇸 my spirit is crying for leaving
Perhaps if you read my post in context you will understand what I was saying. Or maybe not,
ymu
Niall Ferguson's deep-cover sock-puppet
Perhaps if you read and comprehended the thread, you'd understand why you caused offence?
Ax^
Silly Rabbit
audiotech
wav, aiff, mp3, ogg, flac
Perhaps if you fucked off then I wouldn't have to read anymore of your drivel.
dessiato
🇪🇸 my spirit is crying for leaving
I have read the thread. Where is the offence? All I've done is state something that I do, and what I expect other people do. I'm certain that people do cut back on their "luxuries" just as I do. Which seems to be the same as audiotech is saying, but is offended by my saying it.
eta: and when I say it he now refers to it as drivel!
scifisam
feck! arse! girls! drink!
It's just that you seemed to be backing up the HA's leaflet.
Yes, cutting back on luxuries is sensible and is something most people do. But since most people do do it, giving that out as advice makes it sound like you think they're incompetent morons who hadn't considered cutting back on necessities.
It also assumes that these luxuries are the problem rather than simple lack of cash. It's like when some well-meaning soul asks suggests to someone with health problems that they should eat a healthy diet.
You weren't giving it as advice, but you were backing up this HA who did. And they're not here.
kenny g
Sheeple Awake!
Would love to know how rational and well considered giving children redbull for breakfast is when I buy a kilo of porridge from Aldi for 75p and it keeps me well fed until 1pm everyday for a week.
Similar threads
