BOB CROWE

How many needy people are on the housing list around where he lives? How much does he pay for his home, standard rent or something which reflects his income and the cost of owning/renting in London?

Yes yes yes when

I usually find myself on the side of unions and their leaders seeing unions as the only hope working class people have of holding their own against exploitation.

Bob Crowe deserves his salary. He has to cope with powerful ruthless wealthy people and constant demonising by our right wing press.

It's interesting to see how the spotlight has shifted after the recent attention given to non-working families on housing benefit living in affluent areas. Our (well not chosen by me, but I take equal responsibility) government is doing a fine job of dividing those of us with no power, and whilst we're all debating and judging the haves and have-nots in our own communities, the real fat cats are creaming billions into their coffers.

We have been round this whole subject of prople not being allowed to rent homes from local authorities if they earn good incomes, not once but at least twice to my memory, and it caused some pretty bitter posts on those threads.

LAs should been allowed to use the money gained from selling council houses, at fair prices (but not if they were ridiculously low ones) to build more. Then they could have been building more and more homes, with some rented and some owned, and using their skilled workers to provide decently built homes for those who wanted to own. The construction business creates work for a lot of trades.

At what point do you decide that someone's income is too high to live in a council house? As when says, it's his home, not just a house.

When the bedroom tax is discussed it is said why should those who have lived in their homes for years and brought up their families in that home have to leave. I think the same applies to Bob Crow, it's his family home, he pays the rent. I am against the numbers in the Windsor family we provide free housing for

I have just seen the rather nice detached 'council house' - well, they didn't do detached in my day! However, as long as he is paying the bedroom tax he can continue to live there - it's only the poorer tenants who don't earn £125,000 pa that have to move out.

If you look again, Nanban you'll see it's a not very big semi-detached.

We lived in a nice semi-detached council house for a while when I was in my teens, so they did nice semis at least. No reason why not - I don't suppose it costs a great deal more to build semis than terraces, or detached more than semis, and they can charge higher rents for them to make up for it. He won't be getting housing benefit if he is earning a large sum so will be paying all of the rent.

A couple of years ago, it was reported he was paying £150 a week. It might have risen slightly since then. I guess over the course of 30 years, paying the relevant amount of rent because he has been working all that time, he could have bought that house twice over.

BCs salary is nothing to do with anyone except the members of his union - I guess they don't find it inflated given the benefits he has won for them. And free travel in London - what's your point there? And I just don't get it why those with left of centre views are supposed to not have the finer things of life - as I've said before on GN I regularly drink champagne, fine wine and nearly always travel first class( business on planes) and why the hell not? I'm certainly not leaving the finer things of life (as I define them) to the right of centre and neither should BC

Oy' bluebell! Know your place!

You are missing the point Bluebell No one begrudges you your chosen lifestyle provided you have paid for it. BC is in receipt of a subsidy from the taxpayer and by doing so depriving a family in need of that subsidy. £150 a week for a house in London? I would imagine the open market rent would be more than double. Saying rents are too high in the private sector is rather pointless - we live in a free market economy with prices controlled by demand.

I agree BC has managed to secure high wages for his union members, higher and higher resulting in higher and higher fares for the working public. He has no problem calling strikes regardless of the impact they have on those struggling to get to work. He appears to be motivated solely by greed.

I don't think even Bob Crowe has the power to call a strike, Sel. It has to be decided by ballot.

Sel - there is NO subsidy from the tax payer whatever the Daily Mail says. High fares nothing to do with rail company profits then?

Would it have been ok if he had bought the house ?

When - everyone knows that Union leaders hold the country to ransom and call strikes whenever they want- I do wish you'd stop being so silly!

'Motivated solely by greed' eh sel!

I'm sitting here trying to think of a politician/big business person who isn't.

Can you explain what you actually mean by 'solely motivated by greed' Sel? Do you mean he is paid for doing a job? What a cynical view of the human race is being expressed here

RIGHT!!!! Everybody out! That's right - the whole country! C'mon, don't just sit there. Strike now and let's have the housing shortage sorted. As a (retired) union rep, I reserve the right to withdraw my labour!.........and everyone else's!

Oh yes Bob Crowe, the man who is proud of bringing London to a standstill and who is quoted as saying " he wouldnt care if there were a million strikes" also qouted as saying he thinks the strike culture in the 70's was great !

Idiot.

As for the council house he is living in, I couldn't care less. He is obvioulsy paying the rent in full and he is obvioulsy so deluded that he believes living there with his generous salary makes him a good socialist.

I don't think he can claim the credit for that, Gillybob. It was a democratically balloted decision to support strike action. He might think he's that powerful (I doubt it) but it takes a certain number of Union members/workers to make a decision to strike. He comes across as arrogant when he is quoted (or are those quotes accurate?) but no-one is that powerful.

I did not mean that he brought London to a standstill singlehanded when. I meant that he was proud of it. Perhaps should have said "proud of instigating the strike that brought London to a standstill"

Yes the quotes are accurate.

I think another argument is about what constitutes a "fair rent". £150 a week would not get you a flat in Milton Keynes, let alone London. DD and BF were paying £900 a month for a 1-bed flat in Hackney 2 years ago before they managed to buy a tiny 2 up 2 down Victorian terrace in Walthamstow. I am not advocating profiteering, but if councils can't charge an economic rent, then surely the rent is subsidised? If subsidised (and I would be the last to argue against subsidised social housingwhere needed) do tenants not have to meet certain criteria?
The principle of buying council houses at a subsidised price took a massive swathe of housing out of the letting market, these houses were subsequently sold on - frequently for massive profts and the councils not only didn't benefit, but future tenants were then forced back into the private sector. We seem to have sunk to a level where housing associations have taken over social housing where council housing left off and councils have lost out on the opportunity to be responsible landlords and to reinvest the income from their housing stock to provide more or other necessary services. The principle of owning or not property doesn't apply to a hell of a lot of families, the phrase "chance would be a fine thing" springs to mind.

Grace - I disagree. Subsidised rent means someone else is making up a shortfall. If the council charged an economic rent, it would mean that the profits would go into the councils revenue accounts and thus either a) reduce the council tax meaning council tenants, most of whom not on high wages would be subsidising all council tax payers some of whom will be very well off or b) the profits could go towards improved services which would mean again that council tenants would be paying an extra amount towards such services and thus, again, subsidising them.