Gransnet forums

Gransnet recommended reads


(93 Posts)
facebook button twitter button email this page print this page
BAnanas Tue 26-Nov-13 14:49:56

Much is written about the dire shortage of housing in London, Am I being unreasonable therefore in thinking Bob Crowe, who is on an annual salary of £145,000 should willingly move out of his house so it can be offered to a low income family. Allegedly The Evening Standard reports "Brother Bob" was born in a council house and wishes to die in one. What feeble reasoning! Surely wanting to hang on to a subsidised family home when he is in receipt of an income of the size quoted, and possibly there is a partner's salary on top of that is just plain bloody minded and selfish.

sunseeker Tue 26-Nov-13 14:53:52

I agree, I think there is a case for council housing to be limited to people whose combined income is below a certain level (not sure what that level should be though). if he doesn't want to buy a property then he is well able to rent privately leaving the house free for a low income family. Isn't this what council housing was originally meant to do.

annodomini Tue 26-Nov-13 15:06:21

I'm sure it could be arranged for him to die in a council house. grin

Ana Tue 26-Nov-13 15:15:03

anno! grin

janthea Tue 26-Nov-13 15:21:24

As he earns that sort of money, he should not be allowed to live in a council house when there are more deserving people on the waiting list. angry

anno grin

annodomini Tue 26-Nov-13 15:38:46

I wasn't actually advocating assassination!

Charleygirl Tue 26-Nov-13 16:26:14

Allegedly there are some ex Labour MPs in the same position. I know of one, FD, am I allowed to mention his full name here?

It is disgraceful that Bob C is allowed to stay in subsidised housing.

bluebell Tue 26-Nov-13 17:02:47

I would much prefer people like Bob Crowe etc to be in their own houses for political reasons really but we shouldn't conflate that with a much more complex discussion. First of all, council housing isn't subsidised , it's just that the private rented sector makes an obscene profit generally speaking. Public money through housing benefit goes to very wealthy property owners ( I'm talking about the big firms not the one off landlords). Secondly, the main reason that there is such a shortage of social housing is the right to buy and no subsequent proper sustainable building programme and thirdly, just think about the real difficulties of an income limit for living in a council house - one year you have a job and overtime, the next year, no overtime but by the you've been thrown onto the tender mercies of the private sector with limited security of tenure and high rents but the you claim housing benefit which goes to a property company and would never get back into council/social housing. Etc etc. I know a lot of people dislike BC - mainly because he's done really well for his members but I don't think a personal dislike of a union leader should stop people thinking through the complexities if the issues raised

Gally Tue 26-Nov-13 17:03:19

He is quoted as saying he is being 'victimised' shock. It's a very posh council house. Perhaps he could be down sized to more suitable council accommodation in a less salubrious area so one of 'is bruvvers could take advantage of leafy North London wink

Pentillie Tue 26-Nov-13 17:04:04

Just get him out and let a young family have the place. The man is a complete disgrace - Socialist? - he doesn't know what the word means!

sunseeker Tue 26-Nov-13 17:15:51

bluebell I have no problem with his politics (although I do disagree with him) but if this was the managing director of a company living in social housing BC would be one of the first to demand he be put out. I'm afraid a lot of union leaders (not all) have become like politicians - out to line their own pockets.

FlicketyB Tue 26-Nov-13 17:31:13

There is no greater hypocrite than a Union leader on a whopping great salary, parading his working class credentials - council house and only ever dining out Union expenses.

BAnanas Tue 26-Nov-13 18:01:23

The issue is simple, should someone on £145,000 per year, possibly more, occupy social housing when they could afford to buy or privately rent and thereby allow someone who does not have those options to occupy that property?

Bob Crowe, may have done well for his members, particularly when demanding extra money for working their normal shifts during the Olympics. However, he has a complete disregard for the general commuting public, some I have spoken to would like to string him up "Mussolini" style form a lamp post and possibly understandably as they already suffer from being stuffed sardine like in over packed trains. I know someone who does a 40 minute commute into London and her annual season ticket is in the region of £4,000 per annum, which rises year on year above the rate of inflation. Many hapless commuters pay this sort of money 'cause unlike Mr Crowe, they don't have a London pad which they could possibly afford!

POGS Tue 26-Nov-13 21:25:03

I bet he is so glad he is not a Tory MP or else he would be hounded out of his home.

Perhaps 'Unite' could send their 'hit squad' to his home and show him the error of his ways. Hypocrite, you bet ya. How do people like Bob Crow stand on a platform at the various conferences etc., and be hailed as Heroes of the Working Classes and a true Socialist. confused

Nanban Tue 26-Nov-13 21:36:13

The man is obviously a very limited thinker with no ambition. He began life in a council house, can't see beyond that, and lacks any urge to improve his situation.

He is also a total hypocrite because he could go live in any other council house in any deprived area, as per his alleged principles rather than living on the cheap in a prestigious area.

Added to which he has an arrogant disregard for all those deserving people whose lives would be changed for the better by the opportunity to live in that house.

Finally, no doubt he will take advantage of the discount scheme and buy said council house, and maybe rent it out at an extortionate rate.

penguinpaperback Tue 26-Nov-13 22:07:24

Yes I agree Bob Crowe is a loud hypocrite who bends his principles to suit his needs. I have no doubt if he had right wing tendencies a crowd would certainly have protested outside his front door.Thank goodness his comrade Arthur Scargill is finally paying rent for his union flat in London. The NUM were already paying the mortgage for his house in Yorkshire. With only 2,000 members now each member of the NUM were giving £20 a year for the retired Mr Scargill to live free in the heart of London.
It's a shame when good honest workers find themselves led by leaders who once elected follow their own agenda.

Eloethan Tue 26-Nov-13 22:19:33

Before having a go at Bob Crowe, I think something should be done about people with council tenancies who sub-let at extortionate rates (particularly in London) and live in cheaper areas, thus making a nice profit and depriving people who need it the chance to obtain social housing.

It's no more hypocritical of BC to live in a council house than it is for IDS to live in a large, expensive house courtesy of his father-in-law at the same time as introducing policies that make it impossible for some people to remain in their homes.

Ana Tue 26-Nov-13 22:27:47

Can't we have a go at all of them?

I certainly wouldn't let Bob Crowe off the hook just because others are exploiting the system/taking advantage of their position/behaving hypocritically, regardless of their political allegiance.

Penstemmon Tue 26-Nov-13 22:44:06

On the surface it looks as if BC is not walking the talk! Council/social housing is aimed at those who would find it difficult or impossible to raise a deposit to purchase a property through a mortgage or to afford high private rental. I have to agree it does not look good but guess he is damned either way.

I bet many who have slated him for living in a council property would say something similar if he lived in a privately owned house ... 'call himself a man of the people living in a house like that' I can just hear it!

Also to the poster who talked about crowded least that is not his fault but the fault of the management! or can you swing that one at him too?

FlicketyB Wed 27-Nov-13 07:22:28

Surely we should expect those that claim to represent those who are disadvantaged - assuming union members are disadvantaged, to live relatively modest lives. I do not mean average wage and council house. But £145,000 seems a lot. I would expect a salary nearer to £100,000 and at that price I would expect them to be buying or renting a home in the private sector. If their previous work meant their own home was a long way from London I can understand them being provide with a pied a terre in London, say a small one bedroomed flat in a modest area

Bob Crowe has been associated with accusations of lavish wining and dining, perhaps I should say beering and dining on Union expenses.

LizG Wed 27-Nov-13 07:53:01

I can't understand why he would want to stay in a council house. My sister was in dire straits many years ago and was given a maisonette. Her main aim was to get herself and her children into a place of their own and she succeeded. My DD is in rented accommodation (subsidised) but unfortunately the way the system is now worked she will never be able to buy a place of her own because she would be penalised for saving towards a deposit.

Yes, I think Bob Crowe should be kicked out of the council house to give others a chance when they need it most.

whenim64 Wed 27-Nov-13 08:43:32

I read a lot about Bob Crowe yesterday. He is quoted as saying he has had the opportunity to buy his council house, but does not believe in this practice. I don't think he can do right for doing wrong, as if he buys a house elsewhere he'll be criticised for that, too. We had a thread discussing the bedroom tax, and many supported the right of tenants to keep the homes where they raised their families and had put down roots in the community, with schools, friends, work and neighbours.

Yes, he gets an inflated salary - that should be reviewed and not increased, in line with everyone else who is feeling the pinch. But this is the man's, and his family's, home.

Riverwalk Wed 27-Nov-13 08:50:52

Presumably he's been on a large salary for many years, therefore could have afforded to buy on the open market and not be living in a house which was intended for people on low incomes.

Charleygirl Wed 27-Nov-13 09:02:03

He also gets free transport which is worth a fortune in London. I am not sure if he has a car and driver as part of his job.

I would not care what size of house he bought provided he could maintain it without any outside help. If I can on my pension, he could on his inflated salary.

whenim64 Wed 27-Nov-13 09:11:09

Seems this was the house he and his wife were allocated 30 years ago, when he was in his early 20s and on a low income. They have raised their family there, and do not intend to move away from their friends and neighbours, but don't believe in buying council homes so pay full rent. It's the family home. All they want is to exercise their choice to stay in their home, as do we.

If it's good for the royals, ok for MPs to live where they choose, and ok for me to stay in my house with spare bedroom............

Why are people being attacked for putting down roots and staying in the community where they raised their families? There's a lack of housing, but you don't solve it by forcing people out of their homes. All Bob Crowe's situation does is highlight what damage Thatcher did by allowing council homes to be sold but not letting us keep the profits to build more social housing.

LizG Wed 27-Nov-13 09:20:40

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?

petallus Wed 27-Nov-13 09:26:59

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.

whenim64 Wed 27-Nov-13 09:27:56

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.

Elegran Wed 27-Nov-13 09:35:43

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.

Grannylin Wed 27-Nov-13 10:00:03

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.

Anniebach Wed 27-Nov-13 10:25:00

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

Nanban Wed 27-Nov-13 10:32:58

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.

whenim64 Wed 27-Nov-13 10:44:06

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

Elegran Wed 27-Nov-13 11:38:40

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.

whenim64 Wed 27-Nov-13 11:56:12

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.

bluebell Wed 27-Nov-13 12:10:34

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

whenim64 Wed 27-Nov-13 12:18:33

Oy' bluebell! Know your place! grin

Sel Wed 27-Nov-13 12:31:07

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.

whenim64 Wed 27-Nov-13 12:44:36

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

bluebell Wed 27-Nov-13 13:37:30

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

bluebell Wed 27-Nov-13 13:38:21

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

bluebell Wed 27-Nov-13 13:39:55

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!

petallus Wed 27-Nov-13 13:45:42

'Motivated solely by greed' eh sel! grin

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

bluebell Wed 27-Nov-13 13:50:54

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

whenim64 Wed 27-Nov-13 14:05:42

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! grin

gillybob Wed 27-Nov-13 14:12:49

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 !


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.

whenim64 Wed 27-Nov-13 14:37:07

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.

gillybob Wed 27-Nov-13 14:57:06

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.

gracesmum Wed 27-Nov-13 15:02:29

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.

bluebell Wed 27-Nov-13 16:01:14

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.

Elegran Wed 27-Nov-13 16:16:36

The key to whether it is a subsidised rent if people are paying the stated amount is whether that is/would be enough to cover admin/maintenance costs.

POGS Wed 27-Nov-13 16:24:49

Sorry I don't understand why the likes of Bob Crow are defended.

He espouses socialism but his type of socialism is an art form of do as I say not do as I do.

On any other day if the question was asked 'Do you agree that anyone earning over £100,000 should live in a council house the answer would probably be a definite no'. I think this was a point mentioned on a Jimmy Saville thread once? He too had a council flat, I guess being a millionaire and having a council flat is no problem to some, well I'm sorry it is to me and I am not a socialist. We obviously do not share the same concept of what social housing should be used for, certainly not for the wealthy in my opinion.

No, he is not doing anything wrong I grant you. M.P's are not doing anything wrong to claim for bars of soap or tooth paste but they are being shallow and quite rightly get a bad press, and many of them don't earn as much as Bob Crow.

whenim64 Wed 27-Nov-13 16:57:46

I think there's quite some difference between Crowe and his family's home and the likes of Savile who had several homes and was a multi-millionaire. People should be allowed to exercise choice about staying in their family home, where they've put down roots in their neighbourhood and community. Savile had no interest in his community when he had a council pent-house flat at the top of a Salford tower block, and I gather he had something similar in Leeds later on. Together with his cottage in Scotland, grace and favour rooms in various hospitals, and other properties, the two don't compare.

bluebell Wed 27-Nov-13 16:59:41

Pogs - give me some credible ( ie. not Daily Mail) examples of BC saying one thing and doing another - just asking as you know so much about him

Sel Wed 27-Nov-13 17:04:06

when according to a Google search, BC has only lived in this house since 2000 (?) and lives there with his partner. It sort of sounds a little different to that 'born and raised our family here' scenario you paint with family roots etc. Can you really believe this is right depriving a needy family of a house when he is quite capable of paying market rent or indeed buying a property. I am sorry but I just don't understand how this can be justified.

Sel Wed 27-Nov-13 17:07:39

Elegran surely the key is does the rent he is paying equate to the open market rent for a three bedroom house in that area. Otherwise it is a subsidised rent, subsidised by the taxpayer. I for one am not happy to subsidise Mr. Crow.

whenim64 Wed 27-Nov-13 17:11:34

Several articles I read reported him talking about living in his council house for 30 years, having the opportunity to buy it and refusing.

whenim64 Wed 27-Nov-13 17:14:29

Here's one quote Sel.

Daily Mail, reporting the recent interview.

‘Why is it just down to me to buy a house? Why should my family who have lived there for 30 years, with all the friends they’ve got, have to move because of the job I’ve got?’ The RMT leader suggested that if he did move he would be seen as having deserted his working class roots.
‘If I moved out of my house tomorrow the first thing you’d say is Comrade Crow leaves his roots,’ he said.

Sel Wed 27-Nov-13 17:16:04

When I just Googled it and the house looked pretty new, most certainly not 30 years old. I'd Google a bit more but smile

Sel Wed 27-Nov-13 17:16:38

Hmmmm, a challenge grin

Sel Wed 27-Nov-13 17:19:48
Ana Wed 27-Nov-13 17:23:08

This 2011 article states that he moved into his council house 10 years previously...

Elegran Wed 27-Nov-13 17:55:17

Sel Private lets cover the cost of maintenance and admin plus a markup as an income for the owner. Local authority lets do not aim for a mark-up.

If he is covering the costs of his council house, then he may be getting at cost price without adding markup and profit, but that is not the same as being subsidised.

You may argue that councils have a duty to get the extra as income, that would be fair enough, and the capital cost of housebuilding may not be allowed for in the sums (I don't know whether it is or not) but if what he pays covers the cost of what he gets, that is not strictly speaking subsidised.

For you to be subsidising him, money has to go from you toward making uo the difference between the cost of what he gets and what he pays for it. People on housing benefit are subsidised, people paying full rent are not.

We went round this whole circle about council rents being subsidised a few months ago.

Bach Wed 27-Nov-13 17:55:36

BUT theres been a long time since Thachers Government and the problem could have been rectified in the mean time - There all the same , there all to blame.

When there was a housing shortage in WW2 they built the prefabs. That action helped to solve the problem then...

Sel Wed 27-Nov-13 18:14:00

Elegran I don't dispute what you say re private/LA housing but you don't address the reason for, OK, I won't say 'subsidised' rather 'not for profit' housing. It is to help those who need help, not to provide a house of choice for someone earning £150k a year. (I've upped his earnings to take account of his free travel smile) Maybe his partner just attends to his needs and doesn't work but if she does, then their combined income may approach £200k p.a. I have no idea.

Some London Boroughs are I understand, introducing a break clause at 5 yrs - 'you were given this scarce council house because you were in need 5 years ago....what are your earnings now?' So those who have managed to move up make way for those in need. There is such pressure on housing in London, I don't see this as wrong

Eloethan Wed 27-Nov-13 18:16:44

Why should Bob Crowe be pushed out of his home?

£145,000 is a lot of money to most people but it's chickenfeed when compared to the salaries of high flyers in London and, at his age, it's probably far less than would be required to privately purchase a comparable house in the same area.

That leaves him with the option of buying his council house at a discounted price. BC does not agree with the sale of council housing, though with a substantial discount he would probably get a very good deal and make a tidy profit. I see his stance as a principled one but of course he's a union leader and therefore fair game for the tabloid press.

Sel Wed 27-Nov-13 18:36:02

Eloethan given that he's lived at a subsidised rate he may possibly have managed to save a hefty deposit confused Do you really think he should benefit from a council house? How would you explain that to the hundreds of thousands on waiting lists earning a fraction of his salary in desperate need of a 3 bed semi in a London Borough?

Elegran Wed 27-Nov-13 18:41:34

I don't think anyone will be persuaded out of their opinions about who should get Local Authority Housing and for how long, and how they should be funded. It is a little bit like the position of Local Authority schools vs private schooling. Where state schools are good, most people use them. In countries where state schooling is the norm, there is no question of people feeling that their taxes are subsidising educating other people's children while at the same time their income goes on educating their own.

I believe that in the Soviet Union, housing was a state thing, no choice, you got allocated a home and you liked it or lumped it, unless you were a cabinet minister with a dacha. Perhaps they objected less about where their money went when everyone was in the same leaky boat (but I doubt it)

Nonu Wed 27-Nov-13 18:50:46

Probably the 1st Mrs bob crowe , got fed up to the back teeth with the fat old big mouthed lard A--e.
So truth be told he has not lived in the house as a "Family Home" for dah ,dah , years . All a load of b--- s--t

Such a shame folk fall for it !!

Sel Wed 27-Nov-13 19:14:07

elegran fully agree. It's all about money and as taxpayers, who do we think can manage our contributions to the pot in the best way and not syphon off a percentage for themselves.
In the same way bluebell lamented her plight; as a left wing person why shouldn't she enjoy fine wine, turning left on entering planes etc I feel her pain - why should everyone right of centre equally be castigated for aiming for those heights. As long as we all pay for ourselves and help those who can't pay, it's fair. What rankles is people taking advantage and to me that's BC.

POGS Wed 27-Nov-13 19:48:26


I will go one further than Bob Crow, now you have made a direct contact with me.

I listened this year to the Labour Conference and watched bits of the Trade Union Conference, I have other years as well, courtesy of Freeview TV. I watched the other 2 party conferences also but this OP is about Bob Crow that is why I am making my point on the OP.

I will not be dissuaded by sarcasm about my thoughts of hypocrisy and shallow rhetoric from a lot of institutions such as the Unions and their Leaders. As with most of the left the use of Class Warfare is used to try and make out they are 'Of The People' 'For The Working Class Man' yet they are just as bad as the rest and the public know it.

I am taking it from your posts you have no problem with high wage earners etc. living in Social Housing. Well we will have to disagree on that point but there is an irony that I am not a socialist, neither a champagne or working class socialist. Mind you I have never understood the concept of a champagne socialist, how does that work without labelling them the ultimate hypocrite?

Elegran Wed 27-Nov-13 20:09:56

It works by more sarcasm, pogs A champagne socialist is the ultimate hypocrite, and they only get the title from people who regard them as just that.

Ana Wed 27-Nov-13 20:23:02

Eh...? So they are hypocrites, but only because other people regard them as such? hmm

Deedaa Wed 27-Nov-13 20:36:45

I'm sure that my daughter and her husband who live in a one and a half bedroomed flat with their two children, and my son and his girlfriend who share a one bedroomed flat with their baby will be delighted that Bob Crowe and his family are enjoying their home!
Didn't we have the same sort of thing with Arthur Scargill? And then of course there's always the Blairs! I see they've just bought another house for one of their children. A mere million and a half wasn't it? How many homeless families could be housed for that money?

bluebell Wed 27-Nov-13 20:38:18

What complete and utter tosh - how is being a socialist who enjoys the good things in life being hypocritical. If you want to ban people from the good things whilst enjoying them yourself, then that is hypocritical but I don't know where in socialism life is meant to be all sack cloth and ashes . Charles is hypocritical for example with his green credentials - preaching environmental concerns whilst driving gas guzzlers - remember when he shipped out his car to join him on an overseas trip? And how many houses does he keep heated during the year ?

bluebell Wed 27-Nov-13 20:41:16

The Scargill story was nothing to do with Social
Housing - it was an NUM flat. And much as I detest Blsir, can someone tell me why he shouldn't buy houses for his children and anyway, he was never a socialist! Goodness we are scraping the bottom of the barrel now aren't we - bit of the green eye?

Nonu Wed 27-Nov-13 20:50:52

I was under the impression that solicisam meant one for all all for one , not some greedy so & so "S putting their fat snout in the trough , and grabbing all they can at the expense of others !!!!!
Shows how much needs to be said !!sad

POGS Wed 27-Nov-13 20:55:01


No green eye here. confused

bluebell Wed 27-Nov-13 20:56:43

Nonu confused
And another example of hypocrisy - Thatcher preaching about relying on yourself and succeeding on your own merit and then putting all sorts of lucrative and shady contracts Mark's way ( from her middle eastern connections)

bluebell Wed 27-Nov-13 20:58:27

Oh I see Nonu you are talking about the bsnkers again and all those wonderful businesses like Amazon and Vodafone that don't pay their taxes ....

Aka Wed 27-Nov-13 21:01:05

To return to the OP. It makes a mockery of the origins of social housing that anyone earning a substantial amount should be cluttering up the council waiting lists. Where the cut off line ought to be is another discussion, but £145,000 is clearly too much.

Nonu Wed 27-Nov-13 21:15:40

whatever , bluebell I am sure you are correct .
Still as I said earlier, lot more to be said about "Pigs & troughs "!!

Nonu Wed 27-Nov-13 21:17:58

I was not aware that Amazon & vodaphone did not pay taxes !!

Nonu Wed 27-Nov-13 21:19:08

Thought we were talking about bob Crowe anyway !

whenim64 Wed 27-Nov-13 21:38:37

Well, that's that WAS an interesting debate now turned silly. Perhaps next time hmm

gracesmum Thu 28-Nov-13 11:41:20

Did you mean socialism Nonu not solecism???
Re taxes - it's not just Starbucks who manage to exploit tax loopholes as I think they were saying on You and Yours the other day.

Nonu Thu 28-Nov-13 11:52:58

Grace probably !!!

laugh x

Reddevil3 Thu 28-Nov-13 15:12:43

I lived in France in the 70's. Apparently in order to qualify for their equivalent of a council property, every centime of the household income was taken into account and only those with low incomes qualified.
That was over 40 years ago. What makes it so difficult for the UK to implement a similar system? In those days, computers were very much in their infancy- so if the French could organise it then, it should be a doddle nowadays!

FlicketyB Thu 28-Nov-13 22:22:43

Until the 1970s there was a similar system in place Britain. To get a council house you had to have a job and a good record of rent paying in your existing accommodation as well as building up points based on the inadequacy of your current housing, family size, and I am pretty sure, inability to afford to improve your housing situation yourself. But then in the 1970s the qualifications for council housing was changed to being based on need alone, without any checks on whether you would be a responsible tenant.

There was a very interesting programme on television about a year ago looking at the history and development of council housing from both the building and tenanting aspects. It explained a lot.

Deedaa Fri 29-Nov-13 23:44:25

No reason why any one shouldn't buy houses for their children if they can afford them, We have helped our two as far as we can. It's just that I have always believed in From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs, and I still fail to see why the Blais NEED millions of pound's worth of houses. There can't have been a leader of the Labour party who was more out of touch with ordinary workers.

FlicketyB Sat 30-Nov-13 20:01:42

They don't NEED them, they can just afford them. I suspect the reason Cherie Blair owns her children's houses is to ensure that if they end up in relationships/marriages that break up the non-Blair partner can not claim a share of the value of the house as part of any separation/divorce settlement.

Drummerman Sun 01-Dec-13 15:23:59

I suppose the council should have put legislation in place some time ago, that council houses should be for people of limited means.

absent Sun 01-Dec-13 18:04:30

What seems to be overlooked in debates about this – not just in some of the posts here but elsewhere too – is that council houses and flats, unlike various benefits, are not just to do with money. These places are people's homes not just boxes for living in.

Add your message here

To post you need a valid nickname and password. Log in if you are a returning member, or join for free.

If you have forgotten your nickname or your password, you can get a reminder.