BOB CROWE

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)

Eloethan given that he's lived at a subsidised rate he may possibly have managed to save a hefty deposit 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?

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.

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 ) 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

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 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.

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

www.insidehousing.co.uk/tempting-target/6514372.blog

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/bob-crow-i-have-no-moral-duty-to-move-out-of-council-house-despite-receiving-sixfigure-salary-as-rmt-boss-8964238.html

I do like his last comment

Hmmmm, a challenge

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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!

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