BOB CROWE

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

Hmmmm, a challenge

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

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

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

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.

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...

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

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.

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?

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)

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 !!

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.

bluebell

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?

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.

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

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?

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 ?