BOB CROWE

'Motivated solely by greed' eh sel!

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

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!

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

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

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

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.

Oy' bluebell! Know your place!

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 trains...at least that is not his fault but the fault of the management! or can you swing that one at him too?