BOB CROWE

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?

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 !!

bluebell

No green eye here.

Nonu
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)

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 ....

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.

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

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

Thought we were talking about bob Crowe anyway !

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

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.

Grace probably !!!

laugh x

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!

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.

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.

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.

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

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.