BOB CROWE

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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!

Grace probably !!!

laugh x

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.

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

Thought we were talking about bob Crowe anyway !

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

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

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.

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 ....

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)

bluebell

No green eye here.

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 !!

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?

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 ?

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?

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

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.

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?

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.

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 !!