Child poverty would reach a record high in 2023-24 under the Tories

I maintain that seventy five percent of those purchased on my estate were bought by Labour voters.

All you have to do is provide the research statistics to prove that. Otherwise, it could well be a scurrilous lie couldn't it?

But as we are learning the making or spreading scandalous claims about someone or a group with the intention of damaging their reputation, is commonplace among the Tories.

I'm missing something. Why on earth should people who vote(d) Labour deliberately miss out on a good deal for them?

I doubt if they provide complete outfits of clothing for the children who participate GG13. You do understand don't you that people in poverty often have children who are poorly dressed all. the time. It isn't just waterproofs they require.
Pantglas2 It wasn't the fault of the people who bought their houses that none of the money they paid was used to restock the supply of houses. That can be placed firmly at the door of the Tory party who have never believed in local authority housing.

No reason growstuff.

But thinking up a statistic and throwing it into the conversation can be scurrilous and in this case, we have no proof it isn't/

Mostly anecdotes, not facts I fear.

Who finances the clothing and equipment for poor children on the DoE in your area? I'm fairly sure it doesn't happen here. Have the schools decided to use some of their pupil premium money to support children doing the DoE? Or is some other charity involved?

Well … err … exactly GracesGran. In any case, I can't see why it matters. I don't suppose the people who bought council houses envisaged the devastating effect it would have in the future.

If they'd not taken up the opportunity because they were "Labour voters", they'd probably have been accused of virtue signalling and being stupid/irresponsible for not taking the chance they were being offered on a plate. It's perverse logic!

The scheme here is run out of the youth club (yes it's still open) independent of the school and takes children from several local senior schools.

I believe their is a fund from D of E scheme itself to help those children who are unable to pay.

Most people on the estate had lived there since it was built in the early fifties and were given huge discounts. It was patently obvious to me at a very young age that if you sold off houses at a third of the market value you couldn’t then rebuild another for the money you got!

I can’t see why anyone is defending a Tory policy which disadvantaged future generations so much! Isn’t this part of what this thread is about?

Well … err … exactly GracesGran. In any case, I can't see why it matters. I don't suppose the people who bought council houses envisaged the devastating effect it would have in the future.

I'm sure they didn't and I don't suppose for one moment any of them did it from a "Tory" point of view or a "Labour" point of view. They were being told by the Tory leader, who was treated by some as the second coming, that it was a good thing to do. In those days we didn't think of Tory leaders as the sort of people who deliberately mislead and tell outright lies so I don't suppose they thought this could be as much of a problem as it was a virtue.

Who is defending the tory policy of selling council houses, Pantglas?

Granny Gravy, I agree on both the points you raised. There must be adequate policing of public open spaces such as playing fields.

Unmarried young mothers may have found a way to live meaningful lives by becoming mothers. True, we need to improve contraception services; we also need to support these young mothers and their children.

All the Labour supporters who bought them ... obviously!

I expect the tories to defend it but it astonishes me that Labour supporters put aside their wish for all to have affordable rented homes (which council houses were) so that they could ‘have a good deal for them’. So that’s ok is it? No, not in my book it isn’t.

Are they posting to defend it on here, Pantglas?

it astonishes me that Labour supporters put aside their wish for all to have affordable rented homes (which council houses were) so that they could ‘have a good deal for them’.

You know, giving the stunning ignorance of many voters as to what policies the party they vote for actually have, let alone what policies the opposing parties have, I suspect that many of the Labour voters who bought their council houses even realised that the tories weren't going to let the councils build any more.

Bully for you to realise that it didn't add up, but a lot of people didn't.

Pantglas2 as you are so interested and keen on the Tory party selling off council housing (no matter who bought them) can you explain why the money wasn't made available to build more housing? After all had it been so, we would now have a good supply of affordable housing, a lot of house owners who started off buying council houses, councils with a decent income stream and public money (housing benefit) remaining in the public sector (councils) and not being syphoned off into private landlords. (oh hang on I think I just answered my own question!)

I am not, and never was, keen on the Tory party selling off council stock and if you reread carefully any of my posts on the subject, you will see that.

I believe it was despicable- people benefitting from discounts which pretty soon would disadvantage the next generation and whilst I would expect tories to think that was ok, why would Labour supporters think it was a good thing?

Thatcher was clever, she knew the way to a socialists heart was through his pocket - and so it proved! They fell like dominoes and now they bemoan the lack of affordable housing stock for their children and grandchildren. It genuinely breaks my heart for all that can’t afford to buy.

Pantglas2 The shortage is NOT caused by the sale of council housing. Even if no houses had been sold the majority would still be occupied by the people who were tenants when the properies came up for sale, few would have moved on because they simply couldn't have afforded to buy. The shortage of housing would still be there. If the population increases you need to build more houses.

I can only go by what I saw in my first 25 years on that estate trisher, and I imagine it was replicated across the country.

I saw young people get engaged and move into council houses then after a few years they would move out to 2up-2down terrace houses locally that they’d bought, this freed up the council house for the next young couple to do the same.

Of course older people would have stayed in their homes and never bought, but when they died the house went back into housing stock. The system worked well, until the 80s and thatchers ‘right to buy’.

Even if councils had been allowed to spend the money they gained from selling at huge discounts, they could only afford to have built a third to a half of the stock they’d lost.

Opal, you have no compassion or understanding of the problem, its a case of tar every one with the same brush.

I was a single mother bringing up 2 children and not through any fault of mine. Husband just we off with a younger model. I struggled believe me I struggled but I had one thing in my favour I did not come from a deprived family and knew how to cook, budget an sew.

If you are not taught family skills and know what normal family life is like how can you pass on skills to bring up a family. As for the odd tattoo, cigarette etc. its a luxury they can't afford but what other luxuries do they have, no holidays or loads of new clothes. You need some luxuries in life, however small.

Also I have worked in a food bank, giving basic cookery lessons and these classes were well attended and appreciated but it should be at least taught in school.

Yes the state should help those in need for whatever reason and I don't object to any of my tax going on it. After all a single person receives £76 a week to live on whilst MP's can claim for meals and living expenses totalling hundreds per week. I know where I would prefer my money to go.

Ug I’m still waiting...