Council houses owning brand new cars?

The world isn't fair. Not remotely. Never has been and never will be. It's utterly futile to believe it ever will be.

It seems to me completely clear that @Arraminta does understand and has applied occam's razor. Council house dwellers whom can luxury cars don't merit privilege over the really needy families...

Yes? Nobody disagrees. My viewpoint is that fairness would involve affordable housing for all.

it's not the individual involved - of course it's natural to protect your own interests - it is the system that should be structured in a just way.

Good for you I guess?

It's fine that you can't back your point up. No shame in admitting you didn't quite understand Occam's Razor. Or anything else. I don't believe you post in good faith anyway.

Oh Sweetie, I understand lots. And of course, the sickening thing for you is that I'm the private landlord (now ex) who can speak from a hugely privileged position. For all your righteous posturing, nothing you say here will change a single thing.

It's fine that you can't back your point up. No shame in admitting you didn't quite understand Occam's Razor. Or anything else. I don't believe you post in good faith anyway.

Ah I see that you still don't understand.

Beneficial for society. Not just the individual. Beneficial for the tenant, for their neighbours, for local schools and businesses.
I mean this thread is reaching the end and thankfully nobody will have to repeat, ad nauseum, that no social tenant with a valid tenancy has a moral obligation to vacate their property for an unfavourable option. Just like you have no obligation to give up your school place or your doctor's surgery place or even your job because somebody else doesn't have those things.

But I fear I'm wasting my time because you genuinely cannot comprehend this and constantly loop back to the start. Tiresome.

Well gosh, I don't really know for sure. Not absolutely, absolutely, definitely for certain, of course. But crickey, I'm somehow inclined to believe that sometimes, very occasionally, the tenant is cheerfully funding the snazzy car on their drive because they're perhaps, possibly paying a much reduced rent?

That could possibly, only possibly, explain the previously HA tenants, yes driving snazzy cars, who could suddenly, magically afford to rent our private rental. This was when our rental suddenly became hugely desirable when the catchment area for the local school changed. Miraculously, paying an extra £400-£500 month in rent was suddenly affordable for them?

But I'm, no doubt, completely wrong. And there would have been some other, perfectly plausible and terribly virtuous reason. Most certainly, I'm sure.

And that particular point of view has what to do with Occam's Razor?

Are you arguing that the presence of an expensive car in front of someone's house means they have hundreds of pounds spare each month?

And if you are, bizarrely, arguing that, again. How do you apply Occam's Razor?

the 2 just aren't comparable. "If you had to shoot your child or someone else's what would you do". In this instance, someone can afford a luxury car new iphones for their kids etc, they can afford to give up their subsidised accommodation to some family in need.. there is an essentially unlimited supply of education..

of course it's beneficial for them. Doesn't mean that it's morally right...

Try to imagine that it is the case. Then what would you do?

but that is not the case? I am all in favour of more public housing being built at the expense of my and all others taxpayers cost. But in the reality based community... What is the most utilitarian process for limited resource?

Great! So now you see that it's beneficial for social tenants to stay put and not be arbitrarily evicted. Right?

And if there wasn't? Would you then be happy to give up your child's place because the government started to treat school places as commodities and not invest in enough for everyone?.

selfishly, of course, the former

When I say that secure communities are better than transient ones, what is it that's hard to understand?

Would you rather have the same neighbour for ten years, someone who perhaps worked locally, who you could leave a key with or who'd take in a parcel? Or new neighbours every six months, some good, some bad, never getting to know them?

not really comparable, are they? There is space in the school system for everyone, is there not?

Well no of course it doesn't. Like I say, in some cases working people are prioritised for social housing. It isn't, and never has been intended as housing for the poor and destitute. It's a scarce resource, yes, but not closed off to everyone.

Again, nobody has a moral obligation to leave a secure tenancy that meets their housing needs unless they break the terms of the tenancy. Would you take your child out of their school if someone else needed a place there?

I'm surprised that since I drew attention to the government's Social Housing De-Carbonisation Fund (where the state is currently giving hundreds of millions to Housing Associations to improve their housing stock) some posters are still insisting that social housing isn't subsidised, in any way, by the state?

A social housing development near us, of over 100 properties, is currently being retro fitted with new solar panels, new double glazing, new external wall insulation, new front doors, new ground source heat pumps, new extractor fans. The list is endless.

I think it's a ridiculous use of my tax payer's money, frankly. I would much prefer the hundreds of millions to be spent building new, compact social housing units that are already energy efficient.