Fucking Fucking Tories want to make me homeless

[BeingFluffy]

Just watching some Tory cunt on Newsnight. I live in a London Borough (and have done all my life) which has a lot of ordinary people in social housing, but is very fashionable among the rich. Apparently the Housing Trust (which was set up to house local people like me in the 1960s) should stop "indulging" people like me and be forced sell off my home. Where the fuck are we supposed to go? They are born with silver spoons in their mouths and don't have the faintest fucking idea about ordinary people.

The OP was allocated a house there, so there should be no blame or vitriol directed at her but rather at any previous policy which placed social housing there.

Lets not forget either that some areas start off very poor and then become very sought after years later. Does this mean that those who were allocated social housing there while it was a slum area should feel grateful or move? No.

laps: i think your right. people that need that money won't see it. it will just vanish

I think people should not be allowed to purchase council or housing association properties at knock down prices. This is still happening. I know of a family who ended up being offered social housing in a
London borough. Situations changed. Family income increased to plus 100k, but they were offered the housing association house to purchase at 30% off normal price (at least). They did purchase this house and another buy to let.
This is what's not fair about the system.
So effectively, I am working my arse off, paying taxes and have to struggle to have children, plan financially etc and people like these who lie/cheat/take advantage get huge discounts.

Oh, and these people will sell the said
Propert at a huge profit, making the area further unaffordable to really poor people who do need help.

NO such thing as social cleansing. At most you could call it gentrification but if you want to use a phrase like social cleansing take a look at some history and look at the Ghettos of warsaw in 1940's, Rwanda. Former Yugoslavia and East Jerusalem then consider that as ethnic cleansing and then try to justify using the phrase social cleansing.

Maybe they don't want people who swear so much living there...

BOE

North Kensington is the dodgy (read: lots of social housing) part of Kensington. It's South Kensington that's desirable.

Is that area where they eat items before they reach the tills in the supermarket. And you never see them in Fortnum or Masons or Selfridges food hall?

Yes, there's a risk you'll get stabbed en route to the tills, so it's important to eat your food in case you never make it there.

I bet there's none of those council house mansion type places in Chipping Norton. There already is social apartheid.

yellowraincoat

None of those places are IN Glasgow/London. They are on the outskirts, or outside. Maybe it's possible to find somewhere, I said you'd be struggling, not that it's impossible.

I don't think there's anywhere in zone 6 that is even counted as London.

Most of the South East, you'd struggle to find somewhere for that price, most of the south, in fact.

I live in a town with a fast train connection to central London. A 3-bed semi is easily achievable for £1,000 per month even with the recent price rises in rentals.

£1000 a month rent. That is a lot of money. How on earth could a person on a low or average wage afford that.

My one bed is over £1,000 a month.

I have mixed feelings about all of this. My DP and I earn very decent salaries but can not afford a v normal 3 bed semi to live in to raise the family we want in the area we would like to. So is it fair that those who earn less get it?

On the other hand, it's really important rich and poor live together. What you don'y want is massive estates in outer London for the 'poor'. A horrible term, but 'ghettos'. People on lower incomes will spend more time and money commuting, not through choice, which isn't fair.

Basically, housing is fucked.

FFS!! Seriously!?!? Do you realise how god-awful that sounds??

"Surely long term unemployed/ disabled people have no need to be housed in London."

I stand by what I wrote.

Its sense of entitlement of this thread which is shocking. Living in London is not a fundermental right or even a basic need. Most the UK's population do not live in central London including me. I love London, but I can't afford to live there. However I can take the train for a day trip in London to visit museums or see friends. Lots of people in my town used to live in London.

Selling off or renting expensive properties at market rate is about maximising our resources for social housing. It is about helping as many people as possible have a roof over their heads.

Its only those who live in London social housing who talk about "social cleasing". Other people just simply want a roof over their head and somewhere to call home.

Maximising resources? No it is not about that. It is equivalent to what Baron Haussmann did in Paris in the 1850s, shipping the less well off out of the centre to the edges, breaking up communities and connections, because 'those people' apparently don't deserve to live there. So the schools become ever more homogenous and divided up along class lines and basically we live in segregated communities. Made so much sense in the USA per the 1960s, didnt it? Or else you can take another view and think about the benefits of mixed communities, in a more general sense, and not set out from the fundamentally selfish position of "me, me, me."

Most of the country is already 'ghettoized'.

In any normal town you get a cheap council estate/terraced houses bit and then a leafy detached houses bit. The idea that rich and poor live alongside is just nonsense, and trying to pretend that it's the norm is ridiculous.

The only thing in London is that it's soooooo ridiculously stupidly insanely expensive that the (relatively) rich can only afford a council house-type property. Which obviously begs the question of why some people get heavily subsidised properties in these areas when the vast bulk in the middle can't afford it.

Why is it that if you are a middle income family who do not claim benefits that you have to be realistic about where you live. Can't afford to live in central London? Tough.

But if you are on a low income/out of work then the state should provide you a house in central London because that's somehow fair?

Is that essentially what's being said?

I think it's vastly more unfair that people like David Cameron have a house in London (fairly central I believe), a house in the countryside and a vast family pile by sheer dint of the fact that their parents are minted.

That pisses me off a lot more than someone being able to get a council flat or HB to live in central London (doesn't happen that much, they don't tend to build council flats in central London) and having to scrape by.

Beingfluffy
The tories don't want to make you homeless. The broad plan is to sell off very expensive houses in order to build more houses so that fewer people will be homeless. You sound very selfish and self-entitled to be honest. I would love to live in one of the million pound houses in my town and if the council were to fund that, well, that'd be peachy, but it aint ever gonna happen.

thebest yeah, sure, they'll build more houses.

I'll believe that when I see it.

I can understand that cynicism but if they do go ahead with this it'll have to go through so much Parliamentary scrutiny they'll hopefully be unable to redivert the funds.

It's policy posture, not an actual policy that will have an impact. How many of these million pounds homes are there and how often do they become vacant? Out of this miniscule number, how many are in boroughs where they could be sold and then 3 properties bought within the same borough for the same money? They're probably talking about 5 transactions a year across the country.

It's rhetoric, designed to increase them and us hatred.

Never going to happen. Where the hell are they going to build the houses for a start? There is literally no space left in London.