Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Govement u-turn

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

strawman
strawman  1021997 forum posts United Kingdom16 Constructive Critique Points
8 Feb 2013 - 12:52 PM

I understand that as the rules that apply in the UK. i.e. 12 months wait.

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
8 Feb 2013 - 12:52 PM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

KevSB
KevSB  101403 forum posts United Kingdom5 Constructive Critique Points
8 Feb 2013 - 12:58 PM


Quote: I understand that as the rules that apply in the UK. i.e. 12 months wait.

But under The wrs There is no need to register to work in this country anymore for eu citizens

strawman
strawman  1021997 forum posts United Kingdom16 Constructive Critique Points
8 Feb 2013 - 1:15 PM

There is an exception for the countries I mention. As I understand it that expires in Dec 2013 so there is still time for the EU to change that rulling.

lemmy
lemmy  71762 forum posts United Kingdom
8 Feb 2013 - 3:12 PM

People I know are having to downsize their homes now that prices are rising so fast. Three bedroom houses to 1 or 2 bedroom flats seems the most popular move.

It seems the only people whom we feel should not be subject to the force of rising prices are those who live in social or subsidized housing. I was brought up on a council estate. When my father died and then my 2 siblings and I left home, my mother was living alone in a 3 bedroomed house which could have housed a family of five,

My mother didn't want to move, naturally enough. Does anyone have an answer to this problem? Is it really sensible that 3 bed houses are being used to house 1 person? On the other hand, should my mother have been forced to move?

The easy answers roll out. Build more houses! Force people to move! Have you seen the prices of building land in the UK? Can you imagine the heartbreak for an old person being moved away from the place they have lived in for 40 years?

Because we are English, we prefer to rant rather than look for rational courses of action. Maybe if we shout loud enough, the problem will go away. How much extra tax are we willing to pay to build more houses so that old people don't have to move to smaller places? This country is stony broke. We are borrowing more and more each year. The interest on that is going up and up. It becomes a bigger burden every year.

Yet people seem to think that, broke or not, we can still all have what we want. The unfortunate reality is that even if MPs didn't fiddle their expenses, companies didn't fix their tax affairs and bankers didn't take bonuses, it would make no difference whatsoever to the staggering level of our burgeoning debt. Take a look at the welfare and NHS costs. Now add up the cost of bonuses, tax not paid by Starbucks etc. These things are wrong but they are placebos. The welfare state this year will cost 202 billion. In 1948 it cost 10% of every penny we earned. Today it costs 24% of our earnings. Next year it is projected to be more, not less. At some point we have to face up to reality. The Greeks have. The Spanish have. I wonder if we have it in us?

Whatever, people with no money have fewer choices.

answersonapostcard
answersonapostcard Site Moderator 1012518 forum postsanswersonapostcard vcard United Kingdom15 Constructive Critique Points
8 Feb 2013 - 3:40 PM

Should someone on £100,000 a year be living in social housing? Should they not give that up to someone more needy?

lemmy
lemmy  71762 forum posts United Kingdom
8 Feb 2013 - 4:47 PM

On the council estate I was brought up on, our next door neighbour had a Jaguar car and owned a shop on the estate. As you went around the estate - 50s, by the way, you'd see far more new or newish cars than on the private estate some of my school friends lived on.

But at my gym there is a lady who says one of her children may be taken into care because she cannot afford to feed him from her benefits.

She can, however, afford gym fees and a £400 Samsung Galaxy phone. Bizarre.

LVanDhal
LVanDhal  1126 forum posts United Kingdom1 Constructive Critique Points
8 Feb 2013 - 5:27 PM


Quote: Should someone on £100,000 a year be living in social housing? Should they not give that up to someone more needy?

They most certainly should not, I recall the anger in the press, when it emerged that Union leader Bob crow was living in a council house in london whilst earning over 130 grand a year.
But lets not forget this is an exceptional occurrence, though one that should be better legislated for, social housing should be for people on low incomes only.
Its not run of the mill to have high income earners living in social housing, and lets face it the bedroom deduction is hardly going to worry those that are, they can afford to pay for as many empty bedrooms as they wish, not that they should have them.

Paul Morgan
Paul Morgan e2 Member 1314806 forum postsPaul Morgan vcard England6 Constructive Critique Points
8 Feb 2013 - 5:38 PM


Quote: Should someone on £100,000 a year be living in social housing? Should they not give that up to someone more needy?


Quote: They most certainly should not, I recall the anger in the press, when it emerged that Union leader Bob crow was living in a council house in london whilst earning over 130 grand a year

They have every right to and most of those I have known that have landed on there feet have ended up buying there social housing at a greatly reduced/discounted price. Not sure if the right to buy is still available for new tenants, most of those that have been living in social housing for 15/20 years will more than likely still have that right to buy.

https://www.gov.uk/right-to-buy-buying-your-council-home/overview

Last Modified By Paul Morgan at 8 Feb 2013 - 5:39 PM
Focus_Man
Focus_Man  4481 forum posts United Kingdom631 Constructive Critique Points
8 Feb 2013 - 6:07 PM


Quote:
My mother didn't want to move, naturally enough. Does anyone have an answer to this problem? .

Generally if the people in such large houses are really in need of subsidised property, one would think they would love the opportunity to have a smaller and more economical home. Economical that is in terms of Water, Electricity and Gas supplies. Think of how much they could save! Perhaps if they are not desperate to move they may be too wealthy to be in occupation of such a subsidised property!!

Of course if somebody loves their home that much then there is no real answer which will be satisfactory to everybody. But then for those who are not in need of social housing or indeed subsidised housing, the tax paid is not fair either. So nobody ever wins and some sort of compromise has to be reached in an endeavour to achieve some semblence of sensibility, which is what is being proposed.

lemmy
lemmy  71762 forum posts United Kingdom
8 Feb 2013 - 6:29 PM


Quote: e sort of compromise has to be reached in an endeavour to achieve some semblence of sensibility, which is what is being proposed.

Which was exactly my point, of course.

LVanDhal
LVanDhal  1126 forum posts United Kingdom1 Constructive Critique Points
8 Feb 2013 - 6:44 PM


Quote: On the council estate I was brought up on, our next door neighbour had a Jaguar car and owned a shop on the estate. As you went around the estate - 50s, by the way, you'd see far more new or newish cars than on the private estate some of my school friends lived on.

But at my gym there is a lady who says one of her children may be taken into care because she cannot afford to feed him from her benefits.

She can, however, afford gym fees and a £400 Samsung Galaxy phone. Bizarre.

Bizarre lemmy, I call it out right child neglect, I hope you called social services with your concern ? and the DWP fraud prevention hot line, as no one on benefits is paid enough to purchase a 400 quid phone, unless she was one of those middle income earners who is complaining about a reduction in child benefit ? either way their is no excuse for starving a child, benefits recipient or other wise.
I don't really understand why you have included the reminiscences of life on a 1950tys council estate lemmy in relation to the subject, it was a different world back then and the rules and regs have changed many many times since then in all areas.
The actual non arguable facts about how much a benefit recipient can claim are very easily available on the internet.
The DWP honestly don't give any benefit claimant secret wads of cash, they don't "Pay" for everything, and there is no back door where the DWP staff say " ear luv go on treat yeah self".
I am very tired of people saying they have seen stuff going on that amounts to benefit fraud, but then seem to think that if they don't report it,
it excuses them, anyone who ignores what they suspect to be benefit fraud is then colluding with it, and as such, as guilty if it is proven,
But a lot of people don't like to hear that they are wrong, often very wrong in their assumptions about who is receiving what benefit and how much they receive.
The problem is the current attitude of casting doubt on anyone who receives benefits is causing people to become utterly heartless to those in dire poverty, its created an atmosphere of the poorest in this country some how Deserve it because they lack the - insert any positive characteristics you care to value here.

A family member of mine used to love a good rant on the "I paid more in than I ever took out, these idle so and so's should do what i did and work harder, get on your bikes and stop sponging off me and my hard work" they did not stop after they retired, in fact they got louder about it.
I remember sitting in the hospital ward with them ranting on as they received hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of medical treatment to keep them alive,
treatment for a genetic condition that would have killed them in their youth had it not been for the NHS free at the point of delivery.
"Paid more in that they ever took out" not in the long run.
The welfare bill is costing the country more than it can afford, but the cause is not the claimants, its the people who have created a financial situation that means so many people cannot even afford to live a basic life even if they can find work, let alone if they cannot find work.
Successive Goverments have spent vast tranches of money on codswallop, most often directly for the benefit of only their cronies,
awarding contracts for billions of pounds to their mates, failed but ultimately lucrative deals for yet more codswallop that was never ever going to be of use to anyone but themselves.
Those that have had the power, irrespective of political allegiance, have first lined their own pockets.

And now they are using propaganda to excuse themselves, and say to the public,
it was the benefit claimants wot dun it, that an the NHS, oh an fat people, an smokers, an teenaged chavs, and the EU an any body who wuz a banker an not our mate, an it wuz the other political party, the last Government, anyone, but not me Gov, nah I'm just tryin to sort it out, but first I gotta line me own pocket see, cos it int nice being poor like, can hardly think straight if yer ungry, so book us a table down at the Ivy will yah,
cos your definetly payyin"

lemmy
lemmy  71762 forum posts United Kingdom
8 Feb 2013 - 7:21 PM

Why would I report someone to social services when that is who she is dealing with already? Her daughter is disabled and the woman finds it hard to cope, understandably.

But my point was that she regards her daughter's well-being as the state's responsibility rather than her own. As for the phone, she does have the phone, since she uses it as her MP3 player at the gym so it is on show. All I know is her contract costs £24 per month.

Of course the 50s was a different time, the fact that it was called the 1950s rather than the 2010s tells you that doesn't it? I brought it up because we had people there able to afford a good car but living in subsidised housing. It shows warped priorities, as does the phone.

That is what a welfare state does when it goes too far. One particular case I know is my daughter's flat mate, a lovely guy. His £800 per month shared rent is paid by the state. He gets just under £100 per week on top of that in disability benefits. He is depressed and has been for seven years. Of course he pays no tax or council tax.

All in all he has not a lot less spending money than my daughter, a nurse, after she pays her fearsome London fares to work, council tax, national insurance, rent, income tax etc. Maybe it's fair and I'm an old curmudgeon but I feel that if we make working and ambition worth little more than not being so, we are subverting something important.

Even in saying that I can see how old fashioned it must seem and that somehow we do have the money, we are rich enough to continue this way. I can’t see it but maybe someone can explain it to me.

answersonapostcard
answersonapostcard Site Moderator 1012518 forum postsanswersonapostcard vcard United Kingdom15 Constructive Critique Points
8 Feb 2013 - 7:41 PM


Quote: They most certainly should not, I recall the anger in the press, when it emerged that Union leader Bob crow was living in a council house in london whilst earning over 130 grand a year.

Yes, and Labour MP Frank Dobson. Both say they cant afford to buy a house on their salaries, so if they cant how are others less well off members of the general public? Grin


Quote: They have every right to

A right? should it be a right? Bob Crow is a Union boss, a socialist, yet despite earning (some reports say £145000) wont give up his subsidised house, it could go to one of his lower paid union members. And of course the bedroom 'tax' wont matter to him or others like his as as been pointed out, it makes no difference to them because they can afford to pay it.

Personally I think the right to buy was a good initiative but where it let the country down was not building a new generation of social housing with the proceeds leading to too few a supply and a generation that thought council housing was just where 'chavs' lived . Not all people on low incomes are trouble.

Paul Morgan
Paul Morgan e2 Member 1314806 forum postsPaul Morgan vcard England6 Constructive Critique Points
8 Feb 2013 - 7:54 PM

I was talking about people in general not Bob Crow.

I live on what once was a council estate but the eighties changed all that, and your right the money earned through the sales of homes was not put back into building new stock.

But I think this became the fault of the government with capping of local authorities.

Last Modified By Paul Morgan at 8 Feb 2013 - 7:57 PM
thewilliam
8 Feb 2013 - 10:32 PM

Back in the 1950s and 60s, council house construction was described as "building out the Tories" because the residents were assumed to be Labour voters. Then Thatcher thought that people who bought their council houses would suddenly start voting Conservative. Why else would the houses have been sold for knockdown prices? And why else would councils have been forbidden to build new houses to replace those that had been sold?

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.