|
|
Topic Originator: twin par
Date: Sat 29 Oct 21:51
It`s not the councils fault,over the years its been a problem. It`s the idiots, and drug dealing scum,that have brought it to a level,that nobody wanted to live there.You could put some folk ,in a Palace, and they would still destroy it.And who`s paying for it ? Us hard working guys. Some of them in there,have never worked in their lives.And I mean some.A lot of them are decent people, but are tarnished,with the rubbish.
Post Edited (Sat 29 Oct 21:56)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Sun 30 Oct 20:35
Your post inspired me to track down Kingdom Housing’s website in respect of regenerating Fraser Avenue and I didn’t know it was possible to cram so many platitudes into a single sheet of paper. Abstract nouns like ‘sustainability, affordability, distinctiveness’ all over the shop but no guarantee what emerges will fare any better than what went before.
I think we share the common heritage of having been reared in the Abbey View council housing estate during the 1960s. Public housing, or state housing is the backbone of any country; calling it ‘social housing’ is a Tory attempt to make housing seem like a benefit handed out to the poor and needy. I doubt either of our sets of parents ever viewed themselves that way when we were children. So I never use the term.
Public housing has to be maintained and policed. The Tories have never seen the need to do either and the Labour Party is embarrassed to do the latter. You may recall a notorious family from Glenrothes who came to public attention about 20 years ago, but their eviction only came about when they made the mistake of threatening the local MP, Henry McLeish.
Totalitarian societies like Nazi Germany and the USSR took a much stronger line on anti-social families. Public housing was not just a right; it required certain responsibilities as well. Bad tenants were banished to basic, highly policed housing areas where they had to prove that they were fit to be returned to mainstream public housing. Compulsory labour and alcohol bans were part of the package. Those who could not mend their ways might have their children removed and placed in care. These initiatives were considered expensive in terms of outcome (as you noted human nature is often incorrigible) but did of course protect the decent families spared their hooliganism. It was an attempt to deal with the problem but maybe not the answer for a country like the UK. Any suggestions?
sammer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: widtink
Date: Sun 30 Oct 20:40
I seem to recall that they were going to rename Fraser avenue... Or am i havering the awfiest keech? 🤔
Admin
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Sun 30 Oct 20:52
Wasn`t all of Fraser Avenue knocked down and rebuilt?
I find it an odd one. If I was given a council house I would appreciate the lower than average rent and general security of having the council as my landlord.
I don`t know the detail, but I`d imagine many residents may have issues that make them the way they are. My grandparents lived in council houses before buying their house under the right to buy. Their street was a mix of owned and council properties and they were well kept. If I go there now I can tell which are owner occupier and which are not.
Although my grandparents benefited from right to buy, I can`t help but think one of the biggest issues it caused is dodgy landlords who don`t maintain the property and screw over potentially vulnerable people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Sun 30 Oct 22:09
There were two problems with the right to buy policy. The most damaging was that the money recouped was not put back into the public housing budget to build new homes. This was part of the Thatcher mantra that people in council houses were liable to vote Labour, so the fewer the better.
The other problem was that unscrupulous entrepreneurs bought up former council properties and then re-let them, without any requirement to maintain these houses or allocate them to the social good.
So we now have a Labour Party spokeswoman complaining that Liz Truss destroyed the ‘housing market.’ A house is a home. It is where families live and children are reared. It should not be considered part of a ‘market.’ To think like this is to support Tory hegemony.
sammer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: GG Riva
Date: Tue 1 Nov 06:33
Quote:
sammer, Sun 30 Oct 22:09
There were two problems with the right to buy policy. The most damaging was that the money recouped was not put back into the public housing budget to build new homes. This was part of the Thatcher mantra that people in council houses were liable to vote Labour, so the fewer the better.
The other problem was that unscrupulous entrepreneurs bought up former council properties and then re-let them, without any requirement to maintain these houses or allocate them to the social good.
So we now have a Labour Party spokeswoman complaining that Liz Truss destroyed the ‘housing market.’ A house is a home. It is where families live and children are reared. It should not be considered part of a ‘market.’ To think like this is to support Tory hegemony.
Sammer, you omitted to say that Thatcher`s right to buy policy resulted in almost all the better council houses being sold, leaving a far greater proportion of substandard houses - in less desirable areas - for those who couldn`t afford to buy and new tenants looking for their first home.
Not your average Sunday League player.
|
|
|
|
|
|
