[Kosh]

Re: Benefits Cap Is Legal : Sat Nov 09, 2013 8:50 am  

Standee wrote:

No need, I know I am right

I had no idea that Ian Duncan Smith posted on here.

Re: Benefits Cap Is Legal : Sat Nov 09, 2013 9:30 am  

cod'ead wrote:

That still doesn't explain how he's fiddling the system.

Care to have another pop?

He is using Social Housing when he doesn't need to, he is working the system to his own advantage. A bit like when it's always the "refuse collectors" that call for strike action, knowing full well they will get double time for working the weekend after the strike to collect the refuse, because the council has a statutory duty to collect.

I know you're not thick cod'ead, and I know you're a staunch socialist, but even you must think, somewhere, that a guy on £100k+ doesn't really NEED to be in a "council house"

Re: Benefits Cap Is Legal : Sat Nov 09, 2013 11:26 am  

Standee wrote:

He is using Social Housing when he doesn't need to, he is working the system to his own advantage...

I've said before, quite clearly, that I dislike Crow, but this housing stuff is getting tedious. Because the Daily Mail doesn't like something and constantly highlights it doesn't make it any more a serious issue than the fact that the same rag has published pictures of Dave Prentis's house, with the carefully unspoken implication that that house is 'too big'.

Oddly, the Mail never seems to provide a logical case for why this is, or to state precisely what sort of house, at what cost, it believes such people should have/live in. It just intends to create what is, in many ways, a resentment – a 'politics of envy', is a phrase you might be familiar with.

Standee wrote:

A bit like when it's always the "refuse collectors" that call for strike action, knowing full well they will get double time for working the weekend after the strike to collect the refuse, because the council has a statutory duty to collect...

You're implying that a certain group should not take industrial action because of a pre-existing arrangement that means that they only take industrial action for their own advantage. This is a non-sequitur.

Standee wrote:

... I know you're not thick cod'ead, and I know you're a staunch socialist, but even you must think, somewhere, that a guy on £100k+ doesn't really NEED to be in a "council house"

On the other hand, it might be much more in keeping with the beliefs that you cite. And moving somewhere more expensive would doubtless open him up to different criticism – see above.

And it's all the same nonsense as we had from Sal recently, who has yet to provide an answer to the simple question (since he raised the topic) of what a "supposed socialist" should expect in their pay packet.

Re: Benefits Cap Is Legal : Sat Nov 09, 2013 11:43 am  

Mintball wrote:

I've said before, quite clearly, that I dislike Crow, but this housing stuff is getting tedious. Because the Daily Mail doesn't like something and constantly highlights it doesn't make it any more a serious issue than the fact that the same rag has published pictures of Dave Prentis's house, with the carefully unspoken implication that that house is 'too big'.

Oddly, the Mail never seems to provide a logical case for why this is, or to state precisely what sort of house, at what cost, it believes such people should have/live in. It just intends to create what is, in many ways, a resentment – a 'politics of envy', is a phrase you might be familiar with.

You're implying that a certain group should not take industrial action because of a pre-existing arrangement that means that they only take industrial action for their own advantage. This is a non-sequitur.

On the other hand, it might be much more in keeping with the beliefs that you cite. And moving somewhere more expensive would doubtless open him up to different criticism – see above.

And it's all the same nonsense as we had from Sal recently, who has yet to provide an answer to the simple question (since he raised the topic) of what a "supposed socialist" should expect in their pay packet.

You're ignoring the question though, why is Crow(ney) entitled to Social Housing when he can, quite clearly, afford to live in private rented and let someone who actually NEEDS social housing have it?

As for Sal, I do hope you're not comparing me with it.

Re: Benefits Cap Is Legal : Sat Nov 09, 2013 12:15 pm  

Standee wrote:

You're ignoring the question though, why is Crow(ney) entitled to Social Housing when he can, quite clearly, afford to live in private rented and let someone who actually NEEDS social housing have it?

He was clearly entitled to when he got it – unless someone can prove otherwise. His decision to stay there – whether simply because he likes his home or because he feels an ideological commitment to council housing – is not the reason that we have a chronic housing shortage, and is a red herring.

As I pointed out, if you take the attitude of the Mail to Dave Prentis, then it's clearly a case of trade union general secretaries are not allowed to 'win', if you will, whatever they do. And the Mail – and others – never, ever posit real reasons for this approach or a logical suggestion of just where and how such people should live.

But that's not their aim: the aim is to smear. And as I said, to do so by creating a sense of resentment in the readership. In Crow's case, almost certainly hoping that people will see where he lives as some sort of 'con'.

As I said, that is a 'politics of envy'. Not: 'someone's doing worse than me and I think we'd all be better off if things were a bit fairer', but: 'someone's doing better than me/better than I think they should, and I think that's wrong'.

Standee wrote:

As for Sal, I do hope you're not comparing me with it.

Re: Benefits Cap Is Legal : Sat Nov 09, 2013 12:29 pm  

OK, I'll put it another way, Crow is an example of why fixed term tenancies are necessary and required, he is no longer IN NEED of Social Housing, and there are many like him, there are many people who are living in homes that do not fit their needs (under-occupied, overcrowded, adapted, un-adapted etc.)

I do not deny there is a lack of supply, but I do not think the supply available is correctly allocated.

Is that a better "argument"?

Re: Benefits Cap Is Legal : Sat Nov 09, 2013 4:16 pm  

Standee wrote:

OK, I'll put it another way, Crow is an example of why fixed term tenancies are necessary and required, he is no longer IN NEED of Social Housing, and there are many like him, there are many people who are living in homes that do not fit their needs (under-occupied, overcrowded, adapted, un-adapted etc.)

I do not deny there is a lack of supply, but I do not think the supply available is correctly allocated.

Is that a better "argument"?

Sort of, but at what point in history did social housing become "Needful", something that you had to qualify for by means of impoverish-ness before being allocated - rather than just a way of having somewhere to live and raise a family as my in-laws did, living in their council house from new in 1962 and raising six kids until when they died 4 or 5 years ago as they did ?

Re: Benefits Cap Is Legal : Sun Nov 10, 2013 12:19 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

Sort of, but at what point in history did social housing become "Needful", something that you had to qualify for by means of impoverish-ness before being allocated - rather than just a way of having somewhere to live and raise a family as my in-laws did, living in their council house from new in 1962 and raising six kids until when they died 4 or 5 years ago as they did ?

social housing has always been about need, if your in-laws blocked a social home for someone whilst not striving to achieve to move out then that explains your point of perspective. 6 kids was a very selfish thing to do as well.

you make the case for everyone against profligate breeding and expecting the state to provide

Re: Benefits Cap Is Legal : Sun Nov 10, 2013 12:36 pm  

Just a small point but relevant, the benefits cap is legal because parliament says it is legal.
The executive is only accountable to itself and no one else which is why we need a WRITTEN constitution in this country.
The courts can only apply the law they cannot write it. They are servants of parliament.

Re: Benefits Cap Is Legal : Sun Nov 10, 2013 1:47 pm  

Standee wrote:

social housing has always been about need, if your in-laws blocked a social home for someone whilst not striving to achieve to move out then that explains your point of perspective. 6 kids was a very selfish thing to do as well.

you make the case for everyone against profligate breeding and expecting the state to provide

Nope, once again you are quite wrong.

And attempting a wind-up too, LOL, it doesn't work with me ...