I don't think Brendan wants to abolish the public policy already in place. Simply adding those points to the existing policy , along with a reassessment, would make council housing more efficient.
Low paid workers should be prioritised for social housing
- Thread starter Brendan Burgess
- Start date
- Status
I don't think Brendan wants to abolish the public policy already in place. Simply adding those points to the existing policy , along with a reassessment, would make council housing more efficient.
TheBigShort
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,789
Taking it at face value, fair enough, but probably minded to review the opening post?
All I'm asking is there any consideration for other factors, such as, why a person is not working?
You would appear to suggest that of course other factors would have to be taken into account. In which case the submission is, at the very least, lacking detail.
That detail has been slow to emerge, so I have come to the conclusion that this proposal, addressed to the Minister of Finance, published in national newspaper, promoted live on national airwaves, on 'behalf of the Taxpayer', was never seriously considered to begin with.
This is on topic - we are talking about the ability of the council to reallocate social housing.
Can you show me examples of where social houses given to people were later given to someone else?
TheBigShort
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,789
Yes, my grandparents lived in a social house. They died, the council gave it to someone else.
Can you now answer my question please?
Oh for God's sake, I mean someone still alive
. I thought that was pretty obvious.Up to the council. I would imagine a single mother with mental issues living on the streets with 4 kids who are being abused should be higher up than the unfortunate in your example, but again, that would be up to the council to decide. And they should be able to decide, they should be able to reallocate their housing stock to those in greatest need.
TheBigShort
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,789
Oh for God's sake, I mean someone still alive
Yes, my other grandparents. When they bought their own house. The council gave the house to someone else.
I agree (in bold), but could you stick to the question I asked you?
Would there be any consideration given to the man and his family other than an assessment of his working status, before being moved?
Well they bought their own house! To the council that's the same as dying. I would also include emigration in this little category you are adding to. As usual you are going circular on this and verging on trolling.
Council's decision.
TheBigShort
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,789
Death, purchase of own home, emigration, transfer on health grounds, transfer on family size, probably a dozen other reasons why people vacate their homes and are given to somebody else.
If you are inferring examples of evictions, then no I don't have any examples, thankfully. Although I would imagine incidences of anti social behavior, criminality may lead to evictions.
I know that, that is how social housing policy works. Those most in need are prioritized. Most in need is derived from public policy. The council's make the decisions, which you support, but oppose if that decision is one you don't like - like keeping someone in their own home for life. A council decision, that you think is their prerogative, but repugnant nonetheless.
I was talking about would any consideration be given under Brendans proposal to people with mental or physical disability? I thought that was obvious?
So for 3rd time, can you give a straight answer?
Maybe to get the house to begin with but not thereafter and that is the point I and others are making. If you get a council house baring killing someone you get to keep it for life regardless of your future circumstances. That's the central point here. The council can and should be able to reallocate housing so that all of those who are in most need are continually catered for.
It's Brendan's proposal, why don't you ask him? On a personal level, I think consideration should be given yes, but if this person is the deemed the least in need person on the list and someone of more need comes along and there is only 1 house available, I think those in most need should get the house. Who would you give the house to?
Gordon Gekko
Registered User
- Messages
- 7,843
Managing to obtain a home free of charge whilst the majority toil to purchase one?
That is akin to winning a lottery.
I am going to summarise my view on this as I've had enough.
Those working should be given a priority for social housing close to their employment. I wouldn't deem this to be the only factor in deciding which council house they should be given, but it should be a strong factor.
The council should be able to reallocate its houses to those deemed in most need on a continual basis. That way those in most need are continually facilitated.
Getting a council house should be like drawing the dole...it should not be for someone in the long term, rather a safety net. You should always be better of working and you should always be better off getting your own place.
Those working should be given a priority for social housing close to their employment. I wouldn't deem this to be the only factor in deciding which council house they should be given, but it should be a strong factor.
The council should be able to reallocate its houses to those deemed in most need on a continual basis. That way those in most need are continually facilitated.
Getting a council house should be like drawing the dole...it should not be for someone in the long term, rather a safety net. You should always be better of working and you should always be better off getting your own place.
TheBigShort
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,789
Great, finally getting somewhere. I think so too. In fact so do council's, it is public policy to do so.
Brendans proposal is quite explicit, if you are not working after assessment, you are being moved.
So either he sticks with his blunt instrument public policy, which you stated you support, or he outlines in greater detail how his proposal would work in practice. I have outlined a number of issues, by no means exhaustive, to consider. If there are changes to be made, then perhaps he should have given more thought to the proposal?
The person most in need, and you?
So you agree then if there is someone living in a council house but someone else is deemed to have greater need, then the person in greater need should get the house. IE the council should be able to re-allocate it's own housing stock.
TheBigShort
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,789
Another, but typical, misrepresentation. This is what you asked
If somebody is already living in a home it is not available.
You are right, this is tiresome. It would help if you stayed on topic (Brendans proposal), understood the difference between public policy and private sector interests, asked questions in a form of words that reflects your actual thinking, gave straight answers to questions instead of continuously diverting, and stopped misinterpreting answers to questions that were not actually asked.
TheBigShort
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,789
You should apply to national lottery headquarters. They could really do with a marketing manager like you.
Gordon Gekko
Registered User
- Messages
- 7,843
You should apply to national lottery headquarters. They could really do with a marketing manager like you.
Note my use of the term "a lottery" rather than "the Lottery"...
TheBigShort
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,789
Doh! You got me there alright!
But back on topic, note the lottery reference in Brendans submission
Early Riser
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,643
Gordon, I am a bit taken aback by your apparent suggestion that anyone's life circumstances could in any way be likened to a lottery. We need to be careful - next thing there will be some suggesting that some in our class owe their circumstances to chance as well. Whereas you and I know that it is by wilful goodness of character, spotless virtue, endless endeavour and carefully nurtured intellectual prowess that we got to where are today. Chance and luck had nothing to do with it.
Nor has the luck of the lottery anything to do with where the "welfare class" find themselves. They could easily have chosen to be one of us. Instead they chose the paths of moral degeneracy, fecklessness, lewdness, laziness, indolence, addiction, drunkenness, mental instability,illness, infirmity, illiteracy, criminality and every other deviancy. Don't you agree? How we deter such degenerates is beyond me - given that in the past we have tried the Workhouses, the Magdelene Laundries, The Lunatic Asylums, The Industrial Schools and all to no avail. Any more suggestions?
All I am sure about is this - luck or lottery has nothing to do with it. We chose virtue and goodness and God chose us.
Last edited:
I've lost count of the number of times myself and others are trying to make the same point - the council should be able to evaluate those living in social housing to determine if there is someone else more in need of the house and reallocate the house to the most needy.
This is very much on topic - look at Brendan's line in bold in the opening post:
Social housing should be recycled to those most in need
I think I do understand. Private landlords are most interested in a financial return, the council most interested in providing social housing to those in most need. Being able to recycle council houses to those in most need would achieve this.
Nobody else on this forum besides yourself has ever had a problem understanding my points. Maybe it's you that needs to take time and read the proposals a bit better.
- Status