Impending Tube Strike and Our Champagne Socialist.......

[Common as Mook]

So what is it that gets you so angry, what happened ?

This is a very good question, though.

 

[The Large One]

That's the the second time you've mentioned hypocrisy. Can you tell us where the hypocrisy is or do you really believe socialists can't be on a good salary?

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Crow quite clearly is not on the flexible tenancy agreement you speak of.

Yes, I get that, and if you'd bothered to actually read the post that you accused of being "old fanny" then you would have understood I believe that is where the problem lies and that everyone, including Crow, SHOULD be on flexible tenancies NOT secured ones.

 

[Beach Hut]

That's the the second time you've mentioned hypocrisy. Can you tell us where the hypocrisy is or do you really believe socialists can't be on a good salary?

a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

And not trousering a big salary

 

[The Large One]

Thanks for speaking on behalf of so many people. The doubt, however, is your concern. You could directly ask people rather than make your point by assumption.

 

[The Large One]

I could not give a fecking sh1te what a Tory earns, if he is that committed then he should live in a country where he can aspire to his political beliefs

I hope it's not just me that can't make any sense of that post. Certainly not as an answer to the question.

 

[Beach Hut]

Thanks for speaking on behalf of so many people. The doubt, however, is your concern. You could directly ask people rather than make your point by assumption.

I am not a leftie so do not speak on behalf of so many at all.

As for the next two bits I think either you are an intellect but some how I perhaps thin confused.

 

[fat old seagull]

We'll keep the red flag flying high

Well chum with that post you've said it all. The politics of hate.... Get a feckin life !

 

[Norman Baker suck my lozenge]

Yes, I get that, and if you'd bothered to actually read the post that you accused of being "old fanny" then you would have understood I believe that is where the problem lies and that everyone, including Crow, SHOULD be on flexible tenancies NOT secured ones.

So now you want to change the rules regarding social housing?
You should be a politician.

 

[Beach Hut]

Well chum with that post you've said it all. The politics of hate.... Get a feckin life !

Not at present, called a coalition as Labour were so bolloxed up

 

[The Large One]

I am not a leftie so do not speak on behalf of so many at all.

As for the next two bits I think either you are an intellect but some how I perhaps thin confused.

You must have a guilty conscience.

It was actually a response to abc's post (post 94), which I arsed up in the 'Quote' thingy.

 

[Beach Hut]

You must have a guilty conscience.

It was actually a response to abc's post (post 94), which I arsed up in the 'Quote' thingy.

My conscience is clear and transparent thanks.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

So now you want to change the rules regarding social housing?
You should be a politician.

Of course the rules should be changed. It's utterly ridiculous that someone should get the right to a property for life that they do not own, and rented to them below market rate and often at the expense of the taxpayer, without some sort of review of their circumstance from time to time. It's utterly unfair that we have destitute families living in B&Bs because there is not enough social housing. Could more be built ? Yes. Should Thatcher have sold it off ? Probably not.

I can't imagine the uproar if someone as rich as Beckham lived in council housing but a good socialist like Crow is beyond reproach for blocking a property that could go to someone more needy it would appear. Council housing should be provided on the basis of need and reviews into changing circumstances should be regularly conducted. Quite how anyone on £145k a year could be classed as requiring council assistance is beyond me.

 

[BLOCK F]

Of course the rules should be changed. It's utterly ridiculous that someone should get the right to a property for life that they do not own, and rented to them below market rate and often at the expense of the taxpayer, without some sort of review of their circumstance from time to time. It's utterly unfair that we have destitute families living in B&Bs because there is not enough social housing. Could more be built ? Yes. Should Thatcher have sold it off ? Probably not.

I can't imagine the uproar if someone as rich as Beckham lived in council housing but a good socialist like Crow is beyond reproach for blocking a property that could go to someone more needy it would appear. Council housing should be provided on the basis of need and reviews into changing circumstances should be regularly conducted. Quite how anyone on £145k a year could be classed as requiring council assistance is beyond me.

Once again,spot on.
I really cannot see how any reasonable individual on either side of the political spectrum could argue against this.

 

[Norman Baker suck my lozenge]

Of course the rules should be changed. It's utterly ridiculous that someone should get the right to a property for life that they do not own, and rented to them below market rate and often at the expense of the taxpayer, without some sort of review of their circumstance from time to time. It's utterly unfair that we have destitute families living in B&Bs because there is not enough social housing. Could more be built ? Yes. Should Thatcher have sold it off ? Probably not.

I can't imagine the uproar if someone as rich as Beckham lived in council housing but a good socialist like Crow is beyond reproach for blocking a property that could go to someone more needy it would appear. Council housing should be provided on the basis of need and reviews into changing circumstances should be regularly conducted. Quite how anyone on £145k a year could be classed as requiring council assistance is beyond me.

So your reward for bettering yourself would be to get evicted from your house you've lived in for years ,removed from the area and neighbourhood that you are happy with and forced to join the over inflated rental market?
Marvellous!

 

[Westdene Seagull]

So your reward for bettering yourself would be to get evicted from your house you've lived in for years ,removed from the area and neighbourhood that you are happy with and forced to join the over inflated rental market?
Marvellous!

Who on earth is "removing" them from the area. Obviously I can't comment for the whole country but here in Brighton and Hove there is a decent mix of social and private housing stock in all areas so there is certainly no need to move out of the area. And yes, if you earn such an inflated salary then you should expect to pay the "inflated" price of private housing so your council house can be freed up for a more needy family - or do they not count any more ?

 

[Norman Baker suck my lozenge]

Who on earth is "removing" them from the area. Obviously I can't comment for the whole country but here in Brighton and Hove there is a decent mix of social and private housing stock in all areas so there is certainly no need to move out of the area. And yes, if you earn such an inflated salary then you should expect to pay the "inflated" price of private housing so your council house can be freed up for a more needy family - or do they not count any more ?

Least we now what angle you're coming from on this,politics of envy.
What beautiful green eyes you have.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Least we now what angle you're coming from on this,politics of envy.
What beautiful green eyes you have.

No envy here - I just believe social housing should be given to the less well off first. Given it's a scarce commodity then it needs to be controlled who gets it. Someone earning over 4.5 times the national average salary shouldn't get it anymore than they should get income support ( which of course they don't ).

You still haven't answered why a family in a B&B should lose out you a very well off trade unionist ?

Well done on playing the envy card though, always a winner when your argument runs out of steam.

 

[Norman Baker suck my lozenge]

No envy here - I just believe social housing should be given to the less well off first. Given it's a scarce commodity then it needs to be controlled who gets it. Someone earning over 4.5 times the national average salary shouldn't get it anymore than they should get income support ( which of course they don't ).

You still haven't answered why a family in a B&B should lose out you a very well off trade unionist ?

Well done on playing the envy card though, always a winner when your argument runs out of steam.

They're not losing out to a trade unionist, they're losing out to a system that sold off the nations housing stock.
Bob crow believes in social housing so why should He be dragged from his home just because He's done we'll for himself?

 

[Lord Bracknell]

and will probably be the next leader of the Labour party, if Ed Milibland's crackpot scheme to give union members cheap votes goes through.

What's the RMT got to do with the Labour Party? They disaffiliated years ago.