Rico

Agreed Moos. I started down that path - but when you are assaulted with charges that you hate the poor and want to punish them, the conversation veers. Perhaps social housing as a topic generally is another thread. As you'll see, I have strong views on that too. But I'm glad we're all helping Chav live cheap and save up 150K to buy a plot in France. Maybe that's a start.

Pensioners and similar 'vunerable' are certainly what such housing is for. They should be there for as long as they need it, even for life. Same as benefits for the truly ill/disabled etc. It does demonstrate the point - it's about attitude. I accept the longstanding attitude was Government as mother and responsible for housing everyone, forever and ever amen. My 88 year old neighbour, who bought her house from off the Council 50 years ago (no joke) still calls the Council when anything goes wrong. She can afford any repair but her generation believes 'if there is any problem in my life it's up to the Council to sort it out'. Fair enough. So yes, pensioners will stay - but the next generations of pensioners is where we need to start changing attitudes about Government as caretaker of all with no responsibility expected, no checks, always Gov'ts fault and responsibility. This thread proves how deep it is in our society. The moment anyone sniffs what they perceive as 'negative' and 'against the poor' they trounce and refuse to accept that individuals need to take at least as much responsibility as Government. I actually think the constant excuses for those in lower incomes is part of the problem and your ill conceived 'protection' of them does them a disservice. But that's another thread.

It isn't about rich and poor. There are many 'non-poor' who live in Council Estates. A 'friend' of mine, not really that close but close enough, got a two bedroom with his partner 8 years ago. His partner has since left him. He managed to use the online swap to move to a two-bedroom house with a garden, nice place just off Church Street in Stoke Newington. No questions asked. Still pays about ?360 a month. Oh and he makes 65K plus bonus with a bank on Canary Wharf. Not really a 'key' worker. The exception? Probably. But I'd argue it's more commonplace than not. I know two others who still sublet council properties to help them with the mortgages in their new properties. Quite common. Not one thing to spot check/prevent it. My guess, and I'll admit its not scientific, is we pay our local Councils a majority of our taxes to be inefficient, professional landlords on our behalf. I'd say over 50% of the people, money and time spent down Town Hall is all about being landlords. Do I understand the housing strategy? Perhaps not. But please tell me 50 years on how that strategy is working out?

Funny how that would've been the response 5 years ago to someone who suggested banning smoking in pubs....('idiot')

Indeed there are moves to ban smoking in public parks and similar spaces. The 'owner' of Canary Wharf (private corporation) bans it except in very limited, defined spots. So yes, it may happen.

Perhaps. I just think landlords should have the option to ban smoking in their properties. If smoking indoors is bad, and Government can ban it in private businesses, they should be able to ban it in their own properties too. (If it is bad for customers/workers in pubs who don't smoke, why wouldn't it be bad for children/family members who don't smoke?) I fundamentally believe Council Housing is a privilege not a right, and not for life. It should not be for life and it should carry with it both responsibilities and 'incentives' to get on your feet and move on. You all seem to disagree with all points, which is fair enough.

So can we means test? It seems if they are truly poor, they can't be asked to be responsible and follow rules. But are you also saying if they meet a certain income level, they should be?

They don't have to buy a home. Renting is fine. But subsidised renting thanks to my Council tax means I should have a say...or maybe not. Silly. They can wreck the place and stay for generations (like that would ever happen).

No but if, for whatever reasons, they damage said property, they must pay to repair/clean it (if they didn't clean it themselves). Is that not reasonable? Are you all suggesting that landlords should not be able to stipulate whether smoking is allowed when drawing up a lease agreement?

Interesting bit about schools - should we allow smoking inside them? What's the difference? So perhaps all of you if landlords wouldn't have an issue with your renters smoking inside. Fair enough. But shouldn't we as collective owners of Council flats have a say? And if you argue they have few choices to afford living elsewhere - then great - think of the money they'll save not smoking and can more quickly get on their feet and move on. Isn't that the point of council housing: a short term fix to allow folks to get on their feet again and move on?

I'm a landlord. Just a little flat but a landlord. I do not allow smoking as part of the tenancy agreement. It ruins the furnishings and is a devil to get out if tenants change. I, along with all of you, also own massive Council Estate properties all over Southwark. I'd like to suggest that we, as landlords, ban smoking inside our properties. If those living there want to smoke than can a) go outside b) move to a rental where the landlord chooses to allow smoking. Sounds reasonable.

I've heard of this developer and it finally hit me, but I can't find exactly where I read it. Apparently they own dozens of properties in Camberwell that they sit on. Can't find where I read this but I have seen a couple of their small signs on buildings around the green near a bus stop. Will check again. Are they speculators? Is this how they did it on LL - sat on it for a while?

Interesting debate on this on Radio 4 Any Questions - basically that well over 70% are better off but the gap between rich and extreme poor has widened considerably. And the smaller very poor percentage are now the concern of all parties - at least they are talking about it. And finally all are acknowleding perhaps throwing money isn't the single answer, but addressing the 'cycle' of poverty and holding those in it at least equally responsible for a solution. And I'll add, holding the very rich to account for a bit more humanity.

Really? You make good points, but my life is much better. Maybe I'm the exception.

Alan don't you live in those 70's ex-local's near Somerfield? Surely they are 2 maybe 3 b'room. Are you keen for a 5 bedroom period having suffered on the estate :-)

With all the gloom and doom about the economy, and the concurrent disdain for New Labour, I've been thinking about the big picture. I think it started with Location, Location, Location this week from Newcastle and the mention of its dramatic changes in the last decade. Truth is, I'm much better off today than I was 10 years ago. New Labour has actually been good for me. And I think that's true for all economic classes of people in the UK. One article last week noted that many lower income people will have difficulty taking their usual two-week holiday to the Med. Fair enough that it's more costly, but in the big picture, we now expect people on low incomes can (and do) take such holidays. Perhaps we're returning to a bit of 'boom and bust', but it does occur to me that this downturn still won't take us back to where we were before. Sort of three steps forward, one step back. So now I'm warming to old Gordie. But not sure. It seems the loudest voices are on the far left who would have us move toward such a radical re-distribution of wealth that we'd end up with everyone worse off. Though I do still think we need to give Labour a topple and let Conservatives have a run. But maybe New Labour gets a bad rap when we all look at where we are personally today and where we were (or our equivalents were) 10 years ago.

Well you've got me on board. I'm tired of parties. All parties. I've decided the key is to vote for change ever few years. So we need Conservatives back for a bit, then just when they get too big for their pants, vote Labour back. Opposition is what causes parties to listen to the electorate. Unless there is a better idea for getting centre ground, common sense government. I'm frankly open.

Oh I reckon we'd give the land back and before long you'd want the benefits back plus some.

The new system will be ace for her. It will find her work that allows her to not use her bad back, stay occupied and have more money to enjoy life. She should be happy too.

Truth is we may see zero change in total savings/expenditure. But you miss the point. It's not about being seen as macho as it is about being seen as fair. It's quite valid for the 'british public' to demand fairness, which means helping those who need it, being tough on those who are having a laugh...charts, graphs and intellectual snobbery disguised as championing the truly needy (hyperbole case studies of people who will not suffer under the plan) will not help your argument. I also think it's about a mindset: work is good and we should all contribute. I especially think the idea that those who can't find work and are able should spend some time doing community work. Hardly 'shaming' - it's respectable work that needs doing.

Sad story but a small number like it and those folks will keep getting their benefit. While I appreciate socialists here will never be happy until the system is overhauled into a complete redistribution of wealth (which won't work and never has but we won't agree), I think the overwhelming majority of folks see this is common sense, reasonable and what good Gov't is about.

Labour may just rescue its fortunes yet through the new, reasonable benefits regulations. Why on earth would we not encourage people to work and require those claiming to demonstrate need on a reasonable, regular basis? Now we just need a bit more penalty for those who don't comply.

I think extremists on both sides are dangerous. State control of property and wealth and media never works. I'm not sure what your alternative is if not that.

We get more information from more sources than ever. This very day the Gov't is taking a beating over expenses and rightly so. And even if they don't bend, we'll have FOI to see what they spend. Scrutiny like nowhere else. Zimbabwe, which established the very type Gov't you want, is another story. I'll take our free, if imperfect system. It's a bit lazy to say 'our farfetched views are right but we can't sway a huge majority because the press stands in our way'. No, you can't sway a huge majority - or even a sizeable minority - because your arguments do not stand up to scrutiny. But we need extermists to keep us centered.

I think we've got it pretty good and as perfect as it can be. The Mugabes of this world, yes. But our system and the free press get it right more oft than not. Your whole persona is a contradiction. You've broken out of the cycle and made it thanks to safety nets. That's what we pay for and I'm happy. Your message to fellow chavs is surely not 'rise up and claim' but 'break out, stand up, take control and make something of yourself'. Surely.