Proposed Benefit Cuts

[westender]

Mar 7, 2012 13:22:13 GMT -1 notanimby said:

Hmm almost agree 100% wae yoo there but not quite

There's a case for at least encouraging folks to move into housing more suitable in size to their needs and they are capable of managing it
Despite the fact that someone may have stayed in a coonsil hoose for 40+ years and no doubt holds memories - it may not be the best hoose fur them as they get on a bit and their physical/mental needs change

I was of course talking about leaving people where they are as long as they have their faculties and can cope where they are.

Am all fur encouraging elderly folk to move into sheltered accomodation

I'm not. If we're talking old folks still in possession of their faculties, it's been my consistent experience that when you move them out of their home and into these granny farms - where they're usually put for somebody else's convenience, not their own - they die sooner than they would if they'd been left at peace in their own house.

Upheavel ain't good for them - and moving house is a huge upheaval for anyone, never mind the old folks.

When we stayed in oor last hoose, it was an ex-scottish special semi. Next door was a wee auld wummin who had lived there nearly 50 years - hers was bought too - Scottish Special had been selling their hooses aff long before thatcher.
After we had been there about 6 months she went doonhill rapidly wae dementia - we had walls being banged frae 1800, when we got hame frae work until the early hours.W
Mrs N went in a few times to see what was up - she complained about our never ending parties, yet she had all burners on teh gas cooker going what seemed like 24x7 - complained about her man no sleeping coz of our noise etc - he had been deid 20 years.

Anyways we got the polis involved as her family were doing hee-haw to help, as none of teh family would come up at 0200 in teh morning to quiet her doon, teh polis would go doon to theirt hoose and knock them up - much harderto ignore the polis than us.

I got social work involved and she was hospitalised for her ain safety - the basturds of a family didnae want her to go intae hospital as that meant they would have to sell the hoose to pay for her keep in hospital

they wurnae in the least bit concerned aboot their maw

maybe the auld wife was comfortable in her ain hoose - but it was far frae suitable fur her.

Obviously she should have been moved. That doesn't mean they all should be moved.

[notanimby]

Sheltered housing is not granny farming.

I know of one auld couple, who moved into a sheltered housing complex in Greenock - they were delighted with it, wee socials on all the time, bus runs etc
It was like most sheltered housing for people still in command of their mental faculties - soem can cope wae physically disabled folks though.

Mrs Notas great aunt used tae flit between different sheltered complexes, probably because she outstayed her welcome (she took sooking lemons to a whole new level). She ended up in wan right on teh coast in level, it had a christian ethos which suited her, but alas it wasn't right wing enough for her - some people didn't attend church enough for her tastes.

But she had to make the best of it as MrsN and her maw were fed up flitting her every year.

Granny farms or nursing homes are a whole different kettle of fish

[Deleted]

Mar 7, 2012 13:01:50 GMT -1 westender said:

Feb 2, 2012 22:19:33 GMT -1 @rolo said:

Could someone please explain to me why it's ok for a couple or single person to live in a big subsidised home after their children have left? While so many families are on the waitlist?

Well, it's hardly their fault there are are so many folk on the waitlist....

There's more to life than money. If you're still in the same house in which you have started married life, had your kids, raised a family, I for one would fully support anyone's right to remain in that house for as long as they like, no matter what size the house is. It's their life and contains their memories. NO-ONE has the right to demand that they shift from there.

The fact that so many need accommodation is not the fault of residents of family-sized homes, and they should not be the ones made to pay for heinously irresponsible housing policy by successive governments.

Nobody's 'demanding' anything of the sort, Westie.
But personally I've no issue with the suggestion that those in far bigger houses than they need are offered an alternative. It's not about 'forcing' anyone to do anything.

There is an economic argument, I'm afraid. Single people living in bigger council houses which attract higher council tax get 25% discount, again subsidised by taxes. Should they relocate by choice they still get their 25% discount but the proportion of subsidy required is far less.

Later in my post I referred to complete abuses of the council house system. While I agree that more social housing should be on the agenda (thanks to Thatcher's brilliant scheme of selling em off cheap and not building replacements) I do think we need to try to balance 'needs' versus 'wants' in the benefit system.

[westender]

Mar 7, 2012 19:49:39 GMT -1 @rolo said:

Nobody's 'demanding' anything of the sort, Westie.
But personally I've no issue with the suggestion that those in far bigger houses than they need are offered an alternative. It's not about 'forcing' anyone to do anything.

It is for the goverment.
"Offered an alternative"...? Do you seriously think that those "offered an alternative" will have any choice in the matter?

There is an economic argument, I'm afraid. Single people living in bigger council houses which attract higher council tax get 25% discount, again subsidised by taxes. Should they relocate by choice they still get their 25% discount but the proportion of subsidy required is far less.

Later in my post I referred to complete abuses of the council house system. While I agree that more social housing should be on the agenda (thanks to Thatcher's brilliant scheme of selling em off cheap and not building replacements) I do think we need to try to balance 'needs' versus 'wants' in the benefit system.

Yebbut that's got the priorities all wrong, hasn't it?

As I say, the parlous situation we're all in thanks to hopelessly greedy, corrupt & incompetent government is not the fault of embdy in the circumstances I describe; and I think it's grossly unfair to think that those people in those circumstances should be the ones to pay - & suffer - for said greed, corruption and incompetence.

Home, work, faith...all stolen and trampled by shameless Labour and tory bastard politicians.

[westender]

Mar 7, 2012 14:32:58 GMT -1 notanimby said:

Sheltered housing is not granny farming.

When I say granny farming, what I mean is profiting - by whatever means - from the provision of accommodation tailored to the circumstances specific to old folks.

Call it what you like, I call it granny farming - it's all about profit.

[Deleted]

Mar 7, 2012 20:08:55 GMT -1 westender said:

Mar 7, 2012 19:49:39 GMT -1 @rolo said:

Nobody's 'demanding' anything of the sort, Westie.
But personally I've no issue with the suggestion that those in far bigger houses than they need are offered an alternative. It's not about 'forcing' anyone to do anything.

It is for the goverment.
"Offered an alternative"...? Do you seriously think that those "offered an alternative" will have any choice in the matter?

There is an economic argument, I'm afraid. Single people living in bigger council houses which attract higher council tax get 25% discount, again subsidised by taxes. Should they relocate by choice they still get their 25% discount but the proportion of subsidy required is far less.

Later in my post I referred to complete abuses of the council house system. While I agree that more social housing should be on the agenda (thanks to Thatcher's brilliant scheme of selling em off cheap and not building replacements) I do think we need to try to balance 'needs' versus 'wants' in the benefit system.

Yebbut that's got the priorities all wrong, hasn't it?

As I say, the parlous situation we're all in thanks to hopelessly greedy, corrupt & incompetent government is not the fault of embdy in the circumstances I describe; and I think it's grossly unfair to think that those people in those circumstances should be the ones to pay - & suffer - for said greed, corruption and incompetence.

Home, work, faith...all stolen and trampled by shameless Labour and tory bastard politicians.

I wasn't aware that people were going to be 'forced' into downsizing, Westie?

However when successive governments decide to spend more on armaments, quangos, consultants and burocracy (I can NEVER spell that!) than they do on social housing then sadly, local councils are beholden to make economies.

But at the same time, to put it bluntly, there is waste and there are those who abuse the system.

The vast majority of people are on the average wage or below. Yet we have the anomaly that after paying tax many are much worse off than the recipients of their generosity. Nobody in their right minds would deny the needy, the sick, the disabled. But the abuses of council housing is an issue, and rightly so, imv.

If we quit turning a blind eye to the abuses, then more homes would be available for those on the waitlist.

[westender]

Mar 7, 2012 20:47:29 GMT -1 @rolo said:

I wasn't aware that people were going to be 'forced' into downsizing, Westie?

To be fair, I dunno, am not totally acquainted with the story. I'm just sniffin the air. Seems pretty inevitable to me.

However when successive governments decide to spend more on armaments, quangos, consultants and burocracy (I can NEVER spell that!) than they do on social housing then sadly, local councils are beholden to make economies.

But at the same time, to put it bluntly, there is waste and there are those who abuse the system.

The vast majority of people are on the average wage or below. Yet we have the anomaly that after paying tax many are much worse off than the recipients of their generosity. Nobody in their right minds would deny the needy, the sick, the disabled. But the abuses of council housing is an issue, and rightly so, imv.

If we quit turning a blind eye to the abuses, then more homes would be available for those on the waitlist.

I don't disagree; but I do have a blind spot when it comes to notions of home, and where people feel they belong.