Osborne hammers nail into social housing’s coffin (and landlords don’t even see it!)

Last Updated: June 28, 2013By


  1. simmo70 June 28, 2013 at 11:11 am - Reply

    Etonians have one thing in common BSC Degrees but an Eton BSC is nothing to do with being a Batchelor of Science,its being a BS with cunning .Osbornes statement on the Spending Plans to take us beyond the Election are as empty as Osbornes Head .What an accolade for his parents “our little smugly piggy is one of the Biggest Liars in the Country and gets paid for it”
    No mention of higher Taxes NO mention of Foreign Owned Energy Companies threatening blackouts if they can’t keep ripping us off.’The biggest spend on Roads for decades,because they want repairing .Infrasturcture , the Conman Schapps told us they’d sold off G4 and that was already under way a year ago .The inequalities that reign in this Country are becoming worse ,the Lawrence issue is and has cost the Taxpayer millions,why when anyone else that has suffered from crime just gets a Police Crime number and that’s the end of it.

  2. msoftley June 28, 2013 at 11:22 am - Reply

    I think the true intention is to bankrupt SH landlords – as posted here- and then the banks will take over the properties and the SH contract will be dead http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/mel-kelly/bedroom-tax-making-rachmanism-legal-in-uk

  3. guy fawkes June 28, 2013 at 11:52 am - Reply

    I tried to post this in the Renfrewshire council link but had no account that was permissable so I will put it here.

    I live in what is defined as a 3 bed property , one bedroom of which is a box romm which I use to store my son’s furniture from a failed marriage, I accommodate another bedroom and my grandchildren us the 3rd bedroom when they stay at weekends.

    The propoganda that land to build social housing on is limitied is what is driving councils to force people to live in one bedroom shoe boxes, ignoring the fact that spare bedrooms do get used for friends, family etc, because it does not fit in with government/cojncil doctatorship on what is and isn’t fair.

    People who have lived in their properties for many years have built up community links and familiarity should not be moved on spurrious charges, nor should they be denied housing benefit for staying put – nor the right to buy or accrued discount.

    For those who own their own homes nobody impresses on them that they should move for ecological reasons into smaller dwellings, so why should those in social housing?

    The who term “social” is becoming one of a derogatory nature and should be termed “anti-social”. If you need social care to remain independent in your home then smaller dwellings would be more manageable and also less time consuming, therefore more profitable for home help agencies contracted to the private sector.

    This agenda is nothing to do with housing other than to highlight the lack of it because they have not used the money from council house sales to replenish social housing stock, but it is more about meanness of the government that thinks the spending of public money is no object when it comes to them and their friends’ salaries or expenses but it is the only issue when it comes to the poorest in society.

  4. guy fawkes June 28, 2013 at 11:55 am - Reply

    typo’s but main one” the whole term “social” is becoming one of a derogatory nature………”

  5. jeff bowler June 28, 2013 at 12:45 pm - Reply

    why are we not buying rifles?

Leave A Comment

you might also like