- Mobile site
- E-Newsletters
-
- News feed
- Find us on Twitter
@dailyecho
Daily Echo on Twitter
@the_saints
Saints News on Twitter
SceneSouth
Leisure news on Twitter
- Find us on Facebook
Facebook
Daily Echo on Facebook
Neighbourhoods divided over plans for 118 new homes on Southampton 'dead land' (From Daily Echo)
When news happens, text SDE and your photos or videos to 80360. Or contact us by email and phone.
Neighbourhoods divided over plans for 118 new homes on Southampton 'dead land'
12:08pm Monday 11th March 2013 in News
Map showing the proposed sites for homes development in Coxford and Lordswood.
THEY are the multi-million-pound plans that could see grass verges and green spaces turn into scores of houses and flats.
Residents are being given the final say on moves to build 118 homes on four sites across Southampton.
The scheme, earmarked for land worth £3m in Coxford and Lordswood, has already split opinion in the two neighbourhoods.
Southampton City Council’s leader Richard Williams put forward the proposals and is set for a barrage of questions when he attends a public meeting this week.
A number of residents have already attacked the plan, with one branding the idea “stupid” amid concerns it could lead to more traffic and accidents.
Cllr Williams said the plans for the council-owned sites, which he described as “dead land”, were drawn up after he heard concerns from Lordswood residents about a lack of housing in the area.
He said: “When we were campaigning in Coxford ahead of the election last year a lot of people told us they had problems with housing, that their sons and daughters, grandsons and granddaughters, couldn’t afford to buy a house to stay within the community they had grown up in.”
In the plans, which were drawn up at no cost to the council by Barratt Develop-ments, 18 three or four-bedroom homes and 12 flats could be built on the verge near Sinclair Nursery and Primary School, while 18 houses and 24 flats could be constructed on verges further east along Lord’s Hill Way.
Up to 13 houses could be built at the rear entrance of Hollybrook cemetery in Lordswood Road and 33 flats on the turning circle outside the Rose Road Association centre.
Cllr Williams added: “This is us listening to the residents’ concerns. It’s not us forcing a development on the community.
“We have a shortage of houses in the city, but not much money to build homes – we have to think differently and do things differently.
“I’m looking forward to hearing what people have to say.”
If residents react positively to the plans, the council will tender for formal planning applications to do the work.
If there is broad resistance to a development, Cllr Williams said the work will not go ahead.
The trees of Lord’s Wood itself will not be touched in any development work.
Reacting to the plans, Lordswood resident Allison McAlpine said: “There’s not enough space, whether the new buildings are houses or flats.
“These areas of land are just too narrow to build on, and they are also important green spaces in the area.
“It’s going to change the whole aspect of Lordswood and it’s going to cause a lot of traffic in the area. That is my main concern.
“It will cause accidents and I think the idea is stupid.”
Coxford councillor Don Thomas said: “This is precious green space which would bring Lordshill estate, which is already a desert of houses with no facilities, right into the heart of Lordswood. It is plain daft.”
Residents will have the final say on whether the plans get the green light, and they can voice their opinions at a meeting at the community centre in Sandpiper Road on Friday at 7.30pm.
Comments(82)
loosehead
says...
12:38pm Mon 11 Mar 13
One of these sites are a designated wild life corridor & Cllr Williams knows this.
do you really think this is the safest & best place to build these properties?
these grass verges are there serving a Safety purpose to traffic coming along Lordshill way.
at the moment if a car loses control for any reason there's a run off verge take these verges away & this paper will be reporting on cars hitting buildings.
Lordshill is the most concentrated housing development in this city so why take away the little green space we have?
what next? build on all the green land in Millbrook Green Park Estate?
do you really think this is the safest & best place to build these properties?
these grass verges are there serving a Safety purpose to traffic coming along Lordshill way.
at the moment if a car loses control for any reason there's a run off verge take these verges away & this paper will be reporting on cars hitting buildings.
Lordshill is the most concentrated housing development in this city so why take away the little green space we have?
what next? build on all the green land in Millbrook Green Park Estate?
southy
says...
12:38pm Mon 11 Mar 13
If this is Council properity then it should be only council owned homes, and not given to the private sector to have
CharlieOxbridge
says...
12:44pm Mon 11 Mar 13
loosehead wrote:Absolutely, these green spaces should be considered under new guide lines from Government to build more affordable housing rather than eating into the green belt and countryside.
One of these sites are a designated wild life corridor & Cllr Williams knows this. do you really think this is the safest & best place to build these properties? these grass verges are there serving a Safety purpose to traffic coming along Lordshill way. at the moment if a car loses control for any reason there's a run off verge take these verges away & this paper will be reporting on cars hitting buildings. Lordshill is the most concentrated housing development in this city so why take away the little green space we have? what next? build on all the green land in Millbrook Green Park Estate?
CharlieOxbridge
says...
12:47pm Mon 11 Mar 13
southy wrote:Agree, and also have covenants on the houses so that they are never to be sold to private landlords as what happened when Maggie gave the right to buy on their Council houses.
If this is Council properity then it should be only council owned homes, and not given to the private sector to have
Vix1
says...
12:50pm Mon 11 Mar 13
They should be protecting the green spaces not building more "social" housing!! It is already chaotic heading towards the hospital as it is, without increasing the traffic in that area!! Why not pull down some of the older council houses and build purpose built flats?? They needn't be tower blocks but just a couple of storeys could still treble the amount of housing without losing the green spaces.
loosehead
says...
12:51pm Mon 11 Mar 13
CharlieOxbridge wrote:I live in Lordshill & go & have a look at the land they're talking of cramming these properties on.
southy wrote:Agree, and also have covenants on the houses so that they are never to be sold to private landlords as what happened when Maggie gave the right to buy on their Council houses.
If this is Council properity then it should be only council owned homes, and not given to the private sector to have
I'm not for Boorley Green but to even try to compare the two sites is a joke.
loosehead
says...
12:57pm Mon 11 Mar 13
southy wrote:Southy try using your brain for once & go & look at the proposed sites would you think this is the best place to build these properties on?
If this is Council properity then it should be only council owned homes, and not given to the private sector to have
Why not build on the parks in Millbrook Green Park Estate as most of that green land is never used?
then tell the residents it was a TUSC idea & let's see how many votes you'd get?
Boorley Green is a wide open space with room for gardens & enough room to swing a cat try looking at the site where the busses turn around & the proposal to build flats on that sliver of land?
Williams is a disgrace to our city maybe we should build flats along Mountbatten Way or just build along the edge of the M27 & that's right on the edge of the road just as these will have to be built
allison.luella
says...
1:07pm Mon 11 Mar 13
No homes should be built on theses areas, its the road accidents that will increase, plus children running along the road etc, its dangerous and very foolish to even think of putting houses on these sites!!
southy
says...
1:20pm Mon 11 Mar 13
loosehead wrote:No I don't Loose, but like the Torys, labour would just as likely to sale the land to the private sector to build on, which is wrong they selling the citys assets off.
southy wrote:Southy try using your brain for once & go & look at the proposed sites would you think this is the best place to build these properties on?
If this is Council properity then it should be only council owned homes, and not given to the private sector to have
Why not build on the parks in Millbrook Green Park Estate as most of that green land is never used?
then tell the residents it was a TUSC idea & let's see how many votes you'd get?
Boorley Green is a wide open space with room for gardens & enough room to swing a cat try looking at the site where the busses turn around & the proposal to build flats on that sliver of land?
Williams is a disgrace to our city maybe we should build flats along Mountbatten Way or just build along the edge of the M27 & that's right on the edge of the road just as these will have to be built
southy
says...
1:25pm Mon 11 Mar 13
CharlieOxbridge wrote:Maggie never gave the right to buy a council home, thats all ways been there. What Maggie did was to allow them to sold cheap a % to how long you lived in a council owned home.
southy wrote:Agree, and also have covenants on the houses so that they are never to be sold to private landlords as what happened when Maggie gave the right to buy on their Council houses.
If this is Council properity then it should be only council owned homes, and not given to the private sector to have
Also she stop councils from building new homes to replace the ones that was sold, and not to be able to keep up with the growing housing waiting list.
She also took the money that councils made and controlled the council on how much they could spend on services.
Lone Ranger.
says...
1:28pm Mon 11 Mar 13
Interesting that some parts of the proposal have some mileage but not too sure about others.
.
The houses opposite the cemetary entrance is possible as i think these will be where the derelict garages are.
.
The apartments opposite Rose Road centre at the turning area is also possible.
.
Not too sure about the proposals in Lordshill Way though ....... Seems a bit tight on space
.
The houses opposite the cemetary entrance is possible as i think these will be where the derelict garages are.
.
The apartments opposite Rose Road centre at the turning area is also possible.
.
Not too sure about the proposals in Lordshill Way though ....... Seems a bit tight on space
Paramjit Bahia
says...
1:37pm Mon 11 Mar 13
Strangely the hypocrite Dear Leader does not refer to green space around and near his own mansion in Highfield as "Dead Land".
In fact the same Council which wants to hand over whatever is left of bit of green grass on the side of busy road in Coxford has policy of preserving the character of area where current NuLabourite Dear Leader of the Council Cllr. Williams and former right wing Leader of Council John Arnold live.
Over the years Southampton Council has been asset stripping Coxford; not only schools have been closed and money made for wasting in other areas, they have even closed children's play areas. How mean can this Council become?
At one time same Council tried to encourage destruction of Lordswood by building university.
Although woodland of Lordswood is not even in Southampton but falls under neighbouring Council, which after our last campaign to save it has policy regarding that land.
So the Dear Leader is trying to play a fast one like Cameron by pretending to be the saviour of those trees.
When he says he was told certain things by residents of this during the election, I have the suspicion The Dear Leader is doing his usual fibbing, as he and his deputy lied through their teeth when Cllr Morrell resigned.
Because as resident of Coxford I have never seen him around in this area canvassing for his Thatcherised NuLabour.
Over the years they have towed the line of big developers, allowed them to build even on our roads, thus denying people right of way. This stupid policy MUST STOP.
Rather than batting for builders Council should be looking after the interests of Southampton
In fact the same Council which wants to hand over whatever is left of bit of green grass on the side of busy road in Coxford has policy of preserving the character of area where current NuLabourite Dear Leader of the Council Cllr. Williams and former right wing Leader of Council John Arnold live.
Over the years Southampton Council has been asset stripping Coxford; not only schools have been closed and money made for wasting in other areas, they have even closed children's play areas. How mean can this Council become?
At one time same Council tried to encourage destruction of Lordswood by building university.
Although woodland of Lordswood is not even in Southampton but falls under neighbouring Council, which after our last campaign to save it has policy regarding that land.
So the Dear Leader is trying to play a fast one like Cameron by pretending to be the saviour of those trees.
When he says he was told certain things by residents of this during the election, I have the suspicion The Dear Leader is doing his usual fibbing, as he and his deputy lied through their teeth when Cllr Morrell resigned.
Because as resident of Coxford I have never seen him around in this area canvassing for his Thatcherised NuLabour.
Over the years they have towed the line of big developers, allowed them to build even on our roads, thus denying people right of way. This stupid policy MUST STOP.
Rather than batting for builders Council should be looking after the interests of Southampton
Rockhopper
says...
1:53pm Mon 11 Mar 13
It is simply false to say that the areas in question are designated 'protected' under any nature/green belt status.
Those people making these false statements are classic NIMBY's no doubt from Lordswood.
Those people making these false statements are classic NIMBY's no doubt from Lordswood.
Zeo
says...
1:58pm Mon 11 Mar 13
I live on the back of Lordshill Way, the traffic is not an issue, it flows very freely and 'too quickly', people belting at 60MPH in a 40MPH zone. It would cause accidents unless the speed was reduced, the corners a bit blinding, especially in low sun light.
Also, they build on top of the old Sinclaire Jnr School so where are the new children meant to go if places are all full?
Why not build on the old Oaklands School Site, most of it is now closed down so a perfect spot, plus it's all hidden by trees.
Also, they build on top of the old Sinclaire Jnr School so where are the new children meant to go if places are all full?
Why not build on the old Oaklands School Site, most of it is now closed down so a perfect spot, plus it's all hidden by trees.
bigfella777
says...
2:01pm Mon 11 Mar 13
If this gets rid of pesky foxes,badgers and pidgeons then I'm all for it. There should be no hiding place for vermin in our cities.
cantthinkofone
says...
2:12pm Mon 11 Mar 13
Vix1 wrote:Because children need gardens to play in (and it's quite good for the grown-ups too).
They should be protecting the green spaces not building more "social" housing!! It is already chaotic heading towards the hospital as it is, without increasing the traffic in that area!! Why not pull down some of the older council houses and build purpose built flats?? They needn't be tower blocks but just a couple of storeys could still treble the amount of housing without losing the green spaces.
Especially these days when it's not considered 'safe' for kids to play out, we need more houses and less flats.
allison.luella
says...
2:16pm Mon 11 Mar 13
This will not get rid of foxes, badger and pidgeons, its going to encourage the foxes into homes because the council are building on their territory!! and anyway, its the people who encourage vermin, with the way they live and dispose of their rubbish!! x
Paramjit Bahia
says...
2:22pm Mon 11 Mar 13
southy wrote:Pete with friends like you do we really need any enemies?
If this is Council properity then it should be only council owned homes, and not given to the private sector to have
The main issue here is environment and protection of limited green space and yet more asset stripping by Council in Coxford.
That is why Don Thomas and Keith Morrell are against this crazy idea.
Will you be saying the same if Dear Leader's unleashes his hounds after the parks of Millbrook where you live or Riverside Park near to your party Organiser's house?
Please think before you post comment
Stillness
says...
2:32pm Mon 11 Mar 13
This story deserves 10 out of 10 for provocation. I can't remember such a collection of purely predictable posts for a long long time. Save the grass, build on the grass as long as it's not near me, hide them behind trees, blame Maggie, slow the traffic.
The answer is simple. Stop bloody breeding at a rate that can't be sustained. I blame the Pope!
The answer is simple. Stop bloody breeding at a rate that can't be sustained. I blame the Pope!
southy
says...
2:47pm Mon 11 Mar 13
Paramjit Bahia wrote:Paramjit read other posts your jumping the gunn again.
southy wrote:Pete with friends like you do we really need any enemies?
If this is Council properity then it should be only council owned homes, and not given to the private sector to have
The main issue here is environment and protection of limited green space and yet more asset stripping by Council in Coxford.
That is why Don Thomas and Keith Morrell are against this crazy idea.
Will you be saying the same if Dear Leader's unleashes his hounds after the parks of Millbrook where you live or Riverside Park near to your party Organiser's house?
Please think before you post comment
Quote 2nd post.
southy says...
1:20pm Mon 11 Mar 13
loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
If this is Council properity then it should be only council owned homes, and not given to the private sector to have
Southy try using your brain for once & go & look at the proposed sites would you think this is the best place to build these properties on?
Why not build on the parks in Millbrook Green Park Estate as most of that green land is never used?
then tell the residents it was a TUSC idea & let's see how many votes you'd get?
Boorley Green is a wide open space with room for gardens & enough room to swing a cat try looking at the site where the busses turn around & the proposal to build flats on that sliver of land?
Williams is a disgrace to our city maybe we should build flats along Mountbatten Way or just build along the edge of the M27 & that's right on the edge of the road just as these will have to be built
No I don't Loose, but like the Torys, labour would just as likely to sale the land to the private sector to build on, which is wrong they selling the citys assets off.
Vix1
says...
2:48pm Mon 11 Mar 13
cantthinkofone wrote:The green spaces need to be left for kids to play too!!! and for nature to thrive and for the same children that need gardens to play in to be kept safe!!!! Who says these houses will have gardens anyway?? most new builds have precious little land!! Get a grip, this area does not need any more housing!
Vix1 wrote:Because children need gardens to play in (and it's quite good for the grown-ups too).
They should be protecting the green spaces not building more "social" housing!! It is already chaotic heading towards the hospital as it is, without increasing the traffic in that area!! Why not pull down some of the older council houses and build purpose built flats?? They needn't be tower blocks but just a couple of storeys could still treble the amount of housing without losing the green spaces.
Especially these days when it's not considered 'safe' for kids to play out, we need more houses and less flats.
dango
says...
2:56pm Mon 11 Mar 13
bigfella777 wrote:So why are you still here?
If this gets rid of pesky foxes,badgers and pidgeons then I'm all for it. There should be no hiding place for vermin in our cities.
Stillness
says...
2:58pm Mon 11 Mar 13
Vix1 wrote:Oh come on. We have to put all the benefit cheats and pikies somewhere and Millbrook, or Redbridge as southy would call it is full ;-)
cantthinkofone wrote:The green spaces need to be left for kids to play too!!! and for nature to thrive and for the same children that need gardens to play in to be kept safe!!!! Who says these houses will have gardens anyway?? most new builds have precious little land!! Get a grip, this area does not need any more housing!
Vix1 wrote:Because children need gardens to play in (and it's quite good for the grown-ups too).
They should be protecting the green spaces not building more "social" housing!! It is already chaotic heading towards the hospital as it is, without increasing the traffic in that area!! Why not pull down some of the older council houses and build purpose built flats?? They needn't be tower blocks but just a couple of storeys could still treble the amount of housing without losing the green spaces.
Especially these days when it's not considered 'safe' for kids to play out, we need more houses and less flats.
cantthinkofone
says...
3:17pm Mon 11 Mar 13
Third para - Second 'houses' should be 'flats' of course.
Vix1
says...
3:30pm Mon 11 Mar 13
"cantthinkofone", you are good at being patronising and behaving in a puerile fashion, it's only a shame you can't use your time doing something constructive!
phil maccavity
says...
3:32pm Mon 11 Mar 13
southy wrote:Southy
CharlieOxbridge wrote:Maggie never gave the right to buy a council home, thats all ways been there. What Maggie did was to allow them to sold cheap a % to how long you lived in a council owned home.
southy wrote:Agree, and also have covenants on the houses so that they are never to be sold to private landlords as what happened when Maggie gave the right to buy on their Council houses.
If this is Council properity then it should be only council owned homes, and not given to the private sector to have
Also she stop councils from building new homes to replace the ones that was sold, and not to be able to keep up with the growing housing waiting list.
She also took the money that councils made and controlled the council on how much they could spend on services.
just out of interest when did you buy your ex Council House?
housewife
says...
3:45pm Mon 11 Mar 13
Build on the Oaklands site FIRST
cantthinkofone
says...
3:54pm Mon 11 Mar 13
Vix1 wrote:Well done for restraining yourself to just the one question mark.
"cantthinkofone
", you are good at being patronising and behaving in a puerile fashion, it's only a shame you can't use your time doing something constructive!
>
I'd love to know what 'constructive' things you do with your time other than poorly written hysteria on local websites. I suspect it largely revolves around doing the school-run in your pyjamas.
>
Seriously sweetie, if you don't want to be patronised, don't be a moron.
southy
says...
3:59pm Mon 11 Mar 13
phil maccavity wrote:It was bought in 1977-8, when this one was bought there was all ready 2 others in this row of houses bought.
southy wrote:Southy
CharlieOxbridge wrote:Maggie never gave the right to buy a council home, thats all ways been there. What Maggie did was to allow them to sold cheap a % to how long you lived in a council owned home.
southy wrote:Agree, and also have covenants on the houses so that they are never to be sold to private landlords as what happened when Maggie gave the right to buy on their Council houses.
If this is Council properity then it should be only council owned homes, and not given to the private sector to have
Also she stop councils from building new homes to replace the ones that was sold, and not to be able to keep up with the growing housing waiting list.
She also took the money that councils made and controlled the council on how much they could spend on services.
just out of interest when did you buy your ex Council House?
Stillness
says...
4:11pm Mon 11 Mar 13
southy wrote:Monkey see monkey do?
phil maccavity wrote:It was bought in 1977-8, when this one was bought there was all ready 2 others in this row of houses bought.
southy wrote:Southy
CharlieOxbridge wrote:Maggie never gave the right to buy a council home, thats all ways been there. What Maggie did was to allow them to sold cheap a % to how long you lived in a council owned home.
southy wrote:Agree, and also have covenants on the houses so that they are never to be sold to private landlords as what happened when Maggie gave the right to buy on their Council houses.
If this is Council properity then it should be only council owned homes, and not given to the private sector to have
Also she stop councils from building new homes to replace the ones that was sold, and not to be able to keep up with the growing housing waiting list.
She also took the money that councils made and controlled the council on how much they could spend on services.
just out of interest when did you buy your ex Council House?
linstrand
says...
4:25pm Mon 11 Mar 13
CharlieOxbridge
I&my late husband bought our Council house in 1972. Not instigated by Mrs Thatcher.When my husband was promoted because the Council said they would plough the money back to build more houses, which sadly they did not do.Thought we were doing the right thing
I know the area well,& agree there is not much room there to build more houses
I&my late husband bought our Council house in 1972. Not instigated by Mrs Thatcher.When my husband was promoted because the Council said they would plough the money back to build more houses, which sadly they did not do.Thought we were doing the right thing
I know the area well,& agree there is not much room there to build more houses
loosehead
says...
4:45pm Mon 11 Mar 13
Here's an idea for you all to ponder on!
Oaklands half a million to demolish? A kick up ensues as this could be a great community building!
Then surprise,surprise Williams comes out with this ridiculous idea & hey Presto idiots come on here saying build homes on Oakland school site? Williams must be rubbing his hands with glee as the spider cast his web & caught a lot of flies.
You've now given him what he wanted do you not think this is/was his plan all the time?
Take a look at the land earmarked for flats & houses along this road.
Not wide enough to build anything but matchstick boxes called flats but hey ho he doesn't need to build there as he'll listen to the people & build on Oaklands?
I'm not a Nimby I don't live in that sector of Lordshill/Lordswood but I'm a realist & if anyone can visit that area & these proposed sites & say they're right for this development then Specsavers will help you.
Oaklands half a million to demolish? A kick up ensues as this could be a great community building!
Then surprise,surprise Williams comes out with this ridiculous idea & hey Presto idiots come on here saying build homes on Oakland school site? Williams must be rubbing his hands with glee as the spider cast his web & caught a lot of flies.
You've now given him what he wanted do you not think this is/was his plan all the time?
Take a look at the land earmarked for flats & houses along this road.
Not wide enough to build anything but matchstick boxes called flats but hey ho he doesn't need to build there as he'll listen to the people & build on Oaklands?
I'm not a Nimby I don't live in that sector of Lordshill/Lordswood but I'm a realist & if anyone can visit that area & these proposed sites & say they're right for this development then Specsavers will help you.
loosehead
says...
4:49pm Mon 11 Mar 13
southy wrote:That alone makes you a hypocrite doesn't it?
phil maccavity wrote:It was bought in 1977-8, when this one was bought there was all ready 2 others in this row of houses bought.
southy wrote:Southy
CharlieOxbridge wrote:Maggie never gave the right to buy a council home, thats all ways been there. What Maggie did was to allow them to sold cheap a % to how long you lived in a council owned home.
southy wrote:Agree, and also have covenants on the houses so that they are never to be sold to private landlords as what happened when Maggie gave the right to buy on their Council houses.
If this is Council properity then it should be only council owned homes, and not given to the private sector to have
Also she stop councils from building new homes to replace the ones that was sold, and not to be able to keep up with the growing housing waiting list.
She also took the money that councils made and controlled the council on how much they could spend on services.
just out of interest when did you buy your ex Council House?
Now let's look at this proposal,all the flats & houses a percentage have to be Social housing so on a busy junction crammed right next to a bus stop the social housing will go & the areas further up the road will be private making that area a private area more profit for Barrats as there's no way that company is going to build a load of properties to give to the council for free are they?
listentome
says...
4:52pm Mon 11 Mar 13
I live very near where they are proposing to build flats/houses opposite the Rose Road centre....I'm not bothered what they build and where as I don't plan on living here much longer, but I cannot see how any building will fit where the turning-point thing is opposite the Rose Road?? There's no room where will it possibly go??? Such a weird proposal!
housewife
says...
4:53pm Mon 11 Mar 13
The main Oaklands building CANNOT be used for a modern community purpose because its full of steps and narrow corridors and poor access, and it leaks.
.
The plan when the Purple Thing was built was always that it would be pulled down and houses / flats put in.
.
Then we lose no more green space.
.
The plan when the Purple Thing was built was always that it would be pulled down and houses / flats put in.
.
Then we lose no more green space.
cantthinkofone
says...
4:54pm Mon 11 Mar 13
Right to buy is often blamed, but if social tenants have rented the place for long enough to have paid what it cost to build it, I have no problem with their tenancy being converted to ownership. In fact, I think it's an excellent idea, and a rare empowering opportunity for working class families.
.
The problem isn't the right to buy, it's the failure to replace those properties, and the failure to increase the stock of social housing in line with population growth.
.
Thatcher gave people the right to buy through gritted teeth I'm sure. But it was a means to an end, and that end was creating a substantial demand-heavy market for property.
.
An insufficiency of housing creates high demand, which increases value, which puts more profit in the pockets of developers.
.
The failure to build enough to meet demand is not an accident.
.
The problem isn't the right to buy, it's the failure to replace those properties, and the failure to increase the stock of social housing in line with population growth.
.
Thatcher gave people the right to buy through gritted teeth I'm sure. But it was a means to an end, and that end was creating a substantial demand-heavy market for property.
.
An insufficiency of housing creates high demand, which increases value, which puts more profit in the pockets of developers.
.
The failure to build enough to meet demand is not an accident.
southy
says...
5:06pm Mon 11 Mar 13
loosehead wrote:No it don't Loose as the house bought before Thatcher was PM, buying council homes have all ways been on offer to its tentants, this house was offered in 1959 for the sum of £900, what was equal to 20 years of wages for that time.
southy wrote:That alone makes you a hypocrite doesn't it?
phil maccavity wrote:It was bought in 1977-8, when this one was bought there was all ready 2 others in this row of houses bought.
southy wrote:Southy
CharlieOxbridge wrote:Maggie never gave the right to buy a council home, thats all ways been there. What Maggie did was to allow them to sold cheap a % to how long you lived in a council owned home.
southy wrote:Agree, and also have covenants on the houses so that they are never to be sold to private landlords as what happened when Maggie gave the right to buy on their Council houses.
If this is Council properity then it should be only council owned homes, and not given to the private sector to have
Also she stop councils from building new homes to replace the ones that was sold, and not to be able to keep up with the growing housing waiting list.
She also took the money that councils made and controlled the council on how much they could spend on services.
just out of interest when did you buy your ex Council House?
Now let's look at this proposal,all the flats & houses a percentage have to be Social housing so on a busy junction crammed right next to a bus stop the social housing will go & the areas further up the road will be private making that area a private area more profit for Barrats as there's no way that company is going to build a load of properties to give to the council for free are they?
Social housing owned by who, not the council as they have to ask Government for permission to build any Council homes, With Thatcher council was not allowed at all.
Socialist have never said you can not own your own home.
Stillness
says...
5:17pm Mon 11 Mar 13
southy wrote:I'm sure that he makes it up as he goes along.
loosehead wrote:No it don't Loose as the house bought before Thatcher was PM, buying council homes have all ways been on offer to its tentants, this house was offered in 1959 for the sum of £900, what was equal to 20 years of wages for that time.
southy wrote:That alone makes you a hypocrite doesn't it?
phil maccavity wrote:It was bought in 1977-8, when this one was bought there was all ready 2 others in this row of houses bought.
southy wrote:Southy
CharlieOxbridge wrote:Maggie never gave the right to buy a council home, thats all ways been there. What Maggie did was to allow them to sold cheap a % to how long you lived in a council owned home.
southy wrote:Agree, and also have covenants on the houses so that they are never to be sold to private landlords as what happened when Maggie gave the right to buy on their Council houses.
If this is Council properity then it should be only council owned homes, and not given to the private sector to have
Also she stop councils from building new homes to replace the ones that was sold, and not to be able to keep up with the growing housing waiting list.
She also took the money that councils made and controlled the council on how much they could spend on services.
just out of interest when did you buy your ex Council House?
Now let's look at this proposal,all the flats & houses a percentage have to be Social housing so on a busy junction crammed right next to a bus stop the social housing will go & the areas further up the road will be private making that area a private area more profit for Barrats as there's no way that company is going to build a load of properties to give to the council for free are they?
Social housing owned by who, not the council as they have to ask Government for permission to build any Council homes, With Thatcher council was not allowed at all.
Socialist have never said you can not own your own home.
Micle1974
says...
5:32pm Mon 11 Mar 13
Stillness wrote:I blame the immagration quotas!
This story deserves 10 out of 10 for provocation. I can't remember such a collection of purely predictable posts for a long long time. Save the grass, build on the grass as long as it's not near me, hide them behind trees, blame Maggie, slow the traffic.
The answer is simple. Stop bloody breeding at a rate that can't be sustained. I blame the Pope!
sophisticated
says...
5:34pm Mon 11 Mar 13
Theres a big piece of land along the Portsmouth Road, Southampton, Why not build on this? This area is not a beauty spot and will not spoil the area
Stillness
says...
5:43pm Mon 11 Mar 13
Micle1974 wrote:As it's the Pope and his crowd trying to prevent contraception throughout the world I think I'll stick to blaming him.
Stillness wrote:I blame the immagration quotas!
This story deserves 10 out of 10 for provocation. I can't remember such a collection of purely predictable posts for a long long time. Save the grass, build on the grass as long as it's not near me, hide them behind trees, blame Maggie, slow the traffic.
The answer is simple. Stop bloody breeding at a rate that can't be sustained. I blame the Pope!
bigfella777
says...
5:49pm Mon 11 Mar 13
sophisticated wrote:Because it probably forms the green belt between Eastleigh and Soton.
Theres a big piece of land along the Portsmouth Road, Southampton, Why not build on this? This area is not a beauty spot and will not spoil the area
bigfella777
says...
5:50pm Mon 11 Mar 13
allison.luella wrote:If fox hunting was still allowed they wouldn't be so prolific.
This will not get rid of foxes, badger and pidgeons, its going to encourage the foxes into homes because the council are building on their territory!! and anyway, its the people who encourage vermin, with the way they live and dispose of their rubbish!! x
cantthinkofone
says...
6:37pm Mon 11 Mar 13
bigfella777 wrote:Absolutely. I used to always enjoy the spectacle of the Millbrook hunt riding by...
allison.luella wrote:If fox hunting was still allowed they wouldn't be so prolific.
This will not get rid of foxes, badger and pidgeons, its going to encourage the foxes into homes because the council are building on their territory!! and anyway, its the people who encourage vermin, with the way they live and dispose of their rubbish!! x
As it happens, there were fox culling measures in place in London for about 40 years. It had no effect on the population whatsoever. They're very territorial animals, so if you kill the local alpha male then another will quickly move in to occupy the vacant territory. The only effective way of deterring foxes is to keep the streets clean and bins secure. If the place is littered with half-eaten KFC then you'll have more foxes, as they can survive with a smaller territory.
Sir Ad E Noid
says...
7:25pm Mon 11 Mar 13
southy wrote:Southy, what you are saying then is that Maggie Thatcher got many more people into owning there own homes. What a Lady. Thanks for pointing that out.
CharlieOxbridge wrote:Maggie never gave the right to buy a council home, thats all ways been there. What Maggie did was to allow them to sold cheap a % to how long you lived in a council owned home.
southy wrote:Agree, and also have covenants on the houses so that they are never to be sold to private landlords as what happened when Maggie gave the right to buy on their Council houses.
If this is Council properity then it should be only council owned homes, and not given to the private sector to have
Also she stop councils from building new homes to replace the ones that was sold, and not to be able to keep up with the growing housing waiting list.
She also took the money that councils made and controlled the council on how much they could spend on services.
focus19
says...
8:35pm Mon 11 Mar 13
More Green space that will be lost forever, Plenty of of other places that are unsightly around the city could be re developed. Lordshill Way is not the best place for new homes or the Aldermoor Bus Turning circle. It would look over developed and cluttered. What ever next Building homes on the common or the City Parks ? anything for a quick buck.
phil maccavity
says...
8:54pm Mon 11 Mar 13
southy wrote:The house was bought in 1977-8.
loosehead wrote:No it don't Loose as the house bought before Thatcher was PM, buying council homes have all ways been on offer to its tentants, this house was offered in 1959 for the sum of £900, what was equal to 20 years of wages for that time.
southy wrote:That alone makes you a hypocrite doesn't it?
phil maccavity wrote:It was bought in 1977-8, when this one was bought there was all ready 2 others in this row of houses bought.
southy wrote:Southy
CharlieOxbridge wrote:Maggie never gave the right to buy a council home, thats all ways been there. What Maggie did was to allow them to sold cheap a % to how long you lived in a council owned home.
southy wrote:Agree, and also have covenants on the houses so that they are never to be sold to private landlords as what happened when Maggie gave the right to buy on their Council houses.
If this is Council properity then it should be only council owned homes, and not given to the private sector to have
Also she stop councils from building new homes to replace the ones that was sold, and not to be able to keep up with the growing housing waiting list.
She also took the money that councils made and controlled the council on how much they could spend on services.
just out of interest when did you buy your ex Council House?
Now let's look at this proposal,all the flats & houses a percentage have to be Social housing so on a busy junction crammed right next to a bus stop the social housing will go & the areas further up the road will be private making that area a private area more profit for Barrats as there's no way that company is going to build a load of properties to give to the council for free are they?
Social housing owned by who, not the council as they have to ask Government for permission to build any Council homes, With Thatcher council was not allowed at all.
Socialist have never said you can not own your own home.
So either you bought it when you were 20 or you inherited it.
The house was offered in 1959 for £900 equal to 20 years wages which equates to £45 per year.
Was this really the average wage at that time????
loosehead
says...
9:07pm Mon 11 Mar 13
We have idiots saying knock down larger houses(3-4 bedrooms?) & build more flats?
Why not re-evaluate all tenants & any single people in council accommodation over one bedroom rehouse them into one bedroom properties & let families on the waiting list or in one bedroom flats move into these houses?
The land which has been suggested has now increased 4 times it's original space as Sinclair was the only original site but id this just a drop in the ocean & is there going to be a mass flat building program financed with the selling of this land on the Oaklands site?
Why not re-evaluate all tenants & any single people in council accommodation over one bedroom rehouse them into one bedroom properties & let families on the waiting list or in one bedroom flats move into these houses?
The land which has been suggested has now increased 4 times it's original space as Sinclair was the only original site but id this just a drop in the ocean & is there going to be a mass flat building program financed with the selling of this land on the Oaklands site?
MiddleOfRoad
says...
9:21pm Mon 11 Mar 13
These articles only serve to remind me of one factor that is symptomatic of the UK present economic and social basket case - the psychology of entitlement.
In this case "entitlement to public housing paid for by taxpayers".
Public housing should be minimal at best, short-term for the able and capable and a privilege, not some god-given right.
Whatever happened to working hard, maybe 2-3 jobs if necessary, to get a deposit, pay off the mortgage and upgrade to a bigger or better home.
Aspirational people seem thin on the ground nowdays and getting thinner because we have this growing sense of entitlement in a country that has substantially less capacity to provide for those who choose not to put in a personal effort.
My comments are not intended for the needy and deserving just those capable and able who seem to think that from cradle to grave someone else will sponsor them!
In this case "entitlement to public housing paid for by taxpayers".
Public housing should be minimal at best, short-term for the able and capable and a privilege, not some god-given right.
Whatever happened to working hard, maybe 2-3 jobs if necessary, to get a deposit, pay off the mortgage and upgrade to a bigger or better home.
Aspirational people seem thin on the ground nowdays and getting thinner because we have this growing sense of entitlement in a country that has substantially less capacity to provide for those who choose not to put in a personal effort.
My comments are not intended for the needy and deserving just those capable and able who seem to think that from cradle to grave someone else will sponsor them!
southy
says...
9:26pm Mon 11 Mar 13
phil maccavity wrote:yes it was, my dad at the time was working in the docks,then moved over to the refinery and that was one of the better wages Phil, it was in the early mid 60's when wages started to improve.
southy wrote:The house was bought in 1977-8.
loosehead wrote:No it don't Loose as the house bought before Thatcher was PM, buying council homes have all ways been on offer to its tentants, this house was offered in 1959 for the sum of £900, what was equal to 20 years of wages for that time.
southy wrote:That alone makes you a hypocrite doesn't it?
phil maccavity wrote:It was bought in 1977-8, when this one was bought there was all ready 2 others in this row of houses bought.
southy wrote:Southy
CharlieOxbridge wrote:Maggie never gave the right to buy a council home, thats all ways been there. What Maggie did was to allow them to sold cheap a % to how long you lived in a council owned home.
southy wrote:Agree, and also have covenants on the houses so that they are never to be sold to private landlords as what happened when Maggie gave the right to buy on their Council houses.
If this is Council properity then it should be only council owned homes, and not given to the private sector to have
Also she stop councils from building new homes to replace the ones that was sold, and not to be able to keep up with the growing housing waiting list.
She also took the money that councils made and controlled the council on how much they could spend on services.
just out of interest when did you buy your ex Council House?
Now let's look at this proposal,all the flats & houses a percentage have to be Social housing so on a busy junction crammed right next to a bus stop the social housing will go & the areas further up the road will be private making that area a private area more profit for Barrats as there's no way that company is going to build a load of properties to give to the council for free are they?
Social housing owned by who, not the council as they have to ask Government for permission to build any Council homes, With Thatcher council was not allowed at all.
Socialist have never said you can not own your own home.
So either you bought it when you were 20 or you inherited it.
The house was offered in 1959 for £900 equal to 20 years wages which equates to £45 per year.
Was this really the average wage at that time????
thinklikealocal
says...
9:30pm Mon 11 Mar 13
loosehead wrote:Yes, Lordshill is indeed rich in wildlife. The animals found there normally have two legs, Addidas tracksuits bottoms and criminal records....
One of these sites are a designated wild life corridor & Cllr Williams knows this. do you really think this is the safest & best place to build these properties? these grass verges are there serving a Safety purpose to traffic coming along Lordshill way. at the moment if a car loses control for any reason there's a run off verge take these verges away & this paper will be reporting on cars hitting buildings. Lordshill is the most concentrated housing development in this city so why take away the little green space we have? what next? build on all the green land in Millbrook Green Park Estate?
So all houses have to be built behind a 'green buffer' in case a car leaves the road? Quite the most hysterically funny thing I have read for a long time.
lisa whitemore
says...
9:36pm Mon 11 Mar 13
loosehead wrote:well said but leave out the Millbrook Greenspace please as it is apreciated and is used thanks Loosehead :0)
southy wrote:Southy try using your brain for once & go & look at the proposed sites would you think this is the best place to build these properties on?
If this is Council properity then it should be only council owned homes, and not given to the private sector to have
Why not build on the parks in Millbrook Green Park Estate as most of that green land is never used?
then tell the residents it was a TUSC idea & let's see how many votes you'd get?
Boorley Green is a wide open space with room for gardens & enough room to swing a cat try looking at the site where the busses turn around & the proposal to build flats on that sliver of land?
Williams is a disgrace to our city maybe we should build flats along Mountbatten Way or just build along the edge of the M27 & that's right on the edge of the road just as these will have to be built
sophialdh
says...
9:46pm Mon 11 Mar 13
I live in lordswood and quite frequently use this area for the pathways either to sainsburys or up to the tesco express. there are no pathway along the main road ad my 3 children enjoy running along and I feel its one of the safest places where they can hav a bit of free rein. to put buildings along here would make me vary toneven consider walking these pathways n thatsbif they even remain there. also as previously stated there is a sign up sayin area designated to encourage wildlife n I often hear birds chirping etc and I hav already seen a couple of deers killed by being hit by cars wont extra buildings cause more animals death's. to take thay away would not b fair. and then there is the extra traffic to consider n side roads of the lordshill way for these tje road is busy enough as it is and personally I dont feel this is the right place to develop on
southy
says...
10:10pm Mon 11 Mar 13
southy wrote:my first job phil was on the red funnels, was only for a very short time, as it was a time filler job, to fill in the time before i joined the government ship, my wage on red funnel was twice as much as any of my m8s, i was earning between £18 to £21 a week that was 1972, then in sept that year i join the government ship and was on £64 per mth.
phil maccavity wrote:yes it was, my dad at the time was working in the docks,then moved over to the refinery and that was one of the better wages Phil, it was in the early mid 60's when wages started to improve.
southy wrote:The house was bought in 1977-8.
loosehead wrote:No it don't Loose as the house bought before Thatcher was PM, buying council homes have all ways been on offer to its tentants, this house was offered in 1959 for the sum of £900, what was equal to 20 years of wages for that time.
southy wrote:That alone makes you a hypocrite doesn't it?
phil maccavity wrote:It was bought in 1977-8, when this one was bought there was all ready 2 others in this row of houses bought.
southy wrote:Southy
CharlieOxbridge wrote:Maggie never gave the right to buy a council home, thats all ways been there. What Maggie did was to allow them to sold cheap a % to how long you lived in a council owned home.
southy wrote:Agree, and also have covenants on the houses so that they are never to be sold to private landlords as what happened when Maggie gave the right to buy on their Council houses.
If this is Council properity then it should be only council owned homes, and not given to the private sector to have
Also she stop councils from building new homes to replace the ones that was sold, and not to be able to keep up with the growing housing waiting list.
She also took the money that councils made and controlled the council on how much they could spend on services.
just out of interest when did you buy your ex Council House?
Now let's look at this proposal,all the flats & houses a percentage have to be Social housing so on a busy junction crammed right next to a bus stop the social housing will go & the areas further up the road will be private making that area a private area more profit for Barrats as there's no way that company is going to build a load of properties to give to the council for free are they?
Social housing owned by who, not the council as they have to ask Government for permission to build any Council homes, With Thatcher council was not allowed at all.
Socialist have never said you can not own your own home.
So either you bought it when you were 20 or you inherited it.
The house was offered in 1959 for £900 equal to 20 years wages which equates to £45 per year.
Was this really the average wage at that time????
It don't sound alot now days, but in those days it was for an under 18 year old, which was as much as an adult was earning for a 40 hour week at mullards.
phil maccavity
says...
10:11pm Mon 11 Mar 13
southy wrote:Oops wrong again Southy
phil maccavity wrote:yes it was, my dad at the time was working in the docks,then moved over to the refinery and that was one of the better wages Phil, it was in the early mid 60's when wages started to improve.
southy wrote:The house was bought in 1977-8.
loosehead wrote:No it don't Loose as the house bought before Thatcher was PM, buying council homes have all ways been on offer to its tentants, this house was offered in 1959 for the sum of £900, what was equal to 20 years of wages for that time.
southy wrote:That alone makes you a hypocrite doesn't it?
phil maccavity wrote:It was bought in 1977-8, when this one was bought there was all ready 2 others in this row of houses bought.
southy wrote:Southy
CharlieOxbridge wrote:Maggie never gave the right to buy a council home, thats all ways been there. What Maggie did was to allow them to sold cheap a % to how long you lived in a council owned home.
southy wrote:Agree, and also have covenants on the houses so that they are never to be sold to private landlords as what happened when Maggie gave the right to buy on their Council houses.
If this is Council properity then it should be only council owned homes, and not given to the private sector to have
Also she stop councils from building new homes to replace the ones that was sold, and not to be able to keep up with the growing housing waiting list.
She also took the money that councils made and controlled the council on how much they could spend on services.
just out of interest when did you buy your ex Council House?
Now let's look at this proposal,all the flats & houses a percentage have to be Social housing so on a busy junction crammed right next to a bus stop the social housing will go & the areas further up the road will be private making that area a private area more profit for Barrats as there's no way that company is going to build a load of properties to give to the council for free are they?
Social housing owned by who, not the council as they have to ask Government for permission to build any Council homes, With Thatcher council was not allowed at all.
Socialist have never said you can not own your own home.
So either you bought it when you were 20 or you inherited it.
The house was offered in 1959 for £900 equal to 20 years wages which equates to £45 per year.
Was this really the average wage at that time????
The average Uk wage in 1959 was £891 equal to one years wages not 20 years!!
SaffaInTheUk
says...
10:15pm Mon 11 Mar 13
Yeah, just get rid of all the wildlife that live in those green spaces you plan to build on. There a buzzards, owls, foxes, bats and even deer. Where are they going to go?
Torchie1
says...
10:55pm Mon 11 Mar 13
phil maccavity wrote:The Guardian lists that sum as the average annual wage for a male manual worker in 1959. Poor old Southy, not often right but once again he's wrong. Wouldn't it have been ironic if the wage had been £62 ?
southy wrote:Oops wrong again Southy
phil maccavity wrote:yes it was, my dad at the time was working in the docks,then moved over to the refinery and that was one of the better wages Phil, it was in the early mid 60's when wages started to improve.
southy wrote:The house was bought in 1977-8.
loosehead wrote:No it don't Loose as the house bought before Thatcher was PM, buying council homes have all ways been on offer to its tentants, this house was offered in 1959 for the sum of £900, what was equal to 20 years of wages for that time.
southy wrote:That alone makes you a hypocrite doesn't it?
phil maccavity wrote:It was bought in 1977-8, when this one was bought there was all ready 2 others in this row of houses bought.
southy wrote:Southy
CharlieOxbridge wrote:Maggie never gave the right to buy a council home, thats all ways been there. What Maggie did was to allow them to sold cheap a % to how long you lived in a council owned home.
southy wrote:Agree, and also have covenants on the houses so that they are never to be sold to private landlords as what happened when Maggie gave the right to buy on their Council houses.
If this is Council properity then it should be only council owned homes, and not given to the private sector to have
Also she stop councils from building new homes to replace the ones that was sold, and not to be able to keep up with the growing housing waiting list.
She also took the money that councils made and controlled the council on how much they could spend on services.
just out of interest when did you buy your ex Council House?
Now let's look at this proposal,all the flats & houses a percentage have to be Social housing so on a busy junction crammed right next to a bus stop the social housing will go & the areas further up the road will be private making that area a private area more profit for Barrats as there's no way that company is going to build a load of properties to give to the council for free are they?
Social housing owned by who, not the council as they have to ask Government for permission to build any Council homes, With Thatcher council was not allowed at all.
Socialist have never said you can not own your own home.
So either you bought it when you were 20 or you inherited it.
The house was offered in 1959 for £900 equal to 20 years wages which equates to £45 per year.
Was this really the average wage at that time????
The average Uk wage in 1959 was £891 equal to one years wages not 20 years!!
southy
says...
10:55pm Mon 11 Mar 13
phil maccavity wrote:yes if you was a banker or some thing like that nature Phil, but working in factorys, on ships, docks ect you got a lot less than the average.
southy wrote:Oops wrong again Southy
phil maccavity wrote:yes it was, my dad at the time was working in the docks,then moved over to the refinery and that was one of the better wages Phil, it was in the early mid 60's when wages started to improve.
southy wrote:The house was bought in 1977-8.
loosehead wrote:No it don't Loose as the house bought before Thatcher was PM, buying council homes have all ways been on offer to its tentants, this house was offered in 1959 for the sum of £900, what was equal to 20 years of wages for that time.
southy wrote:That alone makes you a hypocrite doesn't it?
phil maccavity wrote:It was bought in 1977-8, when this one was bought there was all ready 2 others in this row of houses bought.
southy wrote:Southy
CharlieOxbridge wrote:Maggie never gave the right to buy a council home, thats all ways been there. What Maggie did was to allow them to sold cheap a % to how long you lived in a council owned home.
southy wrote:Agree, and also have covenants on the houses so that they are never to be sold to private landlords as what happened when Maggie gave the right to buy on their Council houses.
If this is Council properity then it should be only council owned homes, and not given to the private sector to have
Also she stop councils from building new homes to replace the ones that was sold, and not to be able to keep up with the growing housing waiting list.
She also took the money that councils made and controlled the council on how much they could spend on services.
just out of interest when did you buy your ex Council House?
Now let's look at this proposal,all the flats & houses a percentage have to be Social housing so on a busy junction crammed right next to a bus stop the social housing will go & the areas further up the road will be private making that area a private area more profit for Barrats as there's no way that company is going to build a load of properties to give to the council for free are they?
Social housing owned by who, not the council as they have to ask Government for permission to build any Council homes, With Thatcher council was not allowed at all.
Socialist have never said you can not own your own home.
So either you bought it when you were 20 or you inherited it.
The house was offered in 1959 for £900 equal to 20 years wages which equates to £45 per year.
Was this really the average wage at that time????
The average Uk wage in 1959 was £891 equal to one years wages not 20 years!!
that still applys today, what is the average wage of today around £60,000 is it or close to that, when most people wages are not even £22,000 a year.
quoting wages as never been a good way to judge what the majority people wages are. because of the top earners push the average figure right up
Shoong
says...
11:14pm Mon 11 Mar 13
southy wrote:Probably best if you pack this one up Peter, we all know your hypocrisy knows no bounds, we don't need another reminder.
phil maccavity wrote:yes if you was a banker or some thing like that nature Phil, but working in factorys, on ships, docks ect you got a lot less than the average.
southy wrote:Oops wrong again Southy
phil maccavity wrote:yes it was, my dad at the time was working in the docks,then moved over to the refinery and that was one of the better wages Phil, it was in the early mid 60's when wages started to improve.
southy wrote:The house was bought in 1977-8.
loosehead wrote:No it don't Loose as the house bought before Thatcher was PM, buying council homes have all ways been on offer to its tentants, this house was offered in 1959 for the sum of £900, what was equal to 20 years of wages for that time.
southy wrote:That alone makes you a hypocrite doesn't it?
phil maccavity wrote:It was bought in 1977-8, when this one was bought there was all ready 2 others in this row of houses bought.
southy wrote:Southy
CharlieOxbridge wrote:Maggie never gave the right to buy a council home, thats all ways been there. What Maggie did was to allow them to sold cheap a % to how long you lived in a council owned home.
southy wrote:Agree, and also have covenants on the houses so that they are never to be sold to private landlords as what happened when Maggie gave the right to buy on their Council houses.
If this is Council properity then it should be only council owned homes, and not given to the private sector to have
Also she stop councils from building new homes to replace the ones that was sold, and not to be able to keep up with the growing housing waiting list.
She also took the money that councils made and controlled the council on how much they could spend on services.
just out of interest when did you buy your ex Council House?
Now let's look at this proposal,all the flats & houses a percentage have to be Social housing so on a busy junction crammed right next to a bus stop the social housing will go & the areas further up the road will be private making that area a private area more profit for Barrats as there's no way that company is going to build a load of properties to give to the council for free are they?
Social housing owned by who, not the council as they have to ask Government for permission to build any Council homes, With Thatcher council was not allowed at all.
Socialist have never said you can not own your own home.
So either you bought it when you were 20 or you inherited it.
The house was offered in 1959 for £900 equal to 20 years wages which equates to £45 per year.
Was this really the average wage at that time????
The average Uk wage in 1959 was £891 equal to one years wages not 20 years!!
that still applys today, what is the average wage of today around £60,000 is it or close to that, when most people wages are not even £22,000 a year.
quoting wages as never been a good way to judge what the majority people wages are. because of the top earners push the average figure right up
Torchie1
says...
11:56pm Mon 11 Mar 13
southy wrote:The current average annual wage in the UK is around £26000 according to official statistics. If the wages in factories, on ships and in the docks was less than the average 'in those days' it does suggest that the unions were of no use whatsoever
phil maccavity wrote:yes if you was a banker or some thing like that nature Phil, but working in factorys, on ships, docks ect you got a lot less than the average.
southy wrote:Oops wrong again Southy
phil maccavity wrote:yes it was, my dad at the time was working in the docks,then moved over to the refinery and that was one of the better wages Phil, it was in the early mid 60's when wages started to improve.
southy wrote:The house was bought in 1977-8.
loosehead wrote:No it don't Loose as the house bought before Thatcher was PM, buying council homes have all ways been on offer to its tentants, this house was offered in 1959 for the sum of £900, what was equal to 20 years of wages for that time.
southy wrote:That alone makes you a hypocrite doesn't it?
phil maccavity wrote:It was bought in 1977-8, when this one was bought there was all ready 2 others in this row of houses bought.
southy wrote:Southy
CharlieOxbridge wrote:Maggie never gave the right to buy a council home, thats all ways been there. What Maggie did was to allow them to sold cheap a % to how long you lived in a council owned home.
southy wrote:Agree, and also have covenants on the houses so that they are never to be sold to private landlords as what happened when Maggie gave the right to buy on their Council houses.
If this is Council properity then it should be only council owned homes, and not given to the private sector to have
Also she stop councils from building new homes to replace the ones that was sold, and not to be able to keep up with the growing housing waiting list.
She also took the money that councils made and controlled the council on how much they could spend on services.
just out of interest when did you buy your ex Council House?
Now let's look at this proposal,all the flats & houses a percentage have to be Social housing so on a busy junction crammed right next to a bus stop the social housing will go & the areas further up the road will be private making that area a private area more profit for Barrats as there's no way that company is going to build a load of properties to give to the council for free are they?
Social housing owned by who, not the council as they have to ask Government for permission to build any Council homes, With Thatcher council was not allowed at all.
Socialist have never said you can not own your own home.
So either you bought it when you were 20 or you inherited it.
The house was offered in 1959 for £900 equal to 20 years wages which equates to £45 per year.
Was this really the average wage at that time????
The average Uk wage in 1959 was £891 equal to one years wages not 20 years!!
that still applys today, what is the average wage of today around £60,000 is it or close to that, when most people wages are not even £22,000 a year.
quoting wages as never been a good way to judge what the majority people wages are. because of the top earners push the average figure right up
freefinker
says...
12:05am Tue 12 Mar 13
Shoong wrote:.. indeed, southy should take your advice.
southy wrote:Probably best if you pack this one up Peter, we all know your hypocrisy knows no bounds, we don't need another reminder.
phil maccavity wrote:yes if you was a banker or some thing like that nature Phil, but working in factorys, on ships, docks ect you got a lot less than the average.
southy wrote:Oops wrong again Southy
phil maccavity wrote:yes it was, my dad at the time was working in the docks,then moved over to the refinery and that was one of the better wages Phil, it was in the early mid 60's when wages started to improve.
southy wrote:The house was bought in 1977-8.
loosehead wrote:No it don't Loose as the house bought before Thatcher was PM, buying council homes have all ways been on offer to its tentants, this house was offered in 1959 for the sum of £900, what was equal to 20 years of wages for that time.
southy wrote:That alone makes you a hypocrite doesn't it?
phil maccavity wrote:It was bought in 1977-8, when this one was bought there was all ready 2 others in this row of houses bought.
southy wrote:Southy
CharlieOxbridge wrote:Maggie never gave the right to buy a council home, thats all ways been there. What Maggie did was to allow them to sold cheap a % to how long you lived in a council owned home.
southy wrote:Agree, and also have covenants on the houses so that they are never to be sold to private landlords as what happened when Maggie gave the right to buy on their Council houses.
If this is Council properity then it should be only council owned homes, and not given to the private sector to have
Also she stop councils from building new homes to replace the ones that was sold, and not to be able to keep up with the growing housing waiting list.
She also took the money that councils made and controlled the council on how much they could spend on services.
just out of interest when did you buy your ex Council House?
Now let's look at this proposal,all the flats & houses a percentage have to be Social housing so on a busy junction crammed right next to a bus stop the social housing will go & the areas further up the road will be private making that area a private area more profit for Barrats as there's no way that company is going to build a load of properties to give to the council for free are they?
Social housing owned by who, not the council as they have to ask Government for permission to build any Council homes, With Thatcher council was not allowed at all.
Socialist have never said you can not own your own home.
So either you bought it when you were 20 or you inherited it.
The house was offered in 1959 for £900 equal to 20 years wages which equates to £45 per year.
Was this really the average wage at that time????
The average Uk wage in 1959 was £891 equal to one years wages not 20 years!!
that still applys today, what is the average wage of today around £60,000 is it or close to that, when most people wages are not even £22,000 a year.
quoting wages as never been a good way to judge what the majority people wages are. because of the top earners push the average figure right up
The average annual earnings of full-time workers in the UK rose by 1.4% to £26500 in the year to April 2012 (source ONS).
£60,000? As I keep saying, he just makes it all up.
The Watcher
says...
4:46am Tue 12 Mar 13
MiddleOfRoad wrote:You do need to factor in the fact that our house prices are over inflated and beyond the reach of many in our society.
These articles only serve to remind me of one factor that is symptomatic of the UK present economic and social basket case - the psychology of entitlement.
In this case "entitlement to public housing paid for by taxpayers".
Public housing should be minimal at best, short-term for the able and capable and a privilege, not some god-given right.
Whatever happened to working hard, maybe 2-3 jobs if necessary, to get a deposit, pay off the mortgage and upgrade to a bigger or better home.
Aspirational people seem thin on the ground nowdays and getting thinner because we have this growing sense of entitlement in a country that has substantially less capacity to provide for those who choose not to put in a personal effort.
My comments are not intended for the needy and deserving just those capable and able who seem to think that from cradle to grave someone else will sponsor them!
.
The "artificial" price rises of our housing stock (which also impacts in the rental,market) is the key issue in play here, not social or council house entitlement.
.
And whilst I have sympathy for your position regarding moving and reallocating housing stock to match requirements, it is rather simplistic and totally ignores the fact that a house is more than bricks and mortar and for many it is a home and integral to the fabric of society.
.
My neighbour is 3rd generation in her council home and now lives alone in a two bedroom terrace. The house has memories of three generations and was where her and her children were born. She is an integral part of the local community, almost single-handedly playing the "Big Society".
.
All she wants to do is live there until she passes away. I don't think that is much to ask from a person who along with her husband and children have worked hard throughout their lives.
loosehead
says...
8:21am Tue 12 Mar 13
The Watcher wrote:3rd generation? this isn't what a council house is for is it?
MiddleOfRoad wrote:You do need to factor in the fact that our house prices are over inflated and beyond the reach of many in our society.
These articles only serve to remind me of one factor that is symptomatic of the UK present economic and social basket case - the psychology of entitlement.
In this case "entitlement to public housing paid for by taxpayers".
Public housing should be minimal at best, short-term for the able and capable and a privilege, not some god-given right.
Whatever happened to working hard, maybe 2-3 jobs if necessary, to get a deposit, pay off the mortgage and upgrade to a bigger or better home.
Aspirational people seem thin on the ground nowdays and getting thinner because we have this growing sense of entitlement in a country that has substantially less capacity to provide for those who choose not to put in a personal effort.
My comments are not intended for the needy and deserving just those capable and able who seem to think that from cradle to grave someone else will sponsor them!
.
The "artificial" price rises of our housing stock (which also impacts in the rental,market) is the key issue in play here, not social or council house entitlement.
.
And whilst I have sympathy for your position regarding moving and reallocating housing stock to match requirements, it is rather simplistic and totally ignores the fact that a house is more than bricks and mortar and for many it is a home and integral to the fabric of society.
.
My neighbour is 3rd generation in her council home and now lives alone in a two bedroom terrace. The house has memories of three generations and was where her and her children were born. She is an integral part of the local community, almost single-handedly playing the "Big Society".
.
All she wants to do is live there until she passes away. I don't think that is much to ask from a person who along with her husband and children have worked hard throughout their lives.
you are given a council home down to your circumstances but as with your neighbour mine is a single man in his late twenties-early thirties who took over his "family home" the problem with that is the word "Family" as his family never bought it so it is the councils home not a family home.
all council tenants had/have the opportunity to make it a family home by buying it but many would rather pay rent & have the council maintain the property.
we should have regular reviews of tenants circumstances to see if they can afford to buy & if they can they should be given notice freeing up the property for those in worse off positions
loosehead
says...
8:32am Tue 12 Mar 13
thinklikealocal wrote:Before you mock me or the residents of Lordshill/Lordswood try taking a drive up to these proposed sites & see for your self.
loosehead wrote:Yes, Lordshill is indeed rich in wildlife. The animals found there normally have two legs, Addidas tracksuits bottoms and criminal records....
One of these sites are a designated wild life corridor & Cllr Williams knows this. do you really think this is the safest & best place to build these properties? these grass verges are there serving a Safety purpose to traffic coming along Lordshill way. at the moment if a car loses control for any reason there's a run off verge take these verges away & this paper will be reporting on cars hitting buildings. Lordshill is the most concentrated housing development in this city so why take away the little green space we have? what next? build on all the green land in Millbrook Green Park Estate?
So all houses have to be built behind a 'green buffer' in case a car leaves the road? Quite the most hysterically funny thing I have read for a long time.
I'm not against housing being built but this area especially the channel Island estate has the most condensed housing in the city,this strip of land is exactly that a Strip/Sliver of land & as one other post has said it is a main path for people from the flats in Aldermoor to the junior school build on it & what do they do?
do you propose they walk along the road?
loosehead
says...
8:34am Tue 12 Mar 13
lisa whitemore wrote:Lisa I threw that in as a warning as you know this space is rarely used.
loosehead wrote:well said but leave out the Millbrook Greenspace please as it is apreciated and is used thanks Loosehead :0)
southy wrote:Southy try using your brain for once & go & look at the proposed sites would you think this is the best place to build these properties on?
If this is Council properity then it should be only council owned homes, and not given to the private sector to have
Why not build on the parks in Millbrook Green Park Estate as most of that green land is never used?
then tell the residents it was a TUSC idea & let's see how many votes you'd get?
Boorley Green is a wide open space with room for gardens & enough room to swing a cat try looking at the site where the busses turn around & the proposal to build flats on that sliver of land?
Williams is a disgrace to our city maybe we should build flats along Mountbatten Way or just build along the edge of the M27 & that's right on the edge of the road just as these will have to be built
Williams getting more social housing thinks this will get him elected in Itchen so any open space beware
loosehead
says...
10:49am Tue 12 Mar 13
Between St.Boniface crescent & main rd alongside 5acres there's a strip of green grass about as wide as the proposed sites will this be deemed wide enough for flats?
the main roundabout is overgrown with trees is this a prime site foe a block of flats?
there are suitable places for development ( Lidls site or the Bio mass site) but these proposed sites aren't
the main roundabout is overgrown with trees is this a prime site foe a block of flats?
there are suitable places for development ( Lidls site or the Bio mass site) but these proposed sites aren't
southy
says...
11:59am Tue 12 Mar 13
freefinker wrote:Free are you that of a none thinker or just blind.
Shoong wrote:.. indeed, southy should take your advice.
southy wrote:Probably best if you pack this one up Peter, we all know your hypocrisy knows no bounds, we don't need another reminder.
phil maccavity wrote:yes if you was a banker or some thing like that nature Phil, but working in factorys, on ships, docks ect you got a lot less than the average.
southy wrote:Oops wrong again Southy
phil maccavity wrote:yes it was, my dad at the time was working in the docks,then moved over to the refinery and that was one of the better wages Phil, it was in the early mid 60's when wages started to improve.
southy wrote:The house was bought in 1977-8.
loosehead wrote:No it don't Loose as the house bought before Thatcher was PM, buying council homes have all ways been on offer to its tentants, this house was offered in 1959 for the sum of £900, what was equal to 20 years of wages for that time.
southy wrote:That alone makes you a hypocrite doesn't it?
phil maccavity wrote:It was bought in 1977-8, when this one was bought there was all ready 2 others in this row of houses bought.
southy wrote:Southy
CharlieOxbridge wrote:Maggie never gave the right to buy a council home, thats all ways been there. What Maggie did was to allow them to sold cheap a % to how long you lived in a council owned home.
southy wrote:Agree, and also have covenants on the houses so that they are never to be sold to private landlords as what happened when Maggie gave the right to buy on their Council houses.
If this is Council properity then it should be only council owned homes, and not given to the private sector to have
Also she stop councils from building new homes to replace the ones that was sold, and not to be able to keep up with the growing housing waiting list.
She also took the money that councils made and controlled the council on how much they could spend on services.
just out of interest when did you buy your ex Council House?
Now let's look at this proposal,all the flats & houses a percentage have to be Social housing so on a busy junction crammed right next to a bus stop the social housing will go & the areas further up the road will be private making that area a private area more profit for Barrats as there's no way that company is going to build a load of properties to give to the council for free are they?
Social housing owned by who, not the council as they have to ask Government for permission to build any Council homes, With Thatcher council was not allowed at all.
Socialist have never said you can not own your own home.
So either you bought it when you were 20 or you inherited it.
The house was offered in 1959 for £900 equal to 20 years wages which equates to £45 per year.
Was this really the average wage at that time????
The average Uk wage in 1959 was £891 equal to one years wages not 20 years!!
that still applys today, what is the average wage of today around £60,000 is it or close to that, when most people wages are not even £22,000 a year.
quoting wages as never been a good way to judge what the majority people wages are. because of the top earners push the average figure right up
The average annual earnings of full-time workers in the UK rose by 1.4% to £26500 in the year to April 2012 (source ONS).
£60,000? As I keep saying, he just makes it all up.
Me and phil are talking about the late 1950's to mid 1970's not the bloody 2012 that have no connections to the 50's 60's and 70's.
Also Average wage is not the same as what most people are earning, you take out the top 2% top earners and that average drop a hell of a lot.
I suggest to you to stop trolling and you to Shoong
southy
says...
12:06pm Tue 12 Mar 13
loosehead wrote:It would not be a good idea to build homes on that land any way, the ground often becomes waterlog and would only rot the foundations of a home.
lisa whitemore wrote:Lisa I threw that in as a warning as you know this space is rarely used.
loosehead wrote:well said but leave out the Millbrook Greenspace please as it is apreciated and is used thanks Loosehead :0)
southy wrote:Southy try using your brain for once & go & look at the proposed sites would you think this is the best place to build these properties on?
If this is Council properity then it should be only council owned homes, and not given to the private sector to have
Why not build on the parks in Millbrook Green Park Estate as most of that green land is never used?
then tell the residents it was a TUSC idea & let's see how many votes you'd get?
Boorley Green is a wide open space with room for gardens & enough room to swing a cat try looking at the site where the busses turn around & the proposal to build flats on that sliver of land?
Williams is a disgrace to our city maybe we should build flats along Mountbatten Way or just build along the edge of the M27 & that's right on the edge of the road just as these will have to be built
Williams getting more social housing thinks this will get him elected in Itchen so any open space beware
Maybe Willians should look around his own area where he lives to build more homes, there is plenty of big open spaces where homes could be build.
Torchie1
says...
12:19pm Tue 12 Mar 13
southy wrote:If you re-read what YOU wrote earlier "what is the average wage of today around £60,000 is it or close to that", I think you'll be more able to understand the replies. Average means average of all, not removing the inconvenient figures so that you can arrive at an answer that more fits your own argument because the next logical step is to slice off the bottom 2% to increase the average. It's like watching someone who can't quite grasp the game of 'Snap' sitting down at a Poker table and losing all of his money.
freefinker wrote:Free are you that of a none thinker or just blind.
Shoong wrote:.. indeed, southy should take your advice.
southy wrote:Probably best if you pack this one up Peter, we all know your hypocrisy knows no bounds, we don't need another reminder.
phil maccavity wrote:yes if you was a banker or some thing like that nature Phil, but working in factorys, on ships, docks ect you got a lot less than the average.
southy wrote:Oops wrong again Southy
phil maccavity wrote:yes it was, my dad at the time was working in the docks,then moved over to the refinery and that was one of the better wages Phil, it was in the early mid 60's when wages started to improve.
southy wrote:The house was bought in 1977-8.
loosehead wrote:No it don't Loose as the house bought before Thatcher was PM, buying council homes have all ways been on offer to its tentants, this house was offered in 1959 for the sum of £900, what was equal to 20 years of wages for that time.
southy wrote:That alone makes you a hypocrite doesn't it?
phil maccavity wrote:It was bought in 1977-8, when this one was bought there was all ready 2 others in this row of houses bought.
southy wrote:Southy
CharlieOxbridge wrote:Maggie never gave the right to buy a council home, thats all ways been there. What Maggie did was to allow them to sold cheap a % to how long you lived in a council owned home.
southy wrote:Agree, and also have covenants on the houses so that they are never to be sold to private landlords as what happened when Maggie gave the right to buy on their Council houses.
If this is Council properity then it should be only council owned homes, and not given to the private sector to have
Also she stop councils from building new homes to replace the ones that was sold, and not to be able to keep up with the growing housing waiting list.
She also took the money that councils made and controlled the council on how much they could spend on services.
just out of interest when did you buy your ex Council House?
Now let's look at this proposal,all the flats & houses a percentage have to be Social housing so on a busy junction crammed right next to a bus stop the social housing will go & the areas further up the road will be private making that area a private area more profit for Barrats as there's no way that company is going to build a load of properties to give to the council for free are they?
Social housing owned by who, not the council as they have to ask Government for permission to build any Council homes, With Thatcher council was not allowed at all.
Socialist have never said you can not own your own home.
So either you bought it when you were 20 or you inherited it.
The house was offered in 1959 for £900 equal to 20 years wages which equates to £45 per year.
Was this really the average wage at that time????
The average Uk wage in 1959 was £891 equal to one years wages not 20 years!!
that still applys today, what is the average wage of today around £60,000 is it or close to that, when most people wages are not even £22,000 a year.
quoting wages as never been a good way to judge what the majority people wages are. because of the top earners push the average figure right up
The average annual earnings of full-time workers in the UK rose by 1.4% to £26500 in the year to April 2012 (source ONS).
£60,000? As I keep saying, he just makes it all up.
Me and phil are talking about the late 1950's to mid 1970's not the bloody 2012 that have no connections to the 50's 60's and 70's.
Also Average wage is not the same as what most people are earning, you take out the top 2% top earners and that average drop a hell of a lot.
I suggest to you to stop trolling and you to Shoong
southy
says...
1:17pm Tue 12 Mar 13
Torchie1 wrote:Its around that mark some where, and I was asking in away what is the average wage of today as a none importance just to give a rough idea.
southy wrote:If you re-read what YOU wrote earlier "what is the average wage of today around £60,000 is it or close to that", I think you'll be more able to understand the replies. Average means average of all, not removing the inconvenient figures so that you can arrive at an answer that more fits your own argument because the next logical step is to slice off the bottom 2% to increase the average. It's like watching someone who can't quite grasp the game of 'Snap' sitting down at a Poker table and losing all of his money.
freefinker wrote:Free are you that of a none thinker or just blind.
Shoong wrote:.. indeed, southy should take your advice.
southy wrote:Probably best if you pack this one up Peter, we all know your hypocrisy knows no bounds, we don't need another reminder.
phil maccavity wrote:yes if you was a banker or some thing like that nature Phil, but working in factorys, on ships, docks ect you got a lot less than the average.
southy wrote:Oops wrong again Southy
phil maccavity wrote:yes it was, my dad at the time was working in the docks,then moved over to the refinery and that was one of the better wages Phil, it was in the early mid 60's when wages started to improve.
southy wrote:The house was bought in 1977-8.
loosehead wrote:No it don't Loose as the house bought before Thatcher was PM, buying council homes have all ways been on offer to its tentants, this house was offered in 1959 for the sum of £900, what was equal to 20 years of wages for that time.
southy wrote:That alone makes you a hypocrite doesn't it?
phil maccavity wrote:It was bought in 1977-8, when this one was bought there was all ready 2 others in this row of houses bought.
southy wrote:Southy
CharlieOxbridge wrote:Maggie never gave the right to buy a council home, thats all ways been there. What Maggie did was to allow them to sold cheap a % to how long you lived in a council owned home.
southy wrote:Agree, and also have covenants on the houses so that they are never to be sold to private landlords as what happened when Maggie gave the right to buy on their Council houses.
If this is Council properity then it should be only council owned homes, and not given to the private sector to have
Also she stop councils from building new homes to replace the ones that was sold, and not to be able to keep up with the growing housing waiting list.
She also took the money that councils made and controlled the council on how much they could spend on services.
just out of interest when did you buy your ex Council House?
Now let's look at this proposal,all the flats & houses a percentage have to be Social housing so on a busy junction crammed right next to a bus stop the social housing will go & the areas further up the road will be private making that area a private area more profit for Barrats as there's no way that company is going to build a load of properties to give to the council for free are they?
Social housing owned by who, not the council as they have to ask Government for permission to build any Council homes, With Thatcher council was not allowed at all.
Socialist have never said you can not own your own home.
So either you bought it when you were 20 or you inherited it.
The house was offered in 1959 for £900 equal to 20 years wages which equates to £45 per year.
Was this really the average wage at that time????
The average Uk wage in 1959 was £891 equal to one years wages not 20 years!!
that still applys today, what is the average wage of today around £60,000 is it or close to that, when most people wages are not even £22,000 a year.
quoting wages as never been a good way to judge what the majority people wages are. because of the top earners push the average figure right up
The average annual earnings of full-time workers in the UK rose by 1.4% to £26500 in the year to April 2012 (source ONS).
£60,000? As I keep saying, he just makes it all up.
Me and phil are talking about the late 1950's to mid 1970's not the bloody 2012 that have no connections to the 50's 60's and 70's.
Also Average wage is not the same as what most people are earning, you take out the top 2% top earners and that average drop a hell of a lot.
I suggest to you to stop trolling and you to Shoong
the next logic step is not to slice of the bottom 2%, because there will be a lot more people in the bottom 2% than there would be in the Top 2%.
Also if you look what i said i took it as average as whole and not part of like you did, the ONS agency is not a relyable souce of info any more, they have been pick up to much of there info being altered or showing favour to and do not match with government figures.
Like you abit where you left out those figures that you gave, did not reflect the average wage over all, but a section of the whole and you failed to mention that.
southy
says...
1:19pm Tue 12 Mar 13
any way it don't matter that much, was just having a freindly convo with Phil.
Kspeaks
says...
1:36pm Tue 12 Mar 13
southy wrote:Why? So a bunch of disrespectful, baby p
If this is Council properity then it should be only council owned homes, and not given to the private sector to have
Kspeaks
says...
1:41pm Tue 12 Mar 13
Kspeaks wrote:Sorry..why so a bunch of disrespectful, baby popping leeches can move into lordswood? What about the 1s who work all week and still cannot afford homes why not make it affordable housing-private! That people who actually work hard can afford. Yeah its a great idea to build new homes in the area..council NEVER! Watch the crime rates rise if they do! Look at the surrounding areas, people choose lordswood over these areas for that reason...i know i do!
southy wrote:Why? So a bunch of disrespectful, baby p
If this is Council properity then it should be only council owned homes, and not given to the private sector to have
Torchie1
says...
2:16pm Tue 12 Mar 13
southy wrote:Do you ever bother to read what you've written before you press the 'Submit' button and further reinforce peoples opinion of you? Read your reply and you'll see that it's garbage where you even contradict yourself.
Torchie1 wrote:Its around that mark some where, and I was asking in away what is the average wage of today as a none importance just to give a rough idea.
southy wrote:If you re-read what YOU wrote earlier "what is the average wage of today around £60,000 is it or close to that", I think you'll be more able to understand the replies. Average means average of all, not removing the inconvenient figures so that you can arrive at an answer that more fits your own argument because the next logical step is to slice off the bottom 2% to increase the average. It's like watching someone who can't quite grasp the game of 'Snap' sitting down at a Poker table and losing all of his money.
freefinker wrote:Free are you that of a none thinker or just blind.
Shoong wrote:.. indeed, southy should take your advice.
southy wrote:Probably best if you pack this one up Peter, we all know your hypocrisy knows no bounds, we don't need another reminder.
phil maccavity wrote:yes if you was a banker or some thing like that nature Phil, but working in factorys, on ships, docks ect you got a lot less than the average.
southy wrote:Oops wrong again Southy
phil maccavity wrote:yes it was, my dad at the time was working in the docks,then moved over to the refinery and that was one of the better wages Phil, it was in the early mid 60's when wages started to improve.
southy wrote:The house was bought in 1977-8.
loosehead wrote:No it don't Loose as the house bought before Thatcher was PM, buying council homes have all ways been on offer to its tentants, this house was offered in 1959 for the sum of £900, what was equal to 20 years of wages for that time.
southy wrote:That alone makes you a hypocrite doesn't it?
phil maccavity wrote:It was bought in 1977-8, when this one was bought there was all ready 2 others in this row of houses bought.
southy wrote:Southy
CharlieOxbridge wrote:Maggie never gave the right to buy a council home, thats all ways been there. What Maggie did was to allow them to sold cheap a % to how long you lived in a council owned home.
southy wrote:Agree, and also have covenants on the houses so that they are never to be sold to private landlords as what happened when Maggie gave the right to buy on their Council houses.
If this is Council properity then it should be only council owned homes, and not given to the private sector to have
Also she stop councils from building new homes to replace the ones that was sold, and not to be able to keep up with the growing housing waiting list.
She also took the money that councils made and controlled the council on how much they could spend on services.
just out of interest when did you buy your ex Council House?
Now let's look at this proposal,all the flats & houses a percentage have to be Social housing so on a busy junction crammed right next to a bus stop the social housing will go & the areas further up the road will be private making that area a private area more profit for Barrats as there's no way that company is going to build a load of properties to give to the council for free are they?
Social housing owned by who, not the council as they have to ask Government for permission to build any Council homes, With Thatcher council was not allowed at all.
Socialist have never said you can not own your own home.
So either you bought it when you were 20 or you inherited it.
The house was offered in 1959 for £900 equal to 20 years wages which equates to £45 per year.
Was this really the average wage at that time????
The average Uk wage in 1959 was £891 equal to one years wages not 20 years!!
that still applys today, what is the average wage of today around £60,000 is it or close to that, when most people wages are not even £22,000 a year.
quoting wages as never been a good way to judge what the majority people wages are. because of the top earners push the average figure right up
The average annual earnings of full-time workers in the UK rose by 1.4% to £26500 in the year to April 2012 (source ONS).
£60,000? As I keep saying, he just makes it all up.
Me and phil are talking about the late 1950's to mid 1970's not the bloody 2012 that have no connections to the 50's 60's and 70's.
Also Average wage is not the same as what most people are earning, you take out the top 2% top earners and that average drop a hell of a lot.
I suggest to you to stop trolling and you to Shoong
the next logic step is not to slice of the bottom 2%, because there will be a lot more people in the bottom 2% than there would be in the Top 2%.
Also if you look what i said i took it as average as whole and not part of like you did, the ONS agency is not a relyable souce of info any more, they have been pick up to much of there info being altered or showing favour to and do not match with government figures.
Like you abit where you left out those figures that you gave, did not reflect the average wage over all, but a section of the whole and you failed to mention that.
freefinker
says...
2:47pm Tue 12 Mar 13
southy wrote:.. southy, you clearly state 'what is the average wage of today around £60,000 is it or close to that'.
freefinker wrote:Free are you that of a none thinker or just blind.
Shoong wrote:.. indeed, southy should take your advice.
southy wrote:Probably best if you pack this one up Peter, we all know your hypocrisy knows no bounds, we don't need another reminder.
phil maccavity wrote:yes if you was a banker or some thing like that nature Phil, but working in factorys, on ships, docks ect you got a lot less than the average.
southy wrote:Oops wrong again Southy
phil maccavity wrote:yes it was, my dad at the time was working in the docks,then moved over to the refinery and that was one of the better wages Phil, it was in the early mid 60's when wages started to improve.
southy wrote:The house was bought in 1977-8.
loosehead wrote:No it don't Loose as the house bought before Thatcher was PM, buying council homes have all ways been on offer to its tentants, this house was offered in 1959 for the sum of £900, what was equal to 20 years of wages for that time.
southy wrote:That alone makes you a hypocrite doesn't it?
phil maccavity wrote:It was bought in 1977-8, when this one was bought there was all ready 2 others in this row of houses bought.
southy wrote:Southy
CharlieOxbridge wrote:Maggie never gave the right to buy a council home, thats all ways been there. What Maggie did was to allow them to sold cheap a % to how long you lived in a council owned home.
southy wrote:Agree, and also have covenants on the houses so that they are never to be sold to private landlords as what happened when Maggie gave the right to buy on their Council houses.
If this is Council properity then it should be only council owned homes, and not given to the private sector to have
Also she stop councils from building new homes to replace the ones that was sold, and not to be able to keep up with the growing housing waiting list.
She also took the money that councils made and controlled the council on how much they could spend on services.
just out of interest when did you buy your ex Council House?
Now let's look at this proposal,all the flats & houses a percentage have to be Social housing so on a busy junction crammed right next to a bus stop the social housing will go & the areas further up the road will be private making that area a private area more profit for Barrats as there's no way that company is going to build a load of properties to give to the council for free are they?
Social housing owned by who, not the council as they have to ask Government for permission to build any Council homes, With Thatcher council was not allowed at all.
Socialist have never said you can not own your own home.
So either you bought it when you were 20 or you inherited it.
The house was offered in 1959 for £900 equal to 20 years wages which equates to £45 per year.
Was this really the average wage at that time????
The average Uk wage in 1959 was £891 equal to one years wages not 20 years!!
that still applys today, what is the average wage of today around £60,000 is it or close to that, when most people wages are not even £22,000 a year.
quoting wages as never been a good way to judge what the majority people wages are. because of the top earners push the average figure right up
The average annual earnings of full-time workers in the UK rose by 1.4% to £26500 in the year to April 2012 (source ONS).
£60,000? As I keep saying, he just makes it all up.
Me and phil are talking about the late 1950's to mid 1970's not the bloody 2012 that have no connections to the 50's 60's and 70's.
Also Average wage is not the same as what most people are earning, you take out the top 2% top earners and that average drop a hell of a lot.
I suggest to you to stop trolling and you to Shoong
That is your made up statistic for the average wage today.
The accurate figure is £26,500 and has been determined by the Office for National Statistics – the only organisation in the UK that has the authority and data to provide such information. Their statistics are accurate. Indeed, you yourself were only last week misquoting some of their immigration data.
You really need to give up being so childish when brought to book over the fibs and lies you post on this website. Most other posters check data such as this before hitting that submit button. If only you did the same you would actually start to earn a little respect from others.
loosehead
says...
3:56pm Tue 12 Mar 13
as so many have gone off the article could anyone advise me on which service provider to choose from Plusnet or TalkTalk?
I've heard bad things about TalkTalk but are there any satisfied customers out there?
Has any of you got Plusnet as a provider & if you have what are they like?
Now the article, Southy I watched a program where a girl/young woman said she gave up an apprenticeship as it was boring so it must be so exciting on the dole? What next for her? baby & council flat?
Maybe if we made young single women who get pregnant stay with their families & re-housed people under utilising their council properties we wouldn't have to build more single people flats on every bit of available land?
I've heard bad things about TalkTalk but are there any satisfied customers out there?
Has any of you got Plusnet as a provider & if you have what are they like?
Now the article, Southy I watched a program where a girl/young woman said she gave up an apprenticeship as it was boring so it must be so exciting on the dole? What next for her? baby & council flat?
Maybe if we made young single women who get pregnant stay with their families & re-housed people under utilising their council properties we wouldn't have to build more single people flats on every bit of available land?
cantthinkofone
says...
5:44pm Tue 12 Mar 13
Well you're kind of *all* right - or all wrong I guess...
"Average" is a non-specific term.
Are you talking about the mean, median, or mode?
"Average" is a non-specific term.
Are you talking about the mean, median, or mode?
Torchie1
says...
6:35pm Tue 12 Mar 13
cantthinkofone wrote:Whichever system you chose, the most important thing is that you maintain it so that changes can be seen and monitored. The ONS is a non partisan body that produces figures independently of the government in power and is quoted by all parties. If someone suspects there is chicanery about the numbers, there is a complaints procedure but the facts are the facts and tend to speak for themselves.
Well you're kind of *all* right - or all wrong I guess...
"Average" is a non-specific term.
Are you talking about the mean, median, or mode?
phil maccavity
says...
6:52pm Tue 12 Mar 13
In amongst all this I can remember, as a youngster, all the land beyond the pub
(now a Tesco Express) opposite the cemetary ie now the built up suburbs of Lordswood and Lordshill, being open fields.
We used to think it was treat getting the No 5 bus from Millbrook to Weston to visit relatives who lived in the old pre fabs there (sometimes stopping off at the Sports Centre for a runaround or an ice cream)
This bus ride was looked upon as a day out.
How things have changed now!!
(now a Tesco Express) opposite the cemetary ie now the built up suburbs of Lordswood and Lordshill, being open fields.
We used to think it was treat getting the No 5 bus from Millbrook to Weston to visit relatives who lived in the old pre fabs there (sometimes stopping off at the Sports Centre for a runaround or an ice cream)
This bus ride was looked upon as a day out.
How things have changed now!!
cantthinkofone
says...
8:28pm Tue 12 Mar 13
Torchie1 wrote:I'm not disputing that.
cantthinkofone wrote:Whichever system you chose, the most important thing is that you maintain it so that changes can be seen and monitored. The ONS is a non partisan body that produces figures independently of the government in power and is quoted by all parties. If someone suspects there is chicanery about the numbers, there is a complaints procedure but the facts are the facts and tend to speak for themselves.
Well you're kind of *all* right - or all wrong I guess...
"Average" is a non-specific term.
Are you talking about the mean, median, or mode?
.
All I'm saying is that two people can claim different figures as being the 'average' and both be correct.
.
Mind you, I'd be very surprised if *any* of mean, median or mode for UK salaries was anywhere near as high as the £60k quoted by dear old Pete...
freefinker
says...
9:40pm Tue 12 Mar 13
cantthinkofone wrote:.. quite agree, there are different criteria one can use to arrive at this statistic. However the only criteria southy uses is to pick any number that reinforces his political position. In other words, in this world where data is readily available, he knowingly lies.
Torchie1 wrote:I'm not disputing that.
cantthinkofone wrote:Whichever system you chose, the most important thing is that you maintain it so that changes can be seen and monitored. The ONS is a non partisan body that produces figures independently of the government in power and is quoted by all parties. If someone suspects there is chicanery about the numbers, there is a complaints procedure but the facts are the facts and tend to speak for themselves.
Well you're kind of *all* right - or all wrong I guess...
"Average" is a non-specific term.
Are you talking about the mean, median, or mode?
.
All I'm saying is that two people can claim different figures as being the 'average' and both be correct.
.
Mind you, I'd be very surprised if *any* of mean, median or mode for UK salaries was anywhere near as high as the £60k quoted by dear old Pete...
CharlieOxbridge says...
12:29pm Mon 11 Mar 13