Jump to content

Housing for ex armed forces


b6bloke

Recommended Posts

^^ Sorry B6 but thats only going to go one way.

Not all immigration is "bad" or "wrong" -

Council housing should be based on need. If a single ex-squaddy needs a council house, should he get it over a homeless family with 2 kids regardless of their national background? Clearly not.

Being a single ex-serviceman should IMO give you priority over another single person, but not a family or female or elderly/vulnerable person.

Understand about the vunerable if they are British nationals but the problem with this country is that the working man has no benefits for being working anymore! We house someone over here because its a free house and money even if they are plotting against us yet those who pay into the system get jack shit compared to those that dont and I have had enough of it and I dont put myself in front of a bullet day in and day out.

I am a bit angry at the moment as I asked my dad today why he is still living in a shitty bedsit now he is ill and retired and he tells me that because his bus driver pension is about £4 over the threshold he has to pay full rent, council tax and everything else so this just makes me even more angry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^ Sorry B6 but thats only going to go one way.

Not all immigration is "bad" or "wrong" -

Council housing should be based on need. If a single ex-squaddy needs a council house, should he get it over a homeless family with 2 kids regardless of their national background? Clearly not.

Being a single ex-serviceman should IMO give you priority over another single person, but not a family or female or elderly/vulnerable person.

Understand about the vunerable if they are British nationals but the problem with this country is that the working man has no benefits for being working anymore! We house someone over here because its a free house and money even if they are plotting against us yet those who pay into the system get jack shit compared to those that dont and I have had enough of it and I dont put myself in front of a bullet day in and day out.

I am a bit angry at the moment as I asked my dad today why he is still living in a shitty bedsit now he is ill and retired and he tells me that because his bus driver pension is about £4 over the threshold he has to pay full rent, council tax and everything else so this just makes me even more angry.

Understand that but its the benefit of being in the EU. The reality is the government can't stop it without withdrawing from it. I could in theory move to France tomorrow and start drawing benefits, the reason people move here is because our benefits system is more generous and easier to access than elsewhere. And FWIW that applies to UK nationals as much as others. To be honest though, the "immigrant" issue is a tiny one but its more noticeable mostly because of the obvious ethnic or cultural differences.

If we are taking about reducing benefit dependancy and making society fair, I'd start with the bloke with the tattoo on his face drinking Stella in the job centre queue who moans about having immigrants taking his job. I would employ a Pole over him every day of the week because I know the Pole is a) going to work his arse off and B) prepared to do shit jobs for shit pay.

The simple fact of the matter is life on benefits is too easy for everyone. If you can afford Sky on benefits... something is badly wrong. I have and do work in some of Kent's most deprived areas and they ALL have Sky, smoke like chimneys and simply don't work. Until benefits provide a subsistance lifestyle only, there will always be a choice to live that way.

In referance to your dad's situation, yes that is clearly wrong but it is not the fault of immigrants - they are simply exploiting a flawed system, same as your tax dodging "non-dom."

The problem is, its not something the Left will ever support because they would alienate their entire electorate, and the Right get panned as nasty and uncaring.

The welfare state should only support those who need it because that is their only option. It should not support those who could work and choose not to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are flaws aplenty in the systems that were set up to deal with 20th century Britain.

However sweeping statements and generalisations are the domain of the Daily Mail, not rational debate.

The big problem of the benefits system is it simply gives money, and there isn't enough investment in other areas which could cut down on household bills, and free up some money for the 'squeezed middle'. Which leads to people believing they'd be better off on JSA and not being taxed to the hilt on their £20,000 a year wage. For example, the Observer did a piece on childcare, the cost of which is frankly daft. Yet in some european countries (Denmark was the example IIRC) the government invests heavily in the childcare system, making it afordable, instead of handing out money with no real plan. A nationalised daycare system, for example, could enable women to get back to work, also a more european flexible hours culture would be handy too.

Anyway, this is neither the fault of scheming foreigners nor benefit scrounging sky-plus abusers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the easy situation..... my PA earns 18k a year, yet worked out she would be 3k better off on JSA, how is that "fair?"

I've seen you say something like this before on here, though last time you claimed:

The crazy thing is one of my PAs earns 8k a year with me, and whatever benefits she gets. She just applied for a job starting at 18k. If she gets it she will be WORSE off financially.

You are Chris Grayling and I claim my £5 (65% of which will be clawed back to HB and 25% to CTB).

p.s. Even if this situation were correct, why would that make your assertion(s) fact?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Soooo anyway, houses for heroes? No.

I think the system should work on a case by case basis. If a serviceman is vulnerable, has no family for example or is physically disabled then he should be top of the list, like any other in his situation. Etc.

I think our system should leave nobody behind, not just ex serviceman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

some good points from either side of the argument.

Ok lets look at this from another view without this getting in to a race row buy who should get priority housing? ex servicemen or immigrants?

This all come about for me as I was talking about a radio interview on Radio 4 last year where an ex sgt in the Royal Marines and done his service and left. He ended up in a bed sit and working as a cleaner. his words "Its so hard to believe that I was fighting in Afghanistan last year in charge of a load of guys and now I am mopping floors and have no esteem left"

It did not sit right with me

I know every case if different, but the question needs to be asked to what the F##k he done with his salary when he was in the forces?

As many have said, they choose their careers and if this guy was a Sgt and had served his FULL service he should have been more than capable of affording a house whilst he was in the services.

My cousin is in the services and has recently served in Afgan, he is not even thirty yet, but owns his own home, drives a exceptional motor, goes on various holidays whenever he is on leave and its all because he has his head screwed on. He does recieve subsidised food whilst in the forces, he does get a very decent clothing allowance (which he hardly needs because when he is on duty he gets kitted out with the relevant uniform), he evens gets free fags....and he dont even smoke!

So its not all hardship on their front. I know they serve their country and all and at some point may have to fight on the front line, but surely that can been seen as "it comes with the job"...as many have stated.

Not meaning to sound arrogant or insensitive or anything, but when you vertually live for FREE for the MAJORITY of your career, I find it hard to believe that you dont plan for the future with the wages that you bank week in week out.

Squaddies havent got a reputation for liking a drink for no reason you know, I certainly know a few that piss it right up all the time, do they deserve to live for free after service because they couldn't set aside a few quid here and there?

Like I said, not meaning to sound off or anything, but I just cant believe they get as hard a deal as they make out sometimes without looking at the bigger picture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Soooo anyway, houses for heroes? No.

I think the system should work on a case by case basis. If a serviceman is vulnerable, has no family for example or is physically disabled then he should be top of the list, like any other in his situation. Etc.

I think our system should leave nobody behind, not just ex serviceman.

The man from Del Pompey, he speak sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not meaning to sound arrogant or insensitive or anything, but when you vertually live for FREE for the MAJORITY of your career, I find it hard to believe that you dont plan for the future with the wages that you bank week in week out.

Squaddies havent got a reputation for liking a drink for no reason you know, I certainly know a few that piss it right up all the time, do they deserve to live for free after service because they couldn't set aside a few quid here and there?

Like I said, not meaning to sound off or anything, but I just cant believe they get as hard a deal as they make out sometimes without looking at the bigger picture.

2 points:

They don't get all that much free. Subsidised yes, but free? No. Even some of their kit they have to buy. I certainly wouldn't buy uniform for my job.

And when you say they like a drink... I knew an ex-servicemen who was an alcoholic and it was down in the main to the fact he'd seen, and had to do, some horrific things. Not because he was rolling in the cash. In his words he 'drank to forget.'

They also have to pay to get out of their contracts. So you may save a few grand, and then have to hand it over to leave the army/switch jobs. Thats unless you do the 22 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not all immigration is "bad" or "wrong" -

Skilled immigration = good, unskilled immigration = bad.

The first generally fills a skills gap and benefits a particular company and thereby the wider economy.

The second hoovers up unskilled or low skilled work and depresses the wages paid to all in the relevant economic sectors, in addition to leaving a greater number of the existing unskilled workforce unable to find jobs.

That is assuming that the unskilled immigrants find work at all and don't go straight onto the State payroll.

'Houses for Heroes': just level the playing field so people leaving the forces are not disadvantaged by virtue of their service when interacting with 'the system'. Far as I know various groups are trying to address this now but historically it certainly has been a problem for many service leavers, particularly with regards to registering on housing lists or trying to get a mortgage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not all immigration is "bad" or "wrong" -

Skilled immigration = good, unskilled immigration = bad.

The first generally fills a skills gap and benefits a particular company and thereby the wider economy.

The second hoovers up unskilled or low skilled work and depresses the wages paid to all in the relevant economic sectors, in addition to leaving a greater number of the existing unskilled workforce unable to find jobs.

That is assuming that the unskilled immigrants find work at all and don't go straight onto the State payroll.

'Houses for Heroes': just level the playing field so people leaving the forces are not disadvantaged by virtue of their service when interacting with 'the system'. Far as I know various groups are trying to address this now but historically it certainly has been a problem for many service leavers, particularly with regards to registering on housing lists or trying to get a mortgage.

Well said.

I study economics and from a purely economic perspective, I cannot understand why unskilled labour would be allowed into the economy, when theres already unemployment, when all it does is lower wages of workers already here and increase overall inequality.

Yes I know people won't take certain jobs percieved as being 'below them', but I've worked at band 1 level in the NHS for the past 3 and a half years and all its done to me is given me a positive bank balance throughout uni. Most of my colleagues are what would be classed as unskilled immigrant labour and it tells a story that they're so much more keen to do the work than many a jobseeker this country has produced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...a crude comparison ...

A crude one or incorrect one?

...just level the playing field so people leaving the forces are not disadvantaged by virtue of their service when interacting with 'the system'...

Very much agree with this.

Though macandally's comment As an ex serviceman, as far as I am aware forces personnel are entitled to put their name down for council properties in the area they originally came from, where there spouse comes from and also in the area of their last posting. would suggest this is the case, wouldn't it?

Surely what it comes back to is the lack of supply of council/housing association property? I am afraid that I don't think the government's measures (such as moving to 80% rents, the 'bedroom tax', fixed term tenancies in the social sector, widening the entitlement to right to buy, &c.) will improve matters at all, let alone in the significant way that would appear to be necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd give anyone that serves priority when it comes to affordable homes and how they are allocated...

in simplistic terms ( in that I don't know the ins and out of every decision to join the armed forced) they sign up knowing that they could be put in the front line ..and yet they still sign up ... I appreciate nurses , dustmin also do their bit for the country but with respect nobody has ever stuck an IED underneath Curly Watt's Dennis dustcart ...

and then there is the scandal of war injured and war widows pensions ... but another subject

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an ex serviceman, as far as I am aware forces personnel are entitled to put their name down for council properties in the area they originally came from, where there spouse comes from and also in the area of their last posting. The issue can be if they do the full 22 years, their pension and final payment takes them over a threshold for council properties I believe.

As someone who did buy property whilst still serving, I can see your veiwpoint but the careers of some are cut prematurely short due to psycohological issues, physical injuries or in the current climate, redundancy. Those who serve see the forces as a family and cannot see it ever ending, if it does prematurely they are often not prepared either financially or mentally for civvy street.

As for the low rents, yes quarters are subsidised as are on camp single accommodation but if you are going to be sent thousands of miles away to fight for your country, the least you can expect is for your family to be properly looked after while you are gone. As for preferential rates, every member of the armed forces is trained as a "soldier first" and there are numerous instances where chefs, clerks and the like have been awarded for meritous service in combat. Therefore, although the exception to the rule, it would be different to implement.

The military takes a significant impact on your body, leading to premature arthritic conditions, bad backs and other issues. Because of the level of physical activity undertaken (for the most part) the body can suffer far more and therefore, the average 40 year old service leaver has conditions and injuries over and above those that would reasonably expected by the average person.

For me and I am biased, they deserve every concession they are afforded and have earned that the hard way.

If you want to see excess, look at what civil servants get!!! :-(

But you knew that all of the above were likely when you joined - like any job you were aware of the t&cs.

As for Civil Servants (and think VEEERRRRY carefully before you answer :evil: ) what is excessive about what they get?

Mmmmmm, let me think, a pension most of us would give our right arm for at a start!

I cannot disagree re the risks of the job, but what I will say is that you see the world differently when your 17, 18 or 20 years old. You dont know how bad your ailments will be at 40 or 50, you just think your indestructible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a very tricky issue. Any dissent from the help our brave boys line and you are tarred as sympathiser with al qaeda or some such.

If being brave is the threshold for housing, let’s add in miners and fire fighters. If serving your country is the threshold, let’s house nurses and bin collectors. If it’s being shot at, add in the Met….and on it goes.

If I considered joining the army I would include in my consideration that there is shit pay and people will try and blow my legs off. It’s horrible, but it surely surely can’t be a surprise to new recruits can it? They don’t really think they are going to practise marching and be a back drop on Top Gear do they?

I’ve lived in and around a number of RAF camps in the UK and Germany. Some of the people there (who would consider themselves a cut above the average squaddie) really didn’t deserve decent accommodation. You do presume people born and bred in the UK understand the basics of community living.

My personal ‘fix’ for this situation would be to kick off a massive council housing building programme. We have nurses and soldiers without homes, we have mad house prices, we have a flat line economy. **** your quantitative easing. Grow a back bone, forget your Thatcherite back story and build six new towns (with heat pumps and electric car charging whilst you’re at it). It’s what government is actually for, the big stuff. Not dicking about with family tax credit tweeks and re branding schools.

It has nothing to do with being brave does it?

The average soldier moves his family every 3 years, therefore, it is difficult to put down roots. That is not an issue for any of the other trades you mentioned.

Firemen can have second jobs, some of the best houses in my area are owned by firemen who are pretty well paid. Also, when they went on strike (which servicemen are never allowed to do even if they felt aggreived) who ran the fire brigade? My mate came back from 6 months in Iraq and after a week at home, ended up doing a firemens job whilst their wives went round the soldiers houses collecting?!

Soldiers understand what they are risking every day they are on operations, yet still they do it. Do miners, nurses or firemen spend 6 months in 12 on average away from their families?

You are not an Al Qaeda sympathiser, but I do find your argument slightly perplexing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah, it wasn't supposed to be a direct comparison, I think I was broadly trying to say there are lots of groups that can lay claim to a need for subsidised or priority housing, coupled with soldiers knowing they were going to be soldiers.

Admittedly my limited experience is via RAF, they were moved over UK and Germany many times, but knew all along that one day that life style would stop and they had a big house problem looming on the horizon. I will concede all 3 RAF families in my larger family were relatively well paid astute guys and had the finance and acumen to plan ahead.

My main point would be let's not start a bidding campaign or points system for limited housing that has already lead to a property bubble and 4 years of shit. Let's build sufficient housing. It's surely a no brainer. It get's Britain working, it actually makes a product rather than a service, it will lead to innovation, it will house people.

Don't pick who gets the house, build another house.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â