Intergeneration Foundation

I sat open mouther and gob struck (not something that can normally be levelled at me) yesterday morning as I watched some neo con housing fascist from the wonderfully named "Intergeneration Foundation" spout off on prime time television about how the elderly are "hoarding living space" by living in the same houses they've always lived in, but their children having moved on. This Tory think tank want these ungrateful elderly to move on into somewhere smaller to free up housing for "hard working families" who can't get on the housing ladder.
It's all started with very vague proposals, and couched in language that can be interpreted in a number of ways, or simply not understood, so the Tories can actually gauge public opinion to see if it's viable. It's nothing short of housing fascism, and the accusations made against the elderly that it's somehow their fault is repulsive. The vast majority of these elderly folk will have lived in their house most of their lives....they'll never have moved house for profit because they come from a generation where a house was a home not an investment....homes have memories, but that doesn't stop these f uckwits from pontificating about tax breaks for the old folk to move out, or concessions on winter heating etc.
Work it out for yourself....if these 4 and 5 bedroomed houses become available after the old folk have gone, will it be "hard working families" from "the squeezed middle" (don't you just love political cliches?) who can afford them?
Note to the Prime Minister. We have a housing crisis in this country, but it's not with people living in 4 or 5 bedroomed houses. The crisis is because governments since Thatcher have failed to build adequate council housing, much to their eternal shame, as all it's done is push house prices up because of scarcity. Start a proper, well thought out housing policy that recognises the needs of the majority, not the well off minority. Embark on an ambitious social housing programme, making affordable housing available. As a result of this, the economy would also start to be regenerated by the unemployed finding work in order to build these houses, benefits would be lowered by them coming off the dole, and "social mobility" certain in terms of housing can be confined to the garbage can, where it belongs.

Actually the Labour Party support this organisation, Grant Shapp is very much against this leftie bullying. Tessa Jowell seems keen though.

F uck me, where'd you come from?

I can see both sides of the argument. The house next to me is a three-bedroomed council house and the old fella who lives there is on his own since his wife died some years ago. Their children moved out 20 years back. So here he is, one person living in a home built for a family and it seems a waste. But...

...it's not a house, it's his home. It is where he brought his family up. It is where his wife died. He put the fence up. He planted the trees. It is full of memories. Besides he is very quiet, a model neighbour. I don't want him replaced by a loud family with screaming brats.

The social housing issue started when councils were allowed to sell off houses for £7,000 to £14,000 in the mid to late 80's.  What did they do with extra money?

Another problem is was giving lasses houses or flats as soon as they got pregnant.  Now you have some families were 4 of the kids are to different dads or the woman is constantly spitting out kids for benefits and bigger houses.  

Disgusting but not suprising.

If you see "foundation" or "think tank" the warning sirens should start flashing...

It's no more than the next stage in the plan - attacking peoples private property rights.
The govt would like nothing more than to nick our property and cram us all into huge cities where we can be controlled much easier.

Squeezed middle is a cliche but it's entirely true.

It's a bit like the argument that if you kill granny by turning off her life support machine, there will be more jobs and money to give to everyone else.
As usual it's the most vulnerable which are targetted first to set the precedent so they can push through their agenda.
That's how it's sold.

What we're seeing now is a big move towards socialism.
Middle classes are coming under attack from the scum at the top and the mob of dependants right at the bottom who are fooled into thinking the "rich" means anyone with a few thousand quid who should have to "sacrifice" more for everyone else to pay off a debt they didn't even create.

Occupy Wall St has been co-opted to turn attention away from the problem at source(i.e. the privately run Fed) to capatilism.

Capitalism isn't the problem, it's the crimes of those in the mega financial institutions in a rigged monopoly stealing trillions of pounds which are the problem.
If crimes have been committed, people should be prosecuted.
Instead we get the multi-millionaire Michael Moore up there telling us how capitalism is to blame.
Welcome to corporate fascism !

Quoted from kingofthekippers

I can see both sides of the argument. The house next to me is a three-bedroomed council house and the old fella who lives there is on his own since his wife died some years ago. Their children moved out 20 years back. So here he is, one person living in a home built for a family and it seems a waste. But...

...it's not a house, it's his home. It is where he brought his family up. It is where his wife died. He put the fence up. He planted the trees. It is full of memories. Besides he is very quiet, a model neighbour. I don't want him replaced by a loud family with screaming brats.

What are you on about, it's their PRIVATE PROPERTY ?!!!

If we lose our rights to that, then as supposedly free society we've got nothing.

http://www.infowars.com

Quoted from 1600

Disgusting but not suprising.

If you see "foundation" or "think tank" the warning sirens should start flashing...

It's no more than the next stage in the plan - attacking peoples private property rights.
The govt would like nothing more than to nick our property and cram us all into huge cities where we can be controlled much easier.

Squeezed middle is a cliche but it's entirely true.

It's a bit like the argument that if you kill granny by turning off her life support machine, there will be more jobs and money to give to everyone else.
As usual it's the most vulnerable which are targetted first to set the precedent so they can push through their agenda.
That's how it's sold.

What we're seeing now is a big move towards socialism.
Middle classes are coming under attack from the scum at the top and the mob of dependants right at the bottom who are fooled into thinking the "rich" means anyone with a few thousand quid who should have to "sacrifice" more for everyone else to pay off a debt they didn't even create.

Occupy Wall St has been co-opted to turn attention away from the problem at source(i.e. the privately run Fed) to capatilism.

Capitalism isn't the problem, it's the crimes of those in the mega financial institutions in a rigged monopoly stealing trillions of pounds which are the problem.
If crimes have been committed, people should be prosecuted.
Instead we get the multi-millionaire Michael Moore up there telling us how capitalism is to blame.
Welcome to corporate fascism !


What are you on about, it's their PRIVATE PROPERTY ?!!!

If we lose our rights to that, then as supposedly free society we've got nothing.

http://www.infowars.com

Bt its not private property. It's owned by the council; people rent it and have a right to privacy within it but the property is not privately-owned. If you had bothered to read about the plans you would have realised the plans are only to be discussed regards council-owned properties, not privately-owned ones.

And if you'd read my post you's have realised I agree with you in that they should not be turfed out. But then I remembered you're one of those 'conspiracy theorists' so you tend to read one thing and your mind tells you what you want to read.

My grandparents still live in the same house which has four bedrooms but there's just the two of them. But I would be horrified if they were forced to move, they've lived there for 57 years.

It all depends on what you use the extra space for, relatives visiting, extra storage for Town memorabilia or other stuff.  If the extra rooms lay empty then surely it makes sense to downsize and save on energy bills.

I hope the same rule applies for the mps etc.  

I am glad I live in a tent,

Nobody will want to move me on,

Although it has 3 bedrooms and ensuite,

Quoted from kingofthekippers

Bt its not private property. It's owned by the council; people rent it and have a right to privacy within it but the property is not privately-owned. If you had bothered to read about the plans you would have realised the plans are only to be discussed regards council-owned properties, not privately-owned ones.

jock dock himself referred to the "housing ladder" - you don't do that if you're renting...

So it's council owned and not privately owned ?
Oh really ?!  
What's your source ? Prove it !

Let's see what THEY themselves say on their OWN website...

http://www.if.org.uk/projects/housing

"Older generations continue to celebrate increases in house values whilst the typical age of a first-time buyer, buying without assistance with the deposit, has gone up to 37. In parallel, average monthly rental costs have hit a record £700, whilst the older generation, which currently owns in excess of two-thirds of the housing stock, maintains its grip on the market. Buy-to-let is dominated by older owners buying to let to younger workers."

So there you go....
Older "owners", increases in house values, NOTHING about the "councils" or older people "renting" at all.

Sounds like private ownership to me !  

If you've studied the "plans" should you not know the basics ?

So let me ask you, where is YOUR information coming from ?
You deny all that info straight from the horses mouth ?

You've got some nerve calling me a so called conspriacy theorist when you're making baseless statements in opposition to the most basic and obvious facts.

Quoted from 1600

You've got some nerve calling me a so called conspriacy theorist when you're making baseless statements in opposition to the most basic and obvious facts.

Have I touched a nerve? Methinks I have.

You made those claims that are provenly wrong - why don't you just admit it ?

Things are far more serious than whether you or I am proved right - don't you get it ?

What did you say when I mentioned the BBC reporting Building 7 collapsing 20 mins before it did ?
"that not funny"
You're not funny more like !
I'd guess you'd like nothing more than everyone else to treat every inconvenient fact as a "conspiracy theory".

What are you defending it all for ? What's your game ?
Can't you face up to the harsh reality ? Are you too proud to admit you've been conned and to give up your Labour membership card ?
Or are you suffering from Stockholm syndrome ?

To be frank, I think you spinning and defending it all is appaling.
At the end of the day it's YOUR future you're flushing down the toilet...
The whole world is wisening up and I suggest you pay attention and get on the side of fair play and freedom.

Quoted from 1600

You made those claims that are provenly wrong - why don't you just admit it ?

Things are far more serious than whether you or I am proved right - don't you get it ?

What did you say when I mentioned the BBC reporting Building 7 collapsing 20 mins before it did ?
"that not funny"
You're not funny more like !
I'd guess you'd like nothing more than everyone else to treat every inconvenient fact as a "conspiracy theory".

What are you defending it all for ? What's your game ?
Can't you face up to the harsh reality ? Are you too proud to admit you've been conned and to give up your Labour membership card ?
Or are you suffering from Stockholm syndrome ?

To be frank, I think you spinning and defending it all is appaling.
At the end of the day it's YOUR future you're flushing down the toilet...
The whole world is wisening up and I suggest you pay attention and get on the side of fair play and freedom.

  That nerve must be hurting.