Jump to content

On yer bike?


observer
 Share

Recommended Posts

These things just take a little thought Pierre: our social set up doesn't allow for mobility of labour, even if folk were gagging to become gypos: First you've got to sell your house if you have one, and be able to afford a house in the area your moving to - by that time the jobs gone - so perhaps an arguement for a larger rented sector (oops, not Tory policy!). Then there's the family to consider, disruption to school, mates, relations etc. This idea is based on the nomadic life styles of the "go getters", who flit from one promotion to next, before they're found out! Then you have to consider the impact of demographics on the areas involved, sudden influx = pressure on services. and let's not forget the ubiquitous immigrants, who might resent British folk taking their jobs! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thousands of jobs locally- all be carried out by legal immigrants from Eastern Europe. They share their housing costs by living in over crowded privately rented accommodation.

 

Plenty of jobs there for the unemployed but the Tax Credits system is too generous- that needs an overhaul as well.

 

Simply telling someone to move home because they live in a council estate does an injustice to homeowners who have become unemployed.

 

All in all, a very poorly thought through proposal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obs, families have been relocating due to employment opportunity for ages, my brother moved to Kent when Irlam Steel works closed. Culcheth & Croft more than doubled when the Government consolidated AE in Risley.

 

Your opening question isn't asking something new.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My Father took us around the country whilst he moved up the ladder and very successful he was too.

 

Even our politicians, up roots and move to the area in which they serve.(Not all admittedly)

 

Alas, it worked the other way with me. Every time I moved house, some time later I moved jobs to a different area. :roll:

The exception being when I got a job at Hailwood, but didn't move house. Changed job instead as I got fed up cycling there. The mad things you do when you are young.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not asking "something new", Ian Duncan Smith is: and like Tebbit before him, it's not been thought through. SOME folk have always lived like this, usually the upwardly mobile; but the vast majority would find it difficult, even if they wanted to. Be interested to a) discover where and how many of these"jobs" are - B) how many folk would need to be moved and would it accomodate the numbers of jobless - c) Whether the recipient areas have the social and service infrastructure to cope with a population surge? Obviously - not thought through at all - unless they plan to take a leaf out of Pol Pot's book?! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are lucky enough to own your own home, it would be difficult to sell your property in this economic climate or even rent a council house, however there is a massive waiting list for all council rented properties where ever you live.

 

An average 3 bed property to rent is approx? ?650 - ?750+, you would have to be on a modest wage to pay your rent and feed the family and household bills.

 

If you are married with kids, options are limited, if you are single you probably have a slightly better chance of moving and finding employment.

 

I agree with the sentiment, move to where the jobs are, but where are the jobs that other local people could not do and even if you did move and found employment would the job last or the company stay in business?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct SD, and not to mention the break up of families and communities, the increase in transport requirements to visit relatives etc. - more gut reaction politics I'm afraid, without thinking it through.. If they want a "mobile" society, they'd have to reverse the current home ownership/rented sector ratio to maximise rental use and thus ease of movement, but then they'd then have to build more housing for rent. :roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which side of the fence are you really on observer?

Home ownership or renting?

You seem to move your stance to suit your current diatribe.

 

Isn't this Government initiative more about helping those who can find a job outside of their county/region to move, rather than say that they should move?

:shock:

 

And what communities are you talking about?

They broke up when industry closed down. :roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely Obs isn't on either side of the fence as he merely perches on it like a gentle little sparrow or robbin waiting for a passing eagle to drop it's prey... aint that right Obs :lol::wink::lol:

 

Have you got a strop on today Peter as you are not usually so defensive or argumentative :lol: Maybe you need to move ot a new area :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Side of what fence Pierre? Whilst I'm indifferent to ownership or renting, I'm merely observing some practical difficulties arising from IDS's mobility of labour concept; which btw is the official policy of the EU, thus accounting for 80% of our current immigration levels, something a UK Gov can do sod all about (unless we exit the EU). For enviromental, economic and social reasons; LESS mobility would be preferable imo, and there is now a growing support for the concept of "localism"; which basically prefers the idea of self reliant communities, with a minimum of global mobility, helped by an expansion in communications technology. :shock:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely the only way that can be achieved is to build council houses and stop short stay renting.

Private landlords might be making a fortune, but housing estates are no longer a settled environment, and hence no real sense of community, as people only stay 6 months and move on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You'd miss me Dizzy.

I blame my mood on all the negativity that surrounds us. :wink:

 

I would indeed miss you Peter :lol::wink:

 

Maybe we should all start writing more possitive posts and look for the 'good' in everything (however small the good bit may be :wink: ) and then we wouldn't be so grumpy and dissilusioned (spelling?) :lol: ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Housing is the most expensive item on one's agenda, but we still persist in trying to maintain 75% home ownership, despite the Europeans having 25%; folk striving to get a mortgage, even though they can't really afford it or without a "job for life" to sustain it. Rents arn't cheap either, plus it's "dead" money; but it does facilitate mobility (if that's what they now want); problem is: rents operate on supply and demand, so an increase in population level caused by folk on bikes securing a job, would make even renting problematic (EG London). Service provision requires some planning for, and stable demographics enable demand to be anticipated. The idea of "localism" is to provide the points of production as close to the points of consumption as possible, minimising travel to work = less traffic congestion = less pollution = less food and goods travel = cheaper goods (in theory!); and providing political devolution, more opportunity for LOCAL folk to decide and participate in their governance. :shock:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On yer bike?.have you seen the price of bikes these days, you have to take a small mortgage to buy one, but seriously, listening to friends and news items, I think there is to much emphasis on buying homes, not a lot wrong with renting.

 

I get the feeling that there is a lot on inverted snobbery from people who own their own homes and think you are a second class citizen if you rent, nothing could be further from the truth, it is all a matter of choice and finance. Council rent is cheaper than private renting by far and the sooner councils take responsibility for building and providing affordable rented properties for all and reducing the housing waiting lists the better.

 

What annoys me is that a person or family on a modest wage can not afford a mortgage at the moment because they have not got the deposit etc, or seen as a high risk, yet can afford an extortionate rent that is more than a mortgage and never miss a payment, will not be offered a mortgage, the banks have more to gain by offering these people mortgages, even if they do falter on the payment at least the banks can reclaim the property back.

:x

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...