The EU debate - Part III

How many people already here are homeless?..... They should come first.

 

There's a lot of help available for the homeless. Many choose not to be helped.

 

Not now there isn't, it depends on where you live these days.

If you're in one of the London Boroughs and you're not classified as extremely vulnerable - which is a suicide risk or mentally unstable - then if you get evicted due to losing your job etc, you're on your own.

They have to take that stance, as there's a massive waiting list for social housing and they haven't got the budget to put all and sundry into temporary accommodation.

 

What specifically are you looking for a solution to, and what is your solution to that?

 

There is a certain irony about the good old west helping to finance safe havens (not in the west) for those displaced by the conflict .. I wonder if the financial help being provided comes anywhere close to the profits generated by western arms' manufacturers and economies that have provided the tools of destruction being used by all and sundry in the various conflicts?

 

The profits are not made by governments, but the multi-nationals that drive them. They're not all western run.

 

The Russians and a certain Mr Kalashnikov are just as guilty.

 

So Govt doesn't gain their share of the net profit generated via corporation tax?

 

Not always, no.

 

So the UK Govt didn't see any benefit from BAE systems £1.5BN net profit last year, that was boosted by selling Typhoons to Saudi?

 

Would do in the UK for sure

 

A hell of a lot do want to be helped though.

 

Plenty want help but get none, because they are single white males that dont take drugs or are an alcoholic.
Lots of ex service men would like a place to live, but are always bottom of the pile.

 

True and Tobes is right that councils don't (or can't) do enough for some but that's the fault of the government not allocating sufficient resources. A lot more needs to be done for both groups, UK nationals and refugees.

 

250,000 are homeless.

But there is something else that needs to be considered and that is whether there is enough rooms to house everyone.

35% of houses have 2 or more unoccupied bedroom.
35% of houses have 1 unoccupied bedroom
26% have number of bedrooms matching number of expected occupants
4.5% are overcrowded.

Across the country we have nearly 2 bedrooms per person when 40 years ago it was 1.4.

Far to much of the housing built is too large for our needs because it demands a bigger price. To much social housing has been lost or is underutilised.

 

Does them being white make a difference? I don't think a black guy in the same situation gets preferential treatment.

Isn't that what you want- women and children first? It's the government's fault if there's not sufficient housing stock. It doesn't mean we shouldn't be doing more to help with global problems IMO.

 

I'm not pretending to have one. It's clearly a complex issue not solved by empty non-solutions.

To answer your first question, migrant crises. Syria is obviously a hot topic but somewhere else will be just as important soon.

 

The 2 issues are separate. As a Nation we have a responsibility to take a relatively small number of the displaced refugees.

The housing crisis has been caused by massive under investment in housing stock, whilst selling it off over the last 30 years.
Councils were actually forbidden from spending the cash received from sales on building new homes.

So the private sector has taken up the slack, and with rent caps now in place for housing benefit, if you lose your job in London, housing benefit is unlikely to cover your rent. So you get evicted by the Landlord, and if you're single or a married couple with no dependants, then you're on your own with virtually no chance of ever getting social housing.

 

Didn't they? I didn't say they never benefited, only that they don't always.

 

They don't get any help either.