Discussion in 'London and the South East' started by citydreams, Jun 6, 2006.
Rich parents? Yeah, that's right mate. Fucking arsehole.
Btw, I didn't say anything of the sort. As I said - please read my posts or just fuck off eh?
No, I didn't say that either. Wanker.
you keep accusing me of not reading what you posted, then when i quote you you go all quiet
so from the above, which you posted, what else am i supposed to deduce
Try reading it again. Properly this time.
I'll make it easy for you.
"Two people and a cat, one who is currently studying (as well as working full time), the other starting a course in September (as well as working full time), with all the stuff (books, music etc) that people in their 30's accumulate, in a tiny one bed flat? Are you serious?"
i tried reading it again, you said you couldnt live with your partner in a tiny (which wouldnt have to be tiny for about 160 pw, could be quite spacious)
one bed flat particularly because of all the books/music youve accumulated
so im sorry if i take your words at face value, i cant read your mind
You don't even read your own posts properly do you?
I'll make it easy on you again. You posted "in fact you say you couldnt possibly live in a two bed flat because of all the stuff youve accumulated which presumably you paid for at some time"
you do know that one bed flat would generally mean a one bedroom flat as opposed to a studio dont you
its not my fault if youre incapable of making yourself clear
Try looking in the mirror sometime.
ok, fair enough that was a typo, and there was me thinking you were actually showing a hint of realism
so you concede that you wouldnt be prepared to live in a one bedroom flat
fuck man, even the couples i know who i consider quite posh only have one bed flats if they dont have kids
Of course I would if I absolutely had to. The point is, I shouldn't have to. As I already said, my partner is studying, she needs the quiet space for books (of which we probably have several hundred) and to study. Not to mention we're planning on having kids in a year or two.
What I don't get about your attitude (as I have said many many times on this thread) is why you seem insistent on everyone being dragged down and that we should all be content with out lot. I find that a deeply conservative attitude.
If I was single I'd happily live in a one bedroom place - but then I wouldn't be able to afford it. Actually if I became single, I'd consider moving back to Birmingham. Rents there are half what they are in London.
Actually what bothers me most about your attitude is you aiming your anger at the wrong person. Me and my missus are both from lower middle class backgrounds, parents didn't have much money when we were growing up (only time I went abroad with my family as a kid we went camping in France - it was all we could afford), we're both doing socially useful jobs, both politically socialist, neither of us extravagant. We both do stressful and emotionally demanding jobs and don't get paid a huge amount for it (me more than her). All we want is a nice life and you're aiming your anger at me and telling me I should shut up and be thankful for what I've got. Well fuck that. Aim your anger at the government, at the people who control housing markets, at local councils at big business at capitalism. Not people like me.
Not really - the "big bills" I am talking about don't refer to basic utility bills - I mean things like buying new clothes or household/white goods or other one-off items of expenditure. It also reflects (in my case) a lack of planning or saving (even £5 a week can help save up a 'fund' for occasional larger bills, but in fact this 'rainy day fund' typically got spent on non-essential consumables (beer, tobacco, weed, magasines).
I still stand by my claim that you can live on £150/week: in fact I have lived on less - the HB didn't actually cover all my rent (being about £5-10/week short) and JSA was c. £45/week - so basically it was 'rent plus £40 for living on'. It is perfectly possible, although not that pleasant if you are a habitual consumer who can't adapt to a non-consumerist lifestyle, won't seek out the cheapest bargains, tries to keep up with the spending patterns of people earning a lot more than you or is otherwise not in the best physical or mental health. It would also be very hard if you had debt, any expensive addictions, people to look after and so forth.
why ffs sake, thats more than most people have, if you have kids its a bit different (id recommend it btw ) but the fact is to assume you should have the right to accommodation which is way more than you realistically need is insane
its the wierdest politics ive ever heard, at least tories acknowledge that you have to work for privilege, you seem to think that it should be handed to you on a plate
i cant imagine any socialist demanding the right for couples without kids to have a spare room
id like a spaceship. in fact i demand it and anyone whos says im not entitled to it is a tory
im not particularly angry, more bemused that you can think this way
that ain't living in my book - that's surviving. Not being able to afford to buy clothes? Bollocks to that. Oh and btw, beer is not "non-essential".
Or you could argue that "poverty" is set at "living wage" levels.
Apart from people living rough on the streets (I have a few friends who have had to do this for several years - in fact we have someone living with us now rent-free who we invited in off the street) there is almost no comparion with "poverty" in a global sense - living on less than $1/day - and the way anyone lives in the UK.
People in the UK have access to free health care, free food, free shelter, free education and so forth. It is a farce to try and compare this with the vast number of people starving to death or dying through lack of basic health care, clean water and so forth.
The average person in the world has about £70/week (this figure is adjusted to accunt for the purchasing power of the local currency in question based on a basket of local goods and services) and this typically has to cover *everything* including rent, health care, food, and often things like school fees as well. This average (which is also typical for 'medium income' countries like Russia and Brazil) hide the large numbers of people in very poor countries, far below this level.
It is a fucking joke to have people compare the lifestyle enjoyed by 99% of UK residents with "poverty" as understood by the vast majority of the world's population today.
Yes, I'm well aware of that. But it shouldn't be.
Its not way more than I need. As I just said, I don't understand why you don't aim your anger at the people who do actually have way more than they need. The people with holiday homes, a house in Surrey and flat in central London for example.
You think a 2 bedroom flat is a "privilege"? And you call my politics weird?
I can't imagine any socialist thinking that people should settle for less, that everyone should be dragged down to a lowest common denominator just 'cos they don't have lots of money and power. That's a conservative attitude. Personally, I want things to be shared equally. You seem happy to let the people at the top have shit loads and for the people nearer the bottom to fight over the scraps.
You're being a twat now.
The feeling's mutual. I can't understand why you think people shouldn't have decent housing.
IMO, its relative poverty that is more meaningful.
Oh btw, I didn't call you a tory.
Yes.. I saw that the first time around. Anyway, I'm off out to a free night out with some nice people. Have a nice night all!
Its a different link.
i dont, i believe everyone has a right to a decent home
but can you imagine if everyone demanded the right to a two bedroom flat with no kids, its insane, its way more than you need or most people would even want
i just cant understand how you can think this is a right, you work in housing ffs, you must be aware that more and more single homeless people are being offered bedsits and studios rather than one bed flats
how do you suppose we could live in a society where everyone has so much more space than they need, would you still demand a spare room if you had kids
you prepared to pay more tax to fund it, youre not thinking logically, from each according to ability, to each according to need
thats need, not desire, imo youre the one coming across like a tory by demanding that what you desire should be rightfully yours regardless of the consequences to others
and as i said earlier, as a anarcho-socialist whos spent my life working with people who are vulnerably housed, and as someone in a position where i hardley live like a king these days
my priorities will never be someone who earns a grand and a half a month after tax, has no kids and just demands the right to a spare room
thats not about trying to drag everyone down, its about concentrating resources where theyre most needed and not on people who demand more than they need when actually theyre doing pretty well
my anger isnt directed at them so much as the system which allows them to exist while some live in such desperate straits at times, but at least theyve earnt their money for the privelege and arent just demanding that it should be provided to them on a plate
given how most people in this country (not to mention the rest of the world) actually live id say you were closer to the top than the bottem
to back that up the at a rough calculation based on the figures in this report 78% of people in the uk live on an average household income of less than 40k gross
less i imagine than you and your partner receive combined, the difference being many of those are bringing up children and the figures are skewed on the high side by the super rich
sorry, I've missed a lot of this but is Blagsta seriously saying that he/she and his/her partner should not have to live in a one bedroomed flat in London? What a fucking joke.
A one bedroomed flat is designed for a couple for goodness sake. When me and my partner were looking for somewhere to live, no way did we expect to get two bedrooms. Why would we need them, we've only got one bed.
Separate names with a comma.