Excellent analysis. I've also seen statistics based on tax receipts from the US and, I think, Holland (or maybe Denmark) indicating that blacks are massively revenue negative, as are Arabs and Hispanics albeit less so. All exactly as would be expected from IQ statistics.
I can't help but wonder if this connects to the birth rate problem. The considerable subsidies afforded recent migrants are paid out of the pockets of the native born, who then must contend with higher taxes, flattened wages, and increased housing costs, all of which make family formation less affordable.
I always wonder quite why Britain as a society chose to warehouse large numbers of permanently unemployed, or lifetime dole takers, in expensive areas. They are not reliable votes to buy, nor part of the legal economy and aside from reducing property values and increasing anti-social behaviour rates do little.
Councils are also famously toothless dealing with criminal or otherwise horrific tenants - a right to housing is not balanced by a responsibility to be a good citizen. Indeed, Theodore Dalrymple went as far as to say the opposite - that proof of being some kind of criminal delinquent would get you preferential treatment.
There's also probably a regional element to it all. Here in the north east the proportion of normal working people in social housing (compared to non-working) is far higher than in other areas of England.
Social housing isn’t free, although some people living in it receive housing benefit.
The reason London doesn’t have banlieu is because each borough has to provide housing, including the wealthy central ones, although in recent years they have being trying to export people on their lists to other parts of the country.
One positive aspect of this is that the city is better mixed, with poor and rich having to see each other regularly and being reminded of their existence; the experiences of zoning and redlining in the US demonstrates starkly what happens when cities create poverty ghettos.
London has long been a magnet for people trying to improve their lives, which means it always needs to have room for them, after all today’s refugee may well become tomorrow’s entrepreneur, or cardio-thoracic surgeon.
A truth of social housing is that when it’s provided, and well managed and maintained, is that it provides homes for people who work in essential but often low paid jobs, such as hospital cleaners, transport operatives, shop workers and of course postal workers. They often don’t have much disposable income and so enabling them to live close to their work places reduces their costs and helps keep local economies ticking over.
Our city needs more social housing, to provide safe and secure homes for people on low incomes. That will reduce pressure on the PRS, reducing costs for those who can’t or don’t want to live in social housing, and in turn helping to reduce the overall costs of housing in the city.
This is the most boilerplate response imaginable, did ChatGPT write this? I think you have topped it for Generic Default Lib Comment on Housing, congrats on that
"Social housing isn’t free"
No social housing is not "completely free" but the state takes on the complete cost of it and if the residents that live in it don't contribute (just see ecom activity stats) then that is a waste on the public
"although some people living in it receive housing benefit"
You mean just under 50% in London in March 2021 at around the time of the census? That's not even taking into account UC payments which factor in as well so that's not "some".
Kind of, I don't think I argued this specifically in the article, but there is a reason why Richmond is 80% White and Tower Hamlets is 39.3%.
"because each borough has to provide housing, including the wealthy central ones"
Yes thanks for stating something we already knew, social housing estates in Northern Kensington and Camden which are populated with blacks (mostly Somali's) are shitholes I'm not sure this is an argument for it?
"London has long been a magnet for people trying to improve their lives (...) after all today’s refugee may well become tomorrow’s entrepreneur, or cardio-thoracic surgeon"
Not even going to bother here LOL
"people who work in essential but often low paid jobs, such as hospital cleaners, transport operatives, shop workers and of course postal workers"
No let's fix this, it provides housing/more state support for foreigners who are imported in to do such jobs who cannot sustain themselves at market levels after a short amount of years, so hence get put in social housing (see reasons such as having more children etc.) in the middle of one of the most expensive cities on planet earth. I think it is a bit unfair to the White's and so on who will never qualify such criteria's to be placed in social housing in London to miss out on this.
"Our city needs more social housing, to provide safe and secure homes for people on low incomes"
No it does not for see reasons of the entire article. It's not efficient housing policy to build SH of which will then be given to African care home workers after 5 years of residence; again I went through this all in the article, did you even read it? You might want to check up on your comprehension skills.
Excellent analysis. I've also seen statistics based on tax receipts from the US and, I think, Holland (or maybe Denmark) indicating that blacks are massively revenue negative, as are Arabs and Hispanics albeit less so. All exactly as would be expected from IQ statistics.
I can't help but wonder if this connects to the birth rate problem. The considerable subsidies afforded recent migrants are paid out of the pockets of the native born, who then must contend with higher taxes, flattened wages, and increased housing costs, all of which make family formation less affordable.
Did you know Black African (not Caribbean) slightly out perform White British in GCSE’s? Does that correlate with your IQ statistics?
Incredible work. Thank you.
Very deep and thorough analysis. It’s hard to argue with cold facts. What mugs indigenous Brits have become 🙁
They are embarrassed by social housing and would rather face hardship or risk homelessness while striving for a better life.
I always wonder quite why Britain as a society chose to warehouse large numbers of permanently unemployed, or lifetime dole takers, in expensive areas. They are not reliable votes to buy, nor part of the legal economy and aside from reducing property values and increasing anti-social behaviour rates do little.
Councils are also famously toothless dealing with criminal or otherwise horrific tenants - a right to housing is not balanced by a responsibility to be a good citizen. Indeed, Theodore Dalrymple went as far as to say the opposite - that proof of being some kind of criminal delinquent would get you preferential treatment.
There's also probably a regional element to it all. Here in the north east the proportion of normal working people in social housing (compared to non-working) is far higher than in other areas of England.
You never see black homeless
Social housing isn’t free, although some people living in it receive housing benefit.
The reason London doesn’t have banlieu is because each borough has to provide housing, including the wealthy central ones, although in recent years they have being trying to export people on their lists to other parts of the country.
One positive aspect of this is that the city is better mixed, with poor and rich having to see each other regularly and being reminded of their existence; the experiences of zoning and redlining in the US demonstrates starkly what happens when cities create poverty ghettos.
London has long been a magnet for people trying to improve their lives, which means it always needs to have room for them, after all today’s refugee may well become tomorrow’s entrepreneur, or cardio-thoracic surgeon.
A truth of social housing is that when it’s provided, and well managed and maintained, is that it provides homes for people who work in essential but often low paid jobs, such as hospital cleaners, transport operatives, shop workers and of course postal workers. They often don’t have much disposable income and so enabling them to live close to their work places reduces their costs and helps keep local economies ticking over.
Our city needs more social housing, to provide safe and secure homes for people on low incomes. That will reduce pressure on the PRS, reducing costs for those who can’t or don’t want to live in social housing, and in turn helping to reduce the overall costs of housing in the city.
This is the most boilerplate response imaginable, did ChatGPT write this? I think you have topped it for Generic Default Lib Comment on Housing, congrats on that
"Social housing isn’t free"
No social housing is not "completely free" but the state takes on the complete cost of it and if the residents that live in it don't contribute (just see ecom activity stats) then that is a waste on the public
"although some people living in it receive housing benefit"
You mean just under 50% in London in March 2021 at around the time of the census? That's not even taking into account UC payments which factor in as well so that's not "some".
https://imgur.com/a/ehcGzcb
"London doesn’t have banlieue"
Kind of, I don't think I argued this specifically in the article, but there is a reason why Richmond is 80% White and Tower Hamlets is 39.3%.
"because each borough has to provide housing, including the wealthy central ones"
Yes thanks for stating something we already knew, social housing estates in Northern Kensington and Camden which are populated with blacks (mostly Somali's) are shitholes I'm not sure this is an argument for it?
"London has long been a magnet for people trying to improve their lives (...) after all today’s refugee may well become tomorrow’s entrepreneur, or cardio-thoracic surgeon"
Not even going to bother here LOL
"people who work in essential but often low paid jobs, such as hospital cleaners, transport operatives, shop workers and of course postal workers"
No let's fix this, it provides housing/more state support for foreigners who are imported in to do such jobs who cannot sustain themselves at market levels after a short amount of years, so hence get put in social housing (see reasons such as having more children etc.) in the middle of one of the most expensive cities on planet earth. I think it is a bit unfair to the White's and so on who will never qualify such criteria's to be placed in social housing in London to miss out on this.
"Our city needs more social housing, to provide safe and secure homes for people on low incomes"
No it does not for see reasons of the entire article. It's not efficient housing policy to build SH of which will then be given to African care home workers after 5 years of residence; again I went through this all in the article, did you even read it? You might want to check up on your comprehension skills.
I can’t read your reply through the haze of pomposity and racism. Well done on being top notch obnoxious though.
The happy, haziness of it all is great tho : "after all today’s refugee may well become tomorrow’s entrepreneur, or cardio-thoracic surgeon."
Why did you delete your previous reply and then repost the exact same thing lol
Thanks I appreciate that compliment! 🥰🥰🥰
Then the question becomes: who lives in social housing? Are they key workers?
Look at Page 25 on https://www.westminster.gov.uk/housing-policy-and-strategy/allocations-scheme and examine recent successful bids at https://westminster.homeconnections.org.uk/lettings-history With a weekly rent of £161.5, you can secure a lifetime residence at https://westminster.homeconnections.org.uk/property-detail/131384-158287 You only need 150 points to qualify for this --- being a homeless grants you 150 and getting Overcrowded grants you up to 300. Why don't I stop working to pay my rent and f*** myself??