Is it right that tax payers money be used to provide subsidised housing
for the lackeys who service the household needs of the toffs?

These toffs have got enough dosh to push up house prices so high
that they price the ordinary people out of the area.

If they want a local bunch of lackeys to services their needs then they
can just jolly well pay them a lot extra so that they can afford to live
locally or commute further.

I don't see why the tax payer should be subsidising the household
services of the upper crust.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3649184.ece

Lord Turkey Cough wrote:

Wonderful, foot-in-mouth, bullet-in-own-foot, stuff.

It will galvanise and focus anti-Labour sentiment in the affected market
towns and see off every Labour MP in the immediate area at the next
election.

"JNugent" NPPTG.com> wrote in message
news:t4ydnUDeyNPp-WzanZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@pipex.net...

I have seen at first hand the problem

I have relatives living in a medium sized Cornish village.

Council houses all sold off. Private estates full of out of area retired
wrinklies, a few locals holding on to their council houses or private houses
bought years ago.

Large number of young people unable to afford a house.

Planning permission being blocked for houses for these people.

My cousin and his wife are currently living in a rented appartment just
behind a garage, while waiting for planning permission.

Latest threat is allow the houses or pig sties will be built, as it is owned
by the farm he works on, and is no use for crops.

The people trying to stop the development are all retired non locals
People forget that farmers have been priced out of the areas they need to
work in.

Martin wrote:

That happens anywhere and everywhere. It's part of the problem of being
young - having no money and not having been earning long enough to save
it up. It is partially solved by waiting until one's earnings and
savings rates have improved (remember "saving up"?) and partially by
inheritance.

Not *just* for those people - for *anyone*. And that is in order to
preserve visual amenity and the character of the built environment and
not to overburden the local infrastructure. We don't have planning
policies for just no reason.

Lord Turkey Cough wrote:

"JNugent" NPPTG.com> wrote in message
news:tLydnUMXYvPRxW_anZ2dnUVZ8uqdnZ2d@pipex.net...

JNugent wrote:

JNugent wrote:

IOW people who formerly lived in other places whilst growing up and working
and are now retired and used their accumulated funds to buy property in a
location remote from their former home at above local affordable prices.
whilst living in those other places they developed an idealised view of what
"the country" should be like and now seek to impose that view on people who
have lived and worked in the area for several generations, possibly for
hundreds even thousands of years.

Why should the people with money with origins in a different part of the
country be the ones to dictate what happens and how others should live their
lives in some small rural community?

®i©ardo wrote: