Thread: Fixing The UK

The main reason for housing single parents is for the sake of the child, not really the parent.

The parent benefits of course, but that's not why they're housed. What would you do with the child? Foster care costs well over £2K a month in pay to foster parents. Also, there's not enough foster parents because the only way to get more is to pay more per foster parents when there's no money anyway. This is quite apart from the difficulty of the job (I knew someone 6/7 years ago who was gonna get paid £2400 per month to have an Afganistan boy of 11 who'd been brought up as a girl and abused by the father). So you can see how tough it is to get foster parents.

It does seem unfair that taxpayers can be living in grotty bedsits (been there, done that) and flatshares paying twice the rent as some who live in their own council flats. But if you were in charge your first priority would be the child. It's been a problem going back decades and decades, a problem exacerbated by our growing population and dwindling land and money.

I agree that I do have a sense of lost opportunity in that a lot of taxpayers are paying a lot of money to private landlords when the governmet could be getting it.

I am not proposing to make single parents homeless, I am saying an additional strand of council housing aimed at competing in the housing market place could be used to force the cost of housing and renting down. The banks have used hyper-inflated mortgages to crowbar as much cash out of the economy and into their pockets as they can. I'm suggesting a cost effective way of putting cash back into peoples pockets. Including single parents.