"Social cleansing" in Newham
Discussion
quite.Hooli said:
Hasn't this been a plan for the PH party for ages? if you want a free house you can't be arsed to work for then you shouldn't get any choice where it is.
Pretty much, but the only real worry is creating ghetto's in places like Stoke.s
t, we're too late. With the government enterprise zones in the north I'm sure this makes general sense to have a larger workforce ready to fill all those factory jobs.
muffinmenace said:
Hooli said:
Hasn't this been a plan for the PH party for ages? if you want a free house you can't be arsed to work for then you shouldn't get any choice where it is.
Pretty much, but the only real worry is creating ghetto's in places like Stoke.s
t, we're too late. With the government enterprise zones in the north I'm sure this makes general sense to have a larger workforce ready to fill all those factory jobs.
D1ngd0ng said:
Replace Factory with Call Centre and you're probably right. Although it just seems like an excuse to get rid of the dregs. Interested to know why they picked Stoke though, considering there is already a shortfall of social housing in the area.
I heard (on the LBC/James O'Brien) that Newham had written to over 1000 housing associations looking for spaces.Hooli said:
Hasn't this been a plan for the PH party for ages? if you want a free house you can't be arsed to work for then you shouldn't get any choice where it is.
I understand (again from listening to LBC) that they haven't considered whether the families are out of work or not, just that they are on housing benefits (ie could be working 50 hours a week but on low income). Can anyone confirm my above posts?
D1ngd0ng said:
Replace Factory with Call Centre and you're probably right. Although it just seems like an excuse to get rid of the dregs. Interested to know why they picked Stoke though, considering there is already a shortfall of social housing in the area.
They didn't pick on anywhere. They wrote to hundreds of Housing Associations. This one ran to the media in response. Newham has 28,000 on its waiting list for social housing and is receiving ever more applications as other councils try to shed their tenants to cheaper areas of London to manage the HB cap rules. Some councils are offering cash incentives for their tenants or propsective tenants to move to cheaper parts of London. Newham can't comply with the regulations either so is putting out feelers to cheaper areas of the UK.I don't doubt if this was a Conservative led council and there wasn't an election in a month's time this would be a policy praised by Grant Shapps. Across loads of threads it's PH policy already.
Hoofy said:
I understand (again from listening to LBC) that they haven't considered whether the families are out of work or not, just that they are on housing benefits (ie could be working 50 hours a week but on low income).
Can anyone confirm my above posts?
quite likely, given that only around one in eight recipients of HB are unemployedCan anyone confirm my above posts?
rover 623gsi said:
Hoofy said:
I understand (again from listening to LBC) that they haven't considered whether the families are out of work or not, just that they are on housing benefits (ie could be working 50 hours a week but on low income).
Can anyone confirm my above posts?
quite likely, given that only around one in eight recipients of HB are unemployedCan anyone confirm my above posts?
It's quite a worry as rental prices increase and low paid workers are forced out of the area... who will do my gardening? On a more serious note, who will clean hospital floors or sweep roads if they can't afford to live within a reasonable commute of London if (major assumption, of course!) rental prices keep increasing to the point where low income earners cannot afford to live?
Edit: naturally, I do object to paying taxes so that people can live in nice areas that I would love to live free of charge!
Edited by Hoofy on Tuesday 24th April 13:38
The incoming HB cuts will have major effects on Housing in the London boroughs.
Frankly I cannot see an alternative unless the taxpayer is going to support a housing system in the inner London Boroughs, which no taxpayer can actually afford. It is no longer possible for homeless families out of work or in low wage earnings to afford to live in inner London.
It seems to me that this is a self evident economic fact. What Newham and others are doing is attempting to deal with that scenario. This will be repeated constantly as the hard times come upon the UK.
I cannot see an alternative. No benefits system can sustain the level of Housing benefits that has been pouring out into London through Housing Benefit. The average cost of HB in these boroughs dwarfs the cost of actually feeding the families. Economic circumstances require change.
This is one of the changes. The dishonest crooks running the Labour party would in fact face precisely the same quandary. Taxpayers cannot reasonably be expected to sustain a lifestyle for benefit claimants which the taxpayers themselves cannot afford.
Housing in London is too expensive for poor households. Simple economic fact.
Frankly I cannot see an alternative unless the taxpayer is going to support a housing system in the inner London Boroughs, which no taxpayer can actually afford. It is no longer possible for homeless families out of work or in low wage earnings to afford to live in inner London.
It seems to me that this is a self evident economic fact. What Newham and others are doing is attempting to deal with that scenario. This will be repeated constantly as the hard times come upon the UK.
I cannot see an alternative. No benefits system can sustain the level of Housing benefits that has been pouring out into London through Housing Benefit. The average cost of HB in these boroughs dwarfs the cost of actually feeding the families. Economic circumstances require change.
This is one of the changes. The dishonest crooks running the Labour party would in fact face precisely the same quandary. Taxpayers cannot reasonably be expected to sustain a lifestyle for benefit claimants which the taxpayers themselves cannot afford.
Housing in London is too expensive for poor households. Simple economic fact.
This is indeed not as clear cut as we might at first think...
I don't want to be paying for layabouts to live in places that I can't afford to live in, but at the same time, I don't want to be dodging rats feasting on piles of uncollected rubbish on my way to the office because the London boroughs I travel through can't find any binmen.
Likewise, the vast majority of my colleagues are, like me, way above the ceiling for housing benefit, but the people who clean the toilets, replace the lightbulbs, run the canteen and so on are not. If they can't live within a sensible distance of Waterloo, then they're not going to work here either, so I'll be stuffed.
If we're not paying taxes towards these workers' housing costs, then employers will be forced to pay higher salaries to get their people, and that will get passed on to us anyway in the form of higher prices.
I would be all in favour of moving out the unemployable to bring down prices for hard working people on low pay, however.
I don't want to be paying for layabouts to live in places that I can't afford to live in, but at the same time, I don't want to be dodging rats feasting on piles of uncollected rubbish on my way to the office because the London boroughs I travel through can't find any binmen.
Likewise, the vast majority of my colleagues are, like me, way above the ceiling for housing benefit, but the people who clean the toilets, replace the lightbulbs, run the canteen and so on are not. If they can't live within a sensible distance of Waterloo, then they're not going to work here either, so I'll be stuffed.
If we're not paying taxes towards these workers' housing costs, then employers will be forced to pay higher salaries to get their people, and that will get passed on to us anyway in the form of higher prices.
I would be all in favour of moving out the unemployable to bring down prices for hard working people on low pay, however.
Hoofy said:
rover 623gsi said:
Hoofy said:
I understand (again from listening to LBC) that they haven't considered whether the families are out of work or not, just that they are on housing benefits (ie could be working 50 hours a week but on low income).
Can anyone confirm my above posts?
quite likely, given that only around one in eight recipients of HB are unemployedCan anyone confirm my above posts?
It's quite a worry as rental prices increase and low paid workers are forced out of the area... who will do my gardening? On a more serious note, who will clean hospital floors or sweep roads if they can't afford to live within a reasonable commute of London if (major assumption, of course!) rental prices keep increasing to the point where low income earners cannot afford to live?
Edit: naturally, I do object to paying taxes so that people can live in nice areas that I would love to live free of charge!
Kermit power said:
This is indeed not as clear cut as we might at first think...
I don't want to be paying for layabouts to live in places that I can't afford to live in, but at the same time, I don't want to be dodging rats feasting on piles of uncollected rubbish on my way to the office because the London boroughs I travel through can't find any binmen.
Likewise, the vast majority of my colleagues are, like me, way above the ceiling for housing benefit, but the people who clean the toilets, replace the lightbulbs, run the canteen and so on are not. If they can't live within a sensible distance of Waterloo, then they're not going to work here either, so I'll be stuffed.
If we're not paying taxes towards these workers' housing costs, then employers will be forced to pay higher salaries to get their people, and that will get passed on to us anyway in the form of higher prices.
I would be all in favour of moving out the unemployable to bring down prices for hard working people on low pay, however.
Or house prices in London will drop without the government propping them up via housing benefitI don't want to be paying for layabouts to live in places that I can't afford to live in, but at the same time, I don't want to be dodging rats feasting on piles of uncollected rubbish on my way to the office because the London boroughs I travel through can't find any binmen.
Likewise, the vast majority of my colleagues are, like me, way above the ceiling for housing benefit, but the people who clean the toilets, replace the lightbulbs, run the canteen and so on are not. If they can't live within a sensible distance of Waterloo, then they're not going to work here either, so I'll be stuffed.
If we're not paying taxes towards these workers' housing costs, then employers will be forced to pay higher salaries to get their people, and that will get passed on to us anyway in the form of higher prices.
I would be all in favour of moving out the unemployable to bring down prices for hard working people on low pay, however.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff