Social 'cleansing'? What are the implications?(383 Posts)
Camden Council wants to move 750 poor families north to places like Bradford and Leicester. They say that because of the new benefit caps (which limit total welfare payments to £500 a week for families, no matter how many children they have or how much they have to pay for rent), some families are not going to be able to afford to live in London. So they're shunting them all up north.
I don't think this is a new idea, btw, but I still find it shocking.
When the govt were discussing these benefit cap plans, they must have worked out the implications for the families that would no longer be able to afford to live in their houses. And they will have realised that this would happen more in the poorer, Labour-run (?) councils. It's inspired, it's so clever. In one fell swoop they free up all the lovely expensive properties being wasted on poor families, and the Labour councils get the blame for it. It's absolute genius, don't you think?
So what sort of place will London be, when the heart is ripped out of it, and all the children go? Perhaps a tad melodramatic, but the Pied Piper springs to mind - not that I am blaming the Mayor and Corporation of Camden, particularly (don't know enough about it, tbh).
Here's the Guardian's take on it:
Actually it seems a bit much to talk politics when people's lives are going to be so deeply affected:
'One single mother in Camden with four children, all under the age of 10, told the Guardian: "I want to stay where I am for my children's education. What it seems like is the government just want London for the rich. They want to move people on benefits to poor areas." Her rent is £340 for a two-bedroom flat in Camden. When the cap comes into effect, the government will reduce her housing subsidy to £204. This leaves a shortfall of £136. The council has offered to rehouse her in Liverpool.
She said: "Not being given that option to choose where you want to live and where your children go to school isn't fair. The government is taking away people's homes and the places where they've made friends. To think that someone has the power to do that over you Obviously the government made a lot of mistakes and now everyone is taking the brunt of their mistakes. My children are my priority. If I have to move I will but obviously I'm trying to resolve this."'
'Camden says it has been forced to act because the government's policy does not recognise the capital's local circumstances. The borough has the fourth-highest rents in the country. Councillors argue work is no route out of poverty because London has the second-highest childcare costs in the world and house prices are pushed up because Camden's average wage is £37,000, 42% higher than the national average.
The result is that rents of three-bedroom properties in Camden are at least double the government's maximum welfare payment of £340 a week for such properties in north London. Yet three-children families in Camden, said the council, will have a £175 a week limit for housing benefit due to the cap. The local authority says it has no more council housing available it has a waiting list so has no alternative but to "explore out-of-borough housing options. The local housing allowance [government welfare subsidy] in Birmingham and Leicester for a three-bed is £127 a week." '
There is also an interesting discussion on housing here (Shelter blog): www.mumsnet.com/Talk/bloggers/1679675-Guest-blog-Shelters-Chief-Exec-on-the-rise-of-unaffordable-housing
I posted this separately so as not to hijack that thread.
In the article it refers to the low paid. The benefit cap will only be applied to non working households.
This government have hit the poorest, weakest &needy.
Boroughs all over London will be dealing with the long term implications of the welfare cuts.
But, Rhiannon they're not talking about people who have just decided they want to move or are in the process of deciding where to live. They're talking about families who might well come from the area, have lived there for generations, have social networks, kids at school, etc. They have to move out, away from their extended families and friends, so that other, richer, people can move in.
How are the councils in places like Bradford and Leicester, and Southampton and Portsmouth down the train line from London, meant to cope? They have all just finalised massive spending cuts, thanks to the Govt's austerity programme and Eric Pickles's determination to hammer local government (i.e. actual people who live in actual places).
I lived in central London, but when we had our first child we could not afford to move to a bigger house, along with childcare so we moved to the countryside which was not our first choice. That is the way it works....
Leicester doesn't have room for them, we have a social housing shortage of our own.
But who pays for the increase in the numbers of population in cities like Leicester? That's a massive decant.
There needs to be provision for the cost of school places, health services, housing needs, social care ...
Mm. I'd like to live in Camden, and I'd love to have had 4 children.
I couldn't afford either.
I hate the idea of children being moved away from schools and communities.
But again, my family- all graduates in professional jobs- live hours' drive away from each other. We've had to follow the work.
Is Camden council going to give Leicester City council the money to provide all the extra services too?
There are housing shortages in all the 'cheaper' cities in the UK. That would be because of all the council homes that were sold off and because of how many of these are now owned by private landlords charging extortionate rents, a scandal that no Govt ever tackled post-Thatcher.
Usual x post.
There has been no money placed into any city council budget that I know of to accommodate this proposed decant.
Do none of you care about what might happen in the Cities these poor people are shipped too? OK to increase our housing waiting lists and put more pressure on our services is it?
It's not all about London.
Yes, the mind boggles, doesn't it? The northern cities will get fuller and fuller of people they can't afford to look after, but that is just a sacrifice they will have to make, so that all the multimillionaires can live in London.
Camden is one of the more expensive London boroughs; thereby pricing many, many would be buyers out of the market. (and indeed private renters).
Please explain why the council should subsidise rent for people who wouldn't have a hope in hell of affording market rates?
I bought a house in a borough I could afford, it certainly wasn't the one I'd have chosen had money been no object. Sadly there were no subsidies available to allow me my first choice.
I don't like this at all, but, £326/week rent???? Seriously????
WishIdbeenatigermum - these families don't have work, afaik.
However, I know a lot those who do have jobs in central London can't afford to rent or buy anywhere near their work. So what's the solution? Force people to leave the area and free up the housing.
Or, if we're talking social engineering, why don't we make everyone who lives in a huge house take in a poor family and let them occupy the ballroom or part of the west wing?
<Sorry, that was my inner child, wailing>
I'd imagine that the Right To Buy plus lack of investment in new council properties and rising demand for social housing has caused the shortage so that the council has been left paying private rental costs for those eligible for housing benefit. It's obviously unsustainable, but there must be a better way of dealing with it. Scrapping Right To Buy for a start and possible selling of a small number of the highest value council properties to fund the building of more social housing.
As the parent of a disabled child who lives near my support network (not Camden btw) I would be mightily pissed off if this involved me....especially as I spent the pas 30 years in work and paying taxes.
I am lucky to have social housing but I had absolutely NO say in where I was placed, I went where there was an empty house and I imagine in Camden it's the same. A bit much therefore to suddenly uproot people who might well rely on a known support infrastructure.
This is social cleansing no matter what it's dressed up as.
The problem is that some of these issues need to be dealt with on a London wide scale or indeed involving councils in bordering areas. Key workers are needed in London, and many more people are needed to fill jobs that wouldn't be described as such but are essential for modern living. Areas where land is higher in value might find it beneficial to invest in subsidised housing in boroughs with lower costs.
Moving from one area of London to another is one thing, but offering moves to places like Bradford and Leicester is insane. It's a cynical move that allows the councils to say that they offered help and were refused.
Floggingmolly how is forcing families to leave going to help you? I'm sorry you couldn't afford to buy your first choice, but I don't see that it has anything to do with a poor family renting a home that wasn't for sale and that you probably wouldn't want to live in anyway.
I don't think it's the fault of the poor families that the rents are so high. Why not ask the landlords (nicely) to reduce their rents? Property owners don't have to charge exhorbitant prices.
Or ask the government to regulate the housing market.
I think you are blaming the wrong people here.
Why should people being looked after by the state get more of a choice in where they live than anyone else? Plenty of working people having to live in areas they wouldn't have chosen for themselves or their families but they cut their cloak according to their cloth.
The comment about disrupting childrens' education is invalid. Lots of families move house and children start at a new school. It's hardly uncommon.
It's social engineering to pay the rents of people to live in areas they couldn't afford if working.
As I said, I'd love to live nearer my support network. It just doesn't work that way if you work, you have to live where the jobs are.
Again in the case you linked to- she has 4 children. I couldn't afford that many. I was incentivised to stop by living on what DH and I could afford to support.
Wish - But if you already have the children ...? (Plus not everyone plans their families). And if you are already living in the area?
And as I said, I'm sorry if you aren't able to live nearer your support network. But why should other people - who have not caused that situation, and who probably have a lot more problems than you do - suffer too?
Puffpants - people being looked after by the state are going to be forced out of their houses. Not much choice there.
It's not social cleansing and the whackier ideas about places like Bradford etc always evaporate on closer inspection.
not everyone plans their families. Most people have a vague idea of how many children they can afford - if they plan on footing the bill themselves, that is
Four children though! Unless they were quads, that some mega lack of foresight. I live in a v posh area, btw and have a local friend with three children on HB- single Mum 3 dcs. They won't be affected by the changes as she's I a small flat with children sharing.
The comment in that article - Not being given the option to choose where you want to live... People have always been given the option to choose where they will live.
Not everybody is given the option of having someone else foot the bill.
Some people's lives are just chaotic, Flogging. Nothing is planned. Other people are just unlucky.
But deserving or undeserving, these poor people are the ones the government has decided it can sacrifice, in order to make life more fun for the people more likely to vote for them.
That's what intrigues and horrifies me. The govt decided on this policy, knowing full well that as a direct result, families with small children would lose their homes. They thought it was a price worth paying. For what?
And the problems that are caused by poor or insecure housing end up affecting the whole of society. It's in all of our interests that any families with young children get the best our society can offer. How else will they grow up into responsible adults who have a stake in society?
All these houses or flats are under £500/ week.
Floggingmolly - but everyone does have that option. Anyone can lose their job and be unable to find another and have to rely on benefits.
If all the HB are shifted 'out' of private rentals in an expensive area, will that force rents down as the landlords will struggle to find a replacement tenant willing to pay the high rent?
If they do find replacements who are able and willing to pay, then I guess that is simple market forces? Ultimately, the country is broke so something has to give, and it does seem a bit unfair that people not eligible are forced to move out from an area due to cost, but those claiming can stay (is that what happens at the moment or is that just Daily Mail stirring?)
If the economic crisis was caused by banks lending money to people who couldn't afford the repayments, or by banks gambling with our money, or by banks doing x,y,z - then by definition, the poorest in society (ie the ones who have no money at all of their own) did not cause the economic crisis.
So why do they have to be punished for it?
£500 is the total cap on benefits for families. The rent component of that is about £175 a week (would like clarification on that). Try looking for properties at that rate. Oh there are none.
Well, good luck finding low paid workers in inner London in the future - teaching assistants, dinner ladies, hospital cleaners, park wardens, dog shit cleansers...
One thing that strikes me is that the proposals to move people to places like Bradford or Leicester are likely to reduce the chances
Sorry, hit post too soon. I meant to say that moving to those places means it is less likely someone on benefits could find a job, simply because there are less jobs available compared to London! So the chances of a single parent on benefits being able to find a job and get off benefits (though it's obviously not as easy as that - childcare etc) are being reduced.
I'm afraid Solo that if you rely on the State to keep you fed, clothed and housed...then when the State's in trouble, so are you.
The State has enough money to do what it wants to do. It's a question of priorities.
The Government, not the State, said that families would not have to move out of London because of this policy.
The State needs workers in the Capital, and it needs councils in the other cities to be able to balance the books. This decant is fiscal madness.
telsa I didn't know that. Maybe my friend with three dcs won't be so lucky.
Maybe rent control is the answer. It works, as far as I know in New York. Properly mixed neighbourhoods where people can afford to live and w
The thing is there will always be street sweepers and waiters, either student jobs or migrant workers in unsafe and overcrowded housings.
I don't get why this is considered to be such a bad thing.
Bradford and Leicester are vibrant, multi-cultural areas.
Surely lots of mumsnetters would love to live there?
Yes - I know Bradford. But that's not the point, is it?
So,where will they live? There are no spare council houses in Leicester.
It absolutely isn't the point, i agree solo - people tend to live where they live because it is either where they grew up or where they work, families live etc. Its not just about the location. Children's friends etc.
Saying that, im not sure i am happy to be subsidising astronomical rents. I also don't think landlords that are charging the market value for their properties should be penalised.
I think the problem is the market being allowed to get out of control - house prices have been allowed to get ridiculous.
Puffpants - some people find themselves in a situation where they cannot help but accept state support, you know, its not through choice!
If I read this right, Camden might choose to buy up a load of houses in (say) Leicester and 'offer' these to their families to go and live in.
Suppose 750 families do this.
The cost of finding those additional school places alone could cost Leicester £5million. Not budgeted for.
The loss to the housing options stock for Leicester families would also be massive.
Frustrated, I didn't say it was through choice.
My points are still valid. If, even through no fault or intention of your own, you find yourself relying on government assistance to get by in life...you will be subject to decisions made on your behalf by others.
I think if you are living and working in London and then through no fault of your own are made redundant you should have your rent paid if you demonstrate every effort to find another. I don't think you should move into high rent property you can't pay for.
I think the DCs you have should be supported but until you are back on your feet you should not plan more.
I want a welfare system that supports everyone when they fall on hard times not one that offers an easy life to those who want everything for nothing.
so what IS your point then puffpants - does that mean that it is ok for the govt to make poor choices then? because that is what they are doing
actually that makes me really cross puffpants - just because people are poor it doesn't mean they shouldnt have a voice.
The problem is that there will always be people who will play the system and screw it for what they can get and are just plain lazy, but how do you differentiate between those and a family in trouble?
The answer is in controlling the housing market - professional people cannot afford to buy their homes. I was going to say get on the property ladder, but i think the "property ladder" is the problem!!
not cross with you though!! juust the general concept, i sort of understand where you are coming from
frustratedworkingmum. Your point re. "people tend to live where they live because it's where they grew up, families live, etc". This is categorically not the case for everyone funding their own living requirements.
I couldn't even dream of living near either mine or DH's parents, simply couldn't afford it, and like I've already mentioned; nobody is offering to cover the shortfall. Why people feel the means to do so should come from the public purse as some sort of human right is very
We are all suffering because of lack of rent control and the lack of control over the profits allowed to be made out of private sector housing.
If you want to see the consequences of social cleansing then look at the 'schemes' in Scotland. Areas of entirely social housing with high unemployment, alcohol/drug dependency and low life expectancy.
LineRunner- the landlords aren't suffering, they have made a fortune in a sector subsidised by housing benefit.
I take your point flogging, but if you did live near your family it surely be wrong to be expected to move away? I really don't know what the answer is, because as i said in the second part of that post, i don't want to be providing folk with a shortfall either.
I live in the south east in an area which is now pretty affluent, it never used to be though - we were lucky that we bought our house before the prices went mental, but if we hadn't have done that, we would never have been able to buy here. So would have relied on social housing if we wanted to stay in the area. There is a lot of resentment here regarding "second homers" pushing up property prices so that local people can no longer afford to live here. THAT is the problem imo.
Like someone said upthread, people in camden still want their streets cleaned and their coffees served up to them etc. Those are hardly jobs that people can afford to commute to.
Charmingbaker - v true. The schemes are just to move the unsightly poor from the prosperous city centres. Don't want to frighten the tourists ...
What kind of capital city ends up inhabited by the well off and serviced by immigrant workers and students in over-crowded housing?
I want to believe this won't happen because it's so mad.
What I find hard is that communities are being ripped apart by these cuts, family support networks split up. Community has a massive impact on how well people can live along side each other, they are answerable to each other.
What the government is doing is shit and is ghettoising the poor.
It's like the Clearances in Scotland, when the people were put off the land that they had lived on and farmed for centuries - because it was more profitable for the land owners to use the land for sheep.
Change 'sheep' to 'rich people' and there you have it.
Flogging, when you say you 'couldn't afford' to live near your parents, are you talking rents or house prices? Presumably you aren't in social housing, therefore you either own your own home or you are fortunate enough to have the deposit needed in order to be able to choose which rented property you prefer in the private market. That means you have a choice. You get to choose where you live within your means. That choice is being denied a hell of a lot of people, particularly the working poor.
Not only that, but this stupid policy will cost the taxpayer more. Councils are having to put homeless families up in B&Bs that cost far more than housing benefit on social rentals. Westminster is paying thousands of pounds a month - or even a week - to house families whose rent used to be a few hundred. This is a stupid policy that is worse for the victims, worse for taxpayers, worse for employers who need staff, worse for everyone except Cameron who thinks he'll get a few friendly DM headlines out of it and sod everyone who suffers the consequences.
I 'can't afford' a house like the one I grew up in, btw. But I am aware that I am far luckier than a hell of a lot of people'; dh and I were able to buy some years ago, so we have a home, which is a decent place to live, and commuter distance to London where there are jobs. (Not that commuting feels like a benefit given the mahoosive cost and major disruption that happens quite regularly - yesterday and today I've spent 9 hours standing in stations/on rail replacement bus services etc. etc. etc. but I'm aware that I'm still far better off than people who are out of work or forced to move to areas of high unemployment.)
communities will be destroyed, including care networks. Mrs 4 children might care for her elderly mum. If she's moved to Leicester. Mum will have to go into a home at vast cost rather than Mrs 4kids doing it for free. There will be many examples like this as voluntary networks are destroyed. The hidden costs of these are never calculated on a spread sheet.
that is exactly what i wanted to say freetoanyhome, but coudlnt think of how to say it. This government disgusts me
why should one la get to offload onto other, poorer, la? the new area will have to pay for schools, healthcare, subsidise council tax etc. all to save the other la money.
actually, this reminds me if the old poor laws. i was just reading about a man whose 'wife' died, but it turned out they weren't married, so the equivelent of the la shipped the kids off to the various places they'd been born, so their village could pay for theirupbringing. they then sent them back and the poor kids went back and forth with noone wanting to pay for them.
Charming- the landlords aren't suffering, they have made a fortune in a sector subsidised by housing benefit.
The governemt has been overinvolved in the past. The pot is finite and the money has to be found somewhere.
It's not exactly joined up thinking, is it? Otoh they want to force people back into work, otoh they are going to move them away from the jobs.
It might not appear to us to be a very clever plan, Cory, but you can be sure that the govt and their advisers have thought through all the consequences. They will have decided that whatever happens to people's lives, it is a price worth paying.
What I don't understand is why it makes sense, from their point of view, to rip communities apart in this way. Is it a sort of 'divide and rule' strategy? They're very good at that sort of thing. Or do they actually think that societies work best when all the rich people are in one place and all the poor people in another? Or is it a public relations exercise, designed to prove to the people who vote for them (maybe poor people don't use their votes as much) that they are looking after the interests of middle- and high-income professionals?
I can't work it out.
I think it just shows how entitled people have become. So the lady has four children, lives in an area she clearly cant afford and then moans when the government say they will no longer pay for her lifestyle choice!
The changes have been broadcast for many months, she has had plenty of time to gain work (or extr work if she does some already) or to look at areas she likes that she can afford herself.
Welfare was meant to provide shelter, warmth and food. If you truly need to rely on welfare then you would be grateful that they were being provided not demanding you live in a rich area etc.
A rich area?! - it is just bloody Camden Town, or Gospel Oak or Kentish Town - it is not Mayfair. 30 years ago no-one much wanted to live here, in the Inner City Ring, but had to. It is all mad. And it might be coming to your area very soon.
Maybe government needs to think a bit more - about who does all the dirty work for little enough money, while they fiddle their expenses and cash in with directorships.
Happymumofone - your post is vile - lifestyle choice - really? Do you know how santimonious you sound? Is it nice there in your utopia?
So, say this single mother with four children, maybe she is a single mother because her DH died? maybe she used to have a good job but got made redundant? Maybe she has a job that just doesn't cover her "lifestyle choice" but she does it anyway so that she can at least have some self respect so that people like you don't think she is entitled. She has to rely on family to provide childcare for her four children so that she can do this job and of course has to rely on benefits to supplement her income. Only now, they wont cover her rent so she will have to move her children away from her family, friends and support network. She will have to give up her job and claim full benefits - but what do you expect when she chose to live somewhere above her station??
Honestly, can you not SEE how ridiculous your "lifestyle" choice comment is?
I said earlier that i live in an area that was never affluent before, until people were selling their expensive london homes, making a proper "lifestyle choice" so their children could grow up somewhere "naice" with open space and a beach. Their lifestyle choice pusheed the property prices up out of the reach of many local people - what are they supposed to do? Move over for those who can afford choices??? Really?
HappyMummy - why do you think it is a lifestyle choice for someone to be on benefits? Who would choose that if they were aware of any other options? The woman could be disabled or have a disabled child; she could have been the owner of a business that has just been made bankrupt - she could be absolutely anyone!
Why do people have just one model of a 'typical' family on benefits? What newspapers are you reading??
The 'entitled' people - what does that mean anyway? - are the people who want to take more than their share from society. The people on benefits live on less a week than someone else might spend on two nights in a hotel. The chances are that no-one is doing or has ever done them any favours. They are not the takers of society. No prizes for guessing who is.
I really hope all the holier than thou people never fall on hard times, they will positively hate themselves wont they. And no, I am not on benefits, i own my own home and both my DP and myself are lucky enough to hve jobs.
Great minds, solo!
Its entitled as its expected, having four children is always going to mean great expense. Life can change but theres short term assistance for that. The article reads that she believes she has the right to chose where she lives regardless of the fact that she cant pay for that choice. It doesnt mention she is seeking a second job etc to help herself. The article is vague as doesnt mention if she works at all but its unlikely that she does given the cap only affects those on £26k plus benefits.
Thousands of people cant live where they would like, i'd love to live elsewhere but we live where we can afford. Those that work and self support also have to factor in costs when deciding the number of children they will have.
Living in a cheaper area will mean less rent, less state assistance, cheaper childcare and wages will stretch further.
We dont live in an ideal world and most people have to make compromises, why should she be any different to the many other thousands who have to live within their means.
You have answered everything in your first paragraph HappyMummy , "the article is vague".
Despitr this you have made a lot of assumptions which has led you to dismiss her as "entitled".
That says more about you than it does her.
So now people who have four children are entitled? Maybe she should have put three of them up for adoption when she fell on hard times? Im not referring to a woman in an article, im talking about people who might find themselves in difficulty. Sometimes those difficulties are not "short term" either. Like you say, life isn't fair, is it?
"I really hope all the holier than thou people never fall on hard times"
Realistically, if any of us do fall on hard times, then moving house is potentially one of the outcomes. No-one 'deserves' to have to up-sticks when they are quite happy where they are. It's always an upheaval to have to relocate. But none of us, unless we happen to be independently wealthy, have the guarantee that we can remain in one place indefinitely. Whether it's a change in housing authority policy forcing the change, redundancy, illness, divorce, an addition to the family or some other factor outside of our control.... we all have to be realistic. 'Holy' or otherwise.
I take your point cogito, but surely this is when people need the stability of staying near loved ones and support networks so that they don't fall into a cycle of benefits and having to rely on the state. So much for the big society.
Don't get me wrong, im not totally niave, i know that there are people who take the piss and expect to be kept by the state and i resent subsidising them as much as anyone else, but i just cannot see how moving people from pillar to post is going to lessen the financial load. Children WILL suffer from the upheaval of being moved to poorer areas, they will grow up with no hope, no reason to strive and the whole sorry cycle starts again.
"but surely this is when people need the stability of staying near loved ones and support networks so that they don't fall into a cycle of benefits and having to rely on the state. "
No more than anyone else, unfortunately. In many divorces, for example, the resident parent with main responsibility for children is often forced to sell up and move on or rent somewhere cheaper. They often don't have the luxury of staying near loved ones and avoiding benefits. It's nothing to do with 'Big Society', just the reality of life.
I was born and raised in Paddington - we lived here when no one else wanted to - we were surrounded by prostitutes, pimps, illegal drinking houses and drunks! families were packed in to rooms in large houses with no bathrooms. But through it all we went to school and work, we paid our taxes and supported our local businesses and built a community. My parents eventually bought our house for £3k back in the 70's.
I went to work, paid my taxes, road taxes, spent my money in local shops and worked for local businesses so they could pay their taxes. I support my neighbours looking out for the elderly and helping raise my neighbours children. I pay my rent and look after my home - So now Paddington has become a desirable area (parts of it!) The poor who built this community have to be shunted up to Liverpool? Its disgusting!
I won't be affected by this but if I should fall ill and not be able to work is it right that my family be moved away from my community? The community we have strived (yes that word) to maintain and build and supported throughout the bad times. I know families that have lived here since he 50's - some have survived terrible tragedy and have been surrounded by familiar faces and who have helped them through.
Don't forget behind every sensational headline is a family with a story and a history. My children lost their father to a drunk driver - I couldn't bear to remove them from their aunties, cousins, friends just because some LL decided he wants to increase the rent on their ex-council house - because said LL bought it from the council and now rents it back to them at £500 pw :O
Cogito, if you fall on hard times, you might decide to move. Up to you. But that's very different to being moved by the council.
People on benefits find their options are very limited. They are totally at the mercy of the local council that pays their bills. Some of us think that is a horrible situation to be in, and we're angry that vulnerable people are being picked on (especially when they did not cause the present economic 'crisis').
But in any case, rather than focusing on whether a group of people should or should not be moved out of the area they live in, why not think about what has caused a situation to arise in which a local council feels it has no option but to slough off one section of its population so that a different sort of person can move in?
How could that ever, in a million years, be fair??
Cogito I was in that position - Widowed and faced with having to support my children - But it was My Choice to make - do I stay here or move away somewhere cheaper - I stayed and downsized - rather than choose somewhere with a bedroom each and a garden. We live in a small one bed I sleep on the sofabed my girls are in the bedroom - that was my choice - these families are being presented with no choices.
It emphatically isn't up to me. If I fall on hard times and can't pay the mortgage, the lender will eventually foreclose whether I want that to happen or not. There will be no-one offering to make up the short-fall or campaign to keep me in the neighbourhood so that my child isn't disrupted. That's life.
I think the reason the Camden kind of situation has arisen is complex. A shortage of affordable housing is one, a very high demand for very expensive accommodation is another. However, the arguably 'unfair' - or at least unsustainable - subsidies that have been (up to now) provided by HB has really skewed the picture as well.
There is a difference between life throwing things at you, and your local council deciding to move you on! It's not just fate that your council might one day take it into their heads that they don't want you in their area any more.
Where are these people going to live when they shove them all up north?. I live in Bradford and i was on the waiting list for social housing for 8 years before i got somewhere.
Does this new influx mean local people are pushed further down the waiting list to make way. Jobs are hard to come by too, this is just going to make the poor north, rich south stereotype a reality.
LittlyTygga - I am so sorry for your loss, you describe just the situation i was getting at. I think the fact that people take a "Thats life" attitude is very sad indeed. I am so pleased that you have had family to support you through.
Greedy landlords, inflated house prices are to blame, its not rocket science.
What I mean to say is that in this case, there is a government that is actively trying to make things more difficult for you, in order to make them easier for someone else.
That is not the same as falling on hard times.
Sparkly - Excellent point!
Last post was in reply to Cogito.
"It's not just fate that your council might one day take it into their heads that they don't want you in their area any more."
It's as much 'fate' as your employer deciding to give you the sack, contracting a serious illness, or any other external factor completely out of your control. As I said earlier, unless cushioned by independent wealth or similar, none of us are immune from life throwing us a curve-ball. None of them are 'fair'.
Beggars can't be choosers. I would love to live in London and I can't afford it. Stop moaning.
"Where are these people going to live when they shove them all up north?"
That never happens. This story has been popping up in various guises ever since the HB cap was announced and it never bears close examination. Some daft councillor writes a memo to Lincoln council asking about empty homes, fellow councillors say 'that's a bloody stupid idea' and it gets dropped by everyone except those who use it as ammo to make their case why a HB cap is a bad thing.
No, Cogito. It's government policy. That's not fate. And we can do something about it.
I couldnt imagine why anyone would actually Choose to live in london anyway
Let's hope it will be dropped. It's hard to see how it could possibly succeed anyway.
What's scary is that it has even been proposed as an idea. The government in a democracy is supposed to work in the best interests of as many of the population as possible. This govt is not doing that.
Rhiannon.....go to London, say you've left an abusive relationship maybe....they'll stick you in a refuge or hostel.....a year or so down the line you might be housed by the council(if you get lucky)........but you won't have any say where. It night be a des res in a naice area or a crappy moldy flat on tbe the top floor of a tower block.
Oh and you might get settled, build up support networks and even find some work but then get told..sorry love.....this is now an expensive area so off you go up north, uproot kids from school etc....theres possibly no work when you get there either but still it'll make some smug taxpayer happy somewhere.
Thats the reality for some people you are judging and dismissing.
"What's scary is that it has even been proposed as an idea."
In fairness, it is conceivable that someone, not manacled to a particular postcode, fed up with living in central London and fancying a fresh start, might think that relocating somewhere outside of the M25 is a golden opportunity. Isn't necessarily a tragedy...
Telsa made a good point earlier about these 'expensive' areas not being very salubrious. Inner London isn't all Mayfair. Camden has lots of very poor areas such as Somers Town, Kentish Town etc. Neighbouring Islington which is perceived as affluent is about 60% social housing.
In my London neghbourhood ex-Council flats have quintupled in price in under 15 years. Huge swathes of them are in the hands of BTL consortia who own dozens, if not hundreds of flats and charge the maximum they can get away with under HB rules. Chances are most of these expensively housed families are living in these ex-Council flats rather than mansions, many of them in a much worse state of repair than those remaining udner the ownership of the Council. Families used to buy ex-Council flats as starter-homes. That's now impossible when what cost £70k in 1999 is now £360,000 due to BTL.
I know a lot of people have said 'just move further out', but there's an underlying problem when people on relatively good incomes can't afford to buy even the smallest accommodation in very ordinary areas.
Something needed to be done as huge amounts of money was flowing from Councils direct to BLT landlords in the form of extortionate amounts of housing benefits. However, rent caps might have ended the abuse and caused less disruption. Lots of landlords are determined to indulge in a stand-off with Councils, refusing to drop their rent and believing that if they get rid of their HB tenant, they'll soon replace them with a private one who can afford the same rent and will put up with the same conditions. I think they're in for a hell of a shock, but the human cost to tenants in the meantime is immense.
In another thread it said that Camden Council had denied that they would be moving anybody 'up North'. (Wherever that strange awful place might be) Shock horror. The amount of money you have dictates where you live. For most of us in any case. Can we all choose where we live and be subsidised by the state. Till this opportunity is available to everyone it remains essentially unfair.
That's it in a nutshell, Vivienne
Catkin - completely agree with your point. There is a bubble that needs to be burst. As long as the government feed into the demand for private rentals by paying the high rental costs out of all our taxes, rents are going to stay high for everyone. This doesn't just affect those who rent, we all contribute to the tax system which pays the housing benefit, so we are in effect all giving money to private landlords.
I'm a hated civil servant. Thanks to cuts brought about by the last Govt my office was closed down, as were about another 300 across the country. I had the choice of trying to find another CS job beforehand, or wait for redundancy. I found another job but it was in a different area. We had to sell up, leave 2 of our teenage children behind and move to the other side of the country.
We are in a smaller house, with higher bills and a huge mortgage. Our DD would have got a place at an outstanding school 2 mins walk from our old house. Instead she is at a school a good 20 mins walk away where 40% are on FSM. We now have loads of debt because the whole move cost a fortune (and no help from anywhere). Plus we had to move away from the ILs and our other support network.
Where I work now our situation isn't unusual. They have moved people from all across the country to our office and lots have had to move house. Some may have had financial help but they've still had to tear up roots. It is a fact of life.
You had a choice, these people don't have choices and jobs to go to. You seem to have struggled a great deal and be worse off. We live in a strange world where the mentality is it didn't work well for us so you should have to put up with it too.
I hope your job doesn't require demonstrating empathy.
What choice did Tallulah have?
Oh right, I've got it. Ask somebody else to pay the rent.
The choice to seek other work maybe?
We live in a very strange country where only the poorest can afford to rent in certain areas. As I said before until the opportunity is there for everyone the system is insane.
So why don't "these people" you mention have the same choice? If they were all to seek other work (after all, if Tallulah should have done it...) then the question of who funds the bill might not have arisen in the first place.
Your arguement makes no sense.
very often "these people" through no fault of their own, are uneducated and wouldn't even have the "choice" of moving to a different job in another area. "these people" might have mild learning difficulties that mean that they can only manage a menial job. "these people" just might not have had the opportunity to get qualiications that enable them to be able to relocate. I love this attitude of "just get another job then" it makes me laugh. I am highly qualified and after my DD started school i started looking for a job, ANY job, both those that used my qualification and those that didn't. It took me four years of looking, pushing me into a depression, before i found a cleaning job, I now work on a sessional contract in a field i'm qualified for. I hate it though but i daren't leave for fear it will be a further four years before im able to find work again. If i struggled, how are people with little or no education supposed to "just get another job" like its the easiest thing in the world. Being long term unemployed is a scourge and very easy to say "oh just get another job, second job" or relocate when many people just don't have that choice.
The point is being missed over and over again - this is an issue that has arisen because of an out of control housing market and astronomical rents. I was entertaining myself one night looking at "property porn" and DP and I were incredulous at the cost of a flat in some parts of london and i woudnt live there if you paid me!!
Several of my immediate neighbours are living in social housing, presumably in receipt of benefits and capped rents. DH and I pay £36,000 a year to rent this house from our own pockets, and our rent is just about to rise 5%.
We also have zero family support - our parents live 200 miles away. We had to move to London because we had a work ethic. I grew up in Knowsley where living on the state is a way of life, but my parents are immigrants and I was brought up with better values.
The culture of entitlement amongst the "poor" of this country makes me sick to my stomach. Suck it up, especially if you're living at other people's expense. Move to Knowsley, your £500 HB a week will rent you a house on Lord Derby's estate.
I can't believe there is such support for social cleansing which is what this is about.
OMG some threads never cease to amaze me, there are some really horrible nasty uncaring people in the world today.
What messages are we sending our children?
The message we should be sending out is that there is no such thing as a free ride or entitlement to a certain lifestyle subsidised by other people's taxes. What on earth is this nonsense social cleansing about. The rest of us have to live according to our means. Why are people in Camden any different. Nobody seems to know the answer to that.
I object absolutely, to those who don't work enjoying living in property the vast majority of those IN work can't afford.
It's that simple.
BOOH as Tallulah commented working people have to move away. My BIL moved to another part of the country so that him and my DS could have a larger house to start a family because they couldn't afford to do this in London and buy a larger property. His job is ok but he could be made redundant and they have just had another baby. Perhaps my DS would like to be near my mum for support.
Seems people put the cart before the horse because of generous welfare and have DC first without thinking about how to support them and rely on taxpayers.
I know every case is individual but no one cares if people who aren't on HB have to leave the area etc and can't afford to live there.
you could ask, what message is a 'single mother of four' is sending to her children by whining that she can't choose where to live free of charge - that's four people getting very skewed values.
A message of whining entitlement .
"Generous welfare" <snort>
Wanna swap and see how generous it is?
The article was very vague and many here are jumping to conclusions. Perhaps the message the mother is imparting to her kids is "when the chips are down nobody gives a fuck and will find a way of blaming you".
Nobody knows her circumstances
Maybe one of her children is disabled and she needs the support structure around her?
Maybe she is mentally ill and has family who help
Maybe she just does not want to uproot her children and send them elsewhere if they are settled in schools.
Maybe she was affording the rent and her partner walked out
Who knows....it doesn't say and an awful lot of you are jumping to conclusions and blaming her.
She didn't sound that moany to me. More sort of I'd rather not but if I have to then I have to.
I wonder if it's one of those doom is upon us stories that never quite happens. Like the one about the millenium bug. I'm sure I've read it before.
I think the lucky people on this thread need to count their blessings and show compassion for other people.
I am not in this position either, but how do you know who all the people are, who may end up being forced from their homes.
Shame on You. I really do hope someday that you will see where all this started.
As morethanpotatoprints said I am staggered at the nasty uncaring comments made in this thread. Don't judge these people until you have walked in their shoes.
You know what, morethan? It's a strange phenomenon, but the harder I work, the luckier I get. Nobody ever told me I was "lucky" when I was working 12 hour days to save for a deposit...
And I still couldn't buy a house in Camden.
And that means other people shouldn't? Oh you are better than everyone else I forgot. That's what its all about isn't it. Work and money and more work and more money. I think the poor people are probably a lot happier than you on your boring old treadmill.
You know this and you are so . Why should somebody have something you can't.
Floggingmolly, nobody ever said that to me either when I was working 12 hour days and saving for a deposit. Not everyone affected or claiming any kind of benefits is an idle no hoper you know. Plenty of them work hard for shit wages which have to be topped up so they can keep the essential roof over their head. Maybe you could swap with one of them eh?
I've had the mortgage and the private rent in my time so I have an experienced perspective in all this.
i am over 20 years on from my mortgage days and I am in social housing and in the south east and on HB. How you all must hate me. I couldn't afford to live here on a mortgage that's for sure.....or even privately rent here.
And I am not in Camden either.
Why should somebody have something I can't? No, the real question is why should somebody have something I can't for free. So tell me, why?
Do some of you mean to sound so bitter and jealous?
When did so many people get so bloody horrible on here.
Er, because some people haven't got as much as you, nor the means to get what you have got. They may have been dealt a rotten blow in life. They may be suffering.
There are plenty people who can have something I can't have, for free. However, I'm so glad I don't think like you.
And why should my LA have the extra costs to provide services for these people because you want their houses?
How do you know she is getting it for free? Does it say she gets full housing benefit? How do you k ow she doesn't work?
Perhaps you'd like MY house.....currently I get that for free as I can't work. Rent or mortgage both out of my reach, dunno about your reach.
To buy it ...about £160k in the current market I reckon, to rent probably a good £800 a month in the private sector. Obviously I pay less when in work as its social housing.
Why should I get such a luxury when you don't I wonder?
Could it be that everybody has different circumstances? Who knows what this woman's circumstances are....the article doesn't say. But you are all quick to judge.
Ok for my city to suffer is it? ok for our housing waiting lists to increase?
so is it only single mums who attract ire? How about pensioners in expensive London council/private rented on housing benefits. If they were being shipped out you'd all be hoicking bosoms like mad. But it could be argued why didnt they save/work/take advantage of the free education/cheap housing etc.
Workers could be in them houses...
freetoanyhome, I wonder if a lone parent father would be defended, too.
And in any case the decision is made. The cap on housing benefit has been brought in. The situation should never ever have been allowed to develop in the first place. And there is now an attempt being made to put it right and not before time. How on earth can it be any way fair that people are living in expensive accommodation subsidised by the taxes of the very people that could not dream of affording that accommodation themselves.
A lot of people with mortgages also have the problems that JakeBullet lists. They too have to live within their means.
exactly Viv, that was my point earlier in the thread.
Would someone like to answer my question?
usual and there will be more young people and families 'farmed out' to B&Bs in south coast seaside towns, putting more pressure on services there in a time of cuts.
That doesn't seem to matter though, line.
As long as Camdens alright.
Fuck the other LAs budgets.
....and often they then have to forgo their mortgages and rent Vivienne.
Experience of that. ...no way could I afford the mortgage alone. I moved to be near support (near family) in an area where I cannot afford to buy or rent except in social housing.
As my DS is disabled I need that support. I also would not relish the idea of sorting out the Statementing process in a new area. Thankfully this cap will not affect me though.
If it stops some LL getting rich off the back of HB then great.
Liklihood is that it will also affect people living in much less salubrious accommodation though.
It would have been much fairer, easier and cheaper (for the tax payer) to have reintroduced area rent tribunals.
Line runner - you are probably right but sadly, those are already full
This bloody shit heap government screwed it up the last time they were in power when they sold off all the council properties - my MIL lives in lewisham, council property. Lived there all her life - her neighbours childeren bought the house from the council for a song to a piece of shit landlord who will rent it out to just about anyone - my MIL has had to put up with so much crap because the landlord doesn't care who lives there, just so long as she gets the rent. So the council made a pittance on selling the property, only to have to subsidise it now with HB, its madness.
And I still couldn't buy a house in Camden.
Not a house no - but you might have been able to but an ex LA flat in a tower block on a run down estate - you would probably choose not to but many choose to do that rather than move away where they have no hope of getting a job.
I work 3 jobs I couldn't do that if I didn't have people around me to call upon to pick my children up from school or look after them on a Sunday afternoon so I can work. Also most of those claiming HB do actually work.
No, the real question is why should somebody have something I can't for free.
Because they are disabled
because they have a disabled child
Because they have mental health problems
Because they have left a worn torn country where their entire family have been murdered.
Because they are gay and could be killed if they remain in their country.
Because they are speaking out against the inhumane treatment their Government dole out and could be tortured if they remain
I could go on all night but to get any kind of help or social housing your situation has to be absolutely desperate before a council will house you.
Please put down your copy of the DM or The Sun and open your eyes to some people's reality.
They don't care about the reality though.
To them they are not even real people,with real lives.
And all these reasons mean they need to live in a very expensive area?
Give me a break
Rhiannon.....go to London, say you've left an abusive relationship maybe....they'll stick you in a refuge or hostel.....a year or so down the line you might be housed by the council(if you get lucky)........but you won't have any say where. It night be a des res in a naice area or a crappy moldy flat on tbe the top floor of a tower block.
They wouldn't entertain her anyway Jake - you have to prove you have lived in the Borough for 5 years before they help you - unless she's an refugee.
Give you their houses you mean.
All of London is expensive - doesn't mean it's nice.
Hardly their fault that the mighty London is so expensive,because Camden is oh so trendy now.
Anyway, would you like to answer my question as to why my LA should take on the burden of extra families?
Thank you Frustrated - can you rub my head though it really hurts from banging against this brick wall
The problem is that so many former council properties are now in the hands of private landlords who can charge what they like even after they have let the properties become shitholes.
This whole issue is about predominantly about private rents, not the controlled rents of social housing providers.
Why does the government not legislate for rent control ffs?
clearly because your pissy little LA doesn't matter usual no one gives a shit really, so long as a) the nice people don't have to live next to, god forbid, poor people and b) no one, ever anywhere gets anything more than the nice people work so hard for. No one cares about your borough because it is out of sight of the nice genteel folk in london.
Linerunner Ken Livingstone wanted to introduce rent controls - unfortunately some idiot people voted for Boris Johnson instead so we have no hope now!
No one gives a fuck do they about Leicester or Bradford.
Not one person who is in favour of this has answered me.
Says it all really.
Just been talking to my DP, it was less than ten years ago that my MILs neighbours house was sold to the neighbour (a woman in her 80s who was given the money to buy it by her kids - as in, her kids bought it as an investment) for £24,000 no, i haven't missed off a zero - i think they sold it for 365k to shit landlord, who has since then rented the house out to folk on benefits. My MIL has had a series of really crap neigbours - not that folk on benefits are crap, just that this landlord didnt care who they rented to, so long as they got their rent every month and has let the house run to ruin. I suspect that the borough has paid more to the landlord in HB than what they made from the sale. Am i the only one who recognises that THIS is why we have the situation that we do.
I'm trying to get my head round why the Conservatives' political policy would be against rent controls.
1. Landlords are a powerful lobby
2. The Buy To Let market is a powerful lobby (pressure from banks?)
3. Politicians are often private landlords themselves?
4. All or none of the above.
That's the story all over isn't it Frustrated? One of my neighbours bought her Council flat for £8k - when she died her son sold it back to the council for £340,000 and are now renting it to a family as a council flat again - where is the sense in that? These people are supposed to be intelligent economists ffs
Oh Lord, frustrated, I remember when Right To Buy first came in and all the adult children creaming themselves as they bought their elderly parents' houses and flats for less than the price of a car.
And then sold them on to crappy landlords.
Linerunner remember all those 2nd homes we were paying for? MP's are getting around that now by renting their homes to other MP's for inflated prices which we are paying for again!
Do you know what I would like to know?
How many council homes were sold under Right To Buy?
How many of these remain in the family's ownership (the Tories' 'cascade of wealth down the generations'), and how many were sold to other owner-occupiers, and how many were sold back to LAs or HAs, and how many ended up with private landlords?
I personally do not know of a single former council property that still remains in the ownership of the extended family or their descendants.
I know plenty being privately rented, for crazy money - of course topped up by HB because the rents and profits allowed are too high.
Be interesting to know wouldn't it? Bet hardly any are still owned by the original purchasers
My mum bought her council house in about 1980 (after living in it for about 25 years) and she stil lives there. All her children have had to move away from where we grew up, as none of us could afford to buy houses in the area.
People don't seem to mind that their 'tax money' buys these houses for the LLs though.
Whe did we develop such a Landlord's Wallet Protection Culture in this country?
I wonder if anyone can guess which Politician abolished rent control? (clue: it was in 1988)
Although the 'wealth cascading down the generations' bollocks was Major.
It's all Thatchers fault. All of it <spits>
Top Marks well done!
Apparently at the time Thatcher wanted us to 'aspire' to home ownership so we became slaves to our mortgages. Council home dwellers could easily go on strike.
Have a mortgage though and it was less likely workers would go on strike. All part of a master plan.
"Oh you are better than everyone else I forgot. That's what its all about isn't it. Work and money and more work and more money. I think the poor people are probably a lot happier than you on your boring old treadmill.
You know this and you are so envy. Why should somebody have something you can't. "
I don't think one should feel smug/morally superior for not working hard, actually.
There was a time when council house tenants were pitied, now they are envied.
When did that happen?
Tbh I work hard and I do also resent lazy feckarses.
I just think this policy is wrong and that rent controls would be fairer and more effective.
I also think that too many people confuse the nice and decent working low paid people in social housing or in private hosuing with a necessary top up with the few lazy feckarses that we all resent.
That's why the DM, Sun et al printed those stories about the families placed in expensive large homes at the tax payers expense as though it was the norm and that everyone in Social Housing was living it up in luxury mansions in Central London!
And they sucked it up. It could not be further from the truth. But it was all part of the right wing agenda to have the public believe that everyone in SH was a scrounger and wasting their taxes while they were all struggling to pay their mortgages.
It's working - I don't know anyone who lives in SH luxury - everyone I know in SH are living in basic homes, sometimes overcrowded, and not desirable areas at all. In fact I wouldn't put it past these councils to have deliberately put those families in luxury houses, tell the DM where they are so they could report it, in a deliberate ploy to stigmatise those on benefits and divide and rule the workers and working poor.
So while we are bickering and arguing the rich are creaming away millions of tax payers money while we are not looking.
"......and when they came for me, there was no one left to speak for me."
Apart from the BBC, and the Guardian, and Twitter, and every whinging trot with a Facebook page...
Page after page of "wah wah, the govt should be doing this....not this."
The real question and the source of all these cuts are not because of what we should be doing or not. But what we can afford to do or not.
In an ideal world everyone should be given a house. Perfect, saves squabbling. But the reality is that we cannot do this.
The Housing benefit was rising at an unaffordable level. The reasons for this are complex, especially in London. But the main reasons are high demand, low supply and a volatile market. I don't think HB tenants are automatically scroungers, nor do I think landlords are raking it in and sat at home counting wads of cash.
It's so easy to sit there moaning about what the govt should do. But the maths don't support what we should do in an ideal world.
I am absolutely disgusted by the number of people on here in support of this policy, how can you think it's right to uproot families from their lives and stick them in another town hundreds of miles away?
And to have no consideration for LAs who will be under pressure to accommodate the extra bodies in their city.
As a landlord myself (though not in London and student accommodation), I would rather see rent caps introduced rather than move families away from the life they know just because an area has gentrified over the years.
Vile vile people on here.
Niceguy - I'm sure there are other ways for the government to make the maths 'work'. Clamp down on tax avoidance and fair taxation on the super rich for starters.
Oh yes, those bad old tories with their council house sales.
Didn't see Labour rebuild a single house in 13 years of power, though, eh?
( And yes, I agree, selling SH was an obscenity, BTW but no subsequent Govt has tried to put it right)
Solo you can be sure that the govt and their advisers have thought through all the consequences.
I very much doubt that they've thought through much farther ahead than 5 years or so and even then only the financial ones.
My first thought, honestly, was that the wages of cleaners, carers and gardeners would rise. Which would be a good thing for those left behind in those professions.
There's a large estate of ex-London council-housed people living behind me. Almost all elderly so no social problems. The irony is that the incomers are up-in-arms about a new batch of 60 residences being built on adjacent fields, proper social housing for the locals. Might ruin the character of the neighbourhood, you see.
Oh God. Not tax the rich again.
Do you not think if it was really as simple as raising taxes on the rich to balance our books, they'd have done it?
Our deficit is so large that no tax rise will come close to sorting it.
That's why not one of the main parties are saying they won't make cuts. Because anyone who has looked at the scale
of our debts will understand that we cannot keep spending money we simply haven't got.
The crash made markets realise that even sovereign governments can run out of money. Now it's time for the left wingers to smell the coffee too.
You can rent for less than £400 in London? I find it hard to believe rents are less in the north. I am in the north and dh and I paid almost £600 a month whilst saving for a house too.
There are some rubbish landlords that have houses full of black mould. I fear for the families forced to live there. I think these will be the only places available. (Worked in a post that involved advising these families on landlords responsibilities once. It was really depressing.)
Niceguy, I'm not suggesting that by taxing the super rich further or clamping down on tax avoidance will come close to paying off the deficit but that it would raise as much money as this policy would save and to my mind that is fairer.
And can no one answer AF on how it is workable for the LA authorities taking in these families?
just reading about the selling off of council houses which are now being rented by private landlords to tenants on HB.
Total and utter madness. How the fuck was this allow to happen?
While Housing Benefit isnt the largest chunk of the welfare bill (pensions are), the cost of subsidising rents for both working and non working families is ridiculous. Its housing costs that are the problem. We need rent caps. (and a time machine to stop the selling off of the national housing stock)
No one on this thread has mentioned the biggest family home of all, paid for by the tax payers - they get to keep their pack of corgis there too! Maybe they should go and live up north too!
I am grateful to have had it mansplained to be that my reasoned debate as a female poster is heard simply as 'wingeing' and 'wah wah'.
Can't type for all all that darning...
"The government think things through properly".
" If it was a case of taxing the super rich, they would".
What bloody planet are some of you on.
How long is it til the next election?
and what is going to happen to rents in the cities were they are shipped to when demand starts exceeding supply.What about healthcare and education provision?
Move the queen to moss side
it should be a twitter campaign
" niceguy2 Sat 16-Feb-13 09:40:50
Oh God. Not tax the rich again.
Do you not think if it was really as simple as raising taxes on the rich to balance our books, they'd have done it?"
Erm no, becuase they are friends with the super rich and the masters of industry, they shape policy to line their own and their friends pockets. bullingdon club fwnarr fwnarr
Masons handshake, hop on one foot with your tongue up someones arse.
Do you think George osborne 17th decendant from a baronet ( or something)
"Osborne is one of the old Anglo-Irish aristocracy, described in Ireland as the Ascendancy. He is the heir apparent to the Osborne baronetcy" [wiki]
highly educated - 4 million in his bank account - actually give a flying shit - or has the most basic of knowledge of what it's like?
am i right in thinking i read that old Georgey boy didn't know a thing about economics?
"He was given a demyship to Magdalen College, University of Oxford where he received a 2:1 bachelor's degree in Modern History. At Oxford he edited the university's Isis magazine, and was a member of the Bullingdon Club...
After graduating in 1992, Osborne did a few part-time jobs including as a data entry clerk, typing the details of recently deceased into a NHS computer database. He also briefly worked for a week at Selfridges, mainly re-folding towels.
In 1993, Osborne originally intended to pursue a career in journalism. He was shortlisted for but failed to gain a place on The Times trainee scheme, and instead did freelance work on the Peterborough diary column of The Daily Telegraph. Some time later, an Oxford friend of his, journalist George Bridges, alerted Osborne to a research vacancy at Conservative Central Office."
do the handshake Georgey boy and lick someones arse - you're in with your other rich friends
The only people affected by this policy are NON WORKING HOUSEHOLDS.
So hb will still be payed for the majority of hb claimants.
It won't affect the low paid...there are currently no proposals to cap working tax credit.
Does it say anywhere that it only affects non working households. Also if this is the case do you think it makes it ok then?
Relevant bit is:
Who wont be affected?
You wont be affected by the benefit cap if you qualify for Working Tax Credit, or if you get any of the following benefits:
Disability Living Allowance
Personal Independence Payment (from April 2013)
Industrial Injuries Benefits (and equivalent payments as part of a war disablement pension or the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme)
Employment and Support Allowance, if you get the support component
War Widows or War Widowers Pension
It's getting confused with the reduction in the LHA which does apply to working households but is not what the OP's original post is referring to
I think it will affect some working households - those that don't meet 'conditionality' could be thrown to the wolves, eg lone parent working 10 hours a week at minimum wage as a dinner lady, who lives in an over-priced private rent (that was probably a former council home) in inner London.
Then that part time dinner lady needs to accept that if you work for only 10 hours a week in a non skilled job, you can't expect those of us working 40/50/60 hour weeks to fund your house in a part of London we couldn't begin to afford.
Why should those who don't work or work for a just a few hours a week, enjoy a standard of living those of us working our butts off enjoy? Or in fact, better than many working enjoy.
I welcome and applaud this policy. As does everyone I know, all of whom work long and hard.
Hard to get even a DL job around here.
Auntmaude. DFO you fund nobody, your tax pays for roads, schools, infrastructure. So because you work you are better than somebody who doesn't. Go ahead and applaud, openly support social cleansing. You are the type who are worrying me. Do you also believe in kids being taken off parents who can't afford to keep them?
lljkk then presumably you wouldn't object to moving to somewhere where there might be more jobs?
morethan don't put words into my mouth. Am I better than someone who actively chooses NOT to work when they can and lives off others? Too fucking right.
Oh , and morethan = we paid over 100K in tax last year so my tax goes a bloody long way to fund those living on benefits in overpriced housing. And I pay it GLADLY to fund the sick, the vulnerable and the elderly and disabled. But I'm buggered if I'll pay it gladly to fund the lazy, the wasters and the workshy.
AuntMaud I was responding to the assertion that this policy couldn't affect working households.
You are choosing your own words you are presuming that people not working are actively choosing not to work, how do you know this?
Some people do choose not to work, why should this bother you or anybody else for that matter? Why are people so obsessed with what others are doing, where they live, what they own, if they work or not? In the scheme of things the 0.5% of claimants not working for over 2 years hardly makes a dent in the current climate, i'm afraid.
AuntMaud, I don't think that swearing helps, do you?
The type of person who worries me is the type who thinks they have the right to live in an expensive house in inner London and have the rent paid by some poor person's taxes who can't even afford to leave home and rent or buy a house of their own. I am one of those who are pleased this policy has been introduced.
Nobody is better than anybody else. But nobody has the right to expect to work 10 hours a week and have rent subsidised by other people working four times that number of hours or more. For less money than they are having their rent subsidised for. Can't see why people don't see this.
I don't work and I am by no means a work shy, lazy waster. Also, it is not the persons fault their home is as you term it "overpriced"
I suggest until you have lived the life of the people you so easily condemn, the ones you feel superior to, you haven't got a clue what you are talking about.
Why are people so obsessed with what others are doing, where they live, what they own
Nobody actually is, they're objecting to the notion (that you're advocating very strongly) that people should choose where they live, what they own, etc, when they actually have no means to pay for any of it.
Vivienne and Auntmaude
I do not live in the South but have heard a reasoned argument as to why people believe this is a good idea.
What I fail to understand is why people can be so blind as to the plight of social cleansing and what it might mean for these families.
In the North it may be cheaper, but many of the facilities and opportunities available in the Capital are not here. The LEA's are over stretched as are many health services. In addition, there could be families leaving their extended family who offered them vital support. The disruption these people are going to witness surely deserves some empathy rather than name calling.
Where are the extra schools, hospital beds, houses etc 'up north' going to come from?
yes, what if all we decided we didn't want to work. where would the country be then. Live where you what you want but pay for it yourself unless you are one of the people that Floosie outlines.
I don't think the housing benefit system has helped people in the long run and made them more dependent on the state and pushed rents up.
The people who will be forced to move did choose where they wanted to live and could have been there for generations. It seems silly to object to a notion that doesn't really seem to be backed up by anything solid. A bunch of rich people complaining about what the poor have.
I don't know of anybody on benefit in a position to choose what they want to own, they can't afford it.
No sorry. They must live within their means. I do not shop at Waitrose because I cannot afford to. Should I be subsidised by the government to shop there because it is the nearest supermarket and the nicest one near me. I do buy the odd thing few things there so am not looking for sympathy!
The point is people cannot expect others to subsidise huge rents. And this government has realised what a nonsense this is and has brought in rental caps to prevent this. A lot of people have to move away from their support in order to find a house they can afford or because they find a new job or are made redundant. Why on earth are these people any different from the rest of the population that they must be wrapped in cotton wool and protected from the realities that others face every day.
You'd be shipped up narth
that's where half my family are from anyway and the house prices are cheaper uup narth
Where did you have in mind more than? Is it scenic?
A bunch of rich people who move into working class areas and make them too expensive for poor people to live in. That's happened in large swathes of London. Fulham used to be dog-rough. Islington too. Ladbroke Grove, Shepherd's Bush, Mile End, Shoreditch, Balham, Battersea etc. etc. etc. The gentrifiers move into an area, push up rents and house prices, and then turn round to the working classes and sneer 'it's your own fault you can't afford to live here'. Nice.
Wonder how the gentrifiers will feel when there's no-one left to clean their houses and offices, mind their children, sweep their streets, serve in their supermarkets, because no-one can afford to live in London and you can hardly afford to commute on minimum wage? Are there enough illegal immigrants living ten to a room to take over all those jobs?
The reason people can't afford rents is because we've lost so much council housing and haven't built anything like enough affordable homes or social housing. This is not the fault of ordinary people who just want a roof over their head.
that's where half my family are from anyway and the house prices are cheaper uup narth
Where did you have in mind more than? Is it scenic?
That is true Edam. But is the working class indigenous people who are still in these areas. didn't they move out of London a while back?
I watched some of those programmes on the BBC about various streets in London and it was quite interesting.
The first proposal of the policy of right to buy was in the 1959 Labour party manifesto here Every tenant, however, will have a chance first to buy from the Council the house he lives in;
If they'd won that election the whole scheme would have kicked off far earlier than it did.
And from Paul Flynn (Lab MP): Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab): ^Does the right hon. Gentleman know that Newport council, and Leicester council on which our friend the late David Taylor served, were selling council houses in a fair, sustainable way for more than a decade before the dawn of Thatcherism? Does he acknowledge his debt to those pioneering Labour authorities? paulflynnmp.typepad.com/my_weblog/2013/02/nuclear-collapse.html
The point is people cannot expect others to subsidise huge rents
That should apply primarily to private landlords of multiple properties.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
pointing out the previous labour government(s) were a shower of shit is not a counter argument against this abhorrent tory party.
what is really getting on my nerves is - where is Ed? oh well now he's turned up in Eastleigh for a bit, but seriously the Tory party are giving the labour party a big fat gun, they are literally shitting the bullets, loading that gun and asking them to shoot you, nay....they are begging
wheres your spin machine labour - what the fuck is going on - its beyond me.
how the tory party can get away with making people believe that they are better than part time dinner ladies is beyond me.
the shower of utter shite that was labour did not strongly regulate the banks, the other shower - tories - strongly agreed for NOT regulating the banks further
the banks fucked us over
and the spin machine is watching working people and people on benefits fight it out like a couple of pit bulls whilst they are on the sides pissing themselves with their inherited titles, and their policy making powers to make themselves and their friends richer
and the country is swallowing this shit hook line and sinker
i swear, whoever is spinning this tory shite, need to be poached and paid double by labour immediatley, they are brilliant
I must say the Labour Party will have to do better than Milliband. Who looks to me like he is straight out of an episode of Jeeves & Wooster. I wish they would get somebody else. Until they do they have no hope of being elected.
No! They must NEVER get rid of Nasaled. He is the Tories best weapon!
In a nutshell, Smudging!
One thing that no-one has mentioned, afai remember (had a quick trawl back) is something that I think is very important: mixed neighbourhoods - a millionaire in Number 7, a single parent on HB in No 9, a professional family in No 11, someone who's unemployed in No 13, etc ... .
When you lump all of one sort of people together, they only have each other for role models - and the same applies whether it's a 'sink' estate or a gated community. I think they must become isolated from huge numbers of other people and forget that in the same country, breathing the same air, some people are living completely different lives and have a totally different set of values.
Or if they did remember that, they'd start to fear (and then hate) anyone who is outside their own little world. It would be like a society made up of mutually exclusive gangs and clubs, atomised and fragmented. I know it's already like that in some places.
It's such a mistake imo to take any group of people from anywhere and try to graft them onto a society that already exists somewhere else. Has this sort of thing ever worked in the past? (Genuine question).
And btw I think that it's because we all feel threatened at the moment that some people are showing such a lack of empathy with the people directly affected by this plan.
Well parts of Lancashire and Yorkshire are scenic. But I don't think that is a priority for the people being moved up here.
Where I live there is high unemployment and it is quite a deprived town. We are also the first to trial the new UC in April, should be good for a laugh.
As a sahm receiving Tax credits I feel pity towards the many who have blasted sahps, and worse those that openly hate unemployed people. They are so bitter and twisted. The world is not a nice place anymore.
There are plenty of people who have what I can't have and don't work. I wish them well, so does my dh and he works all the hours he can.
Morethan, I agree: envy is horrible - and it's worse when it's whipped up for political reasons.
But I think if you live near to people who have more and less than you, you get a more reasonable perspective on things - they become human beings rather than a group.
And those people who say things like 'Why can they have what I can't have?' about people who don't have jobs or their own homes or anything really - they should just listen to themselves!
<Sorry - preachy hat off now>
Well said, custy. Baffles me why so many people are keen to fight amongst themselves for the scraps, never stopping to ask who got away with the actual meal...
I hardly think £2000 a month rent is scraps.
Edam hit the nail on the head - why should people be forced out of areas they have built a life in over the years just because gentrification has pushed rental prices up. Absolutely no fault of their own.
Shocked that so many are envious of those in this position, I guarantee having walked a week or two in their position there might be a little more empathy. I would hope so anyway.
I don't think anyone is envious of them but sometimes certain people have been allowed to live in houses which are huge. Do you remember that story about the woman who had a massive house in Ealing at taxpayers expense.
I think people were frustrated because they couldn't understand why all her children needed their own bedroom yet other council tennants were told their DC had to share etc and lived in a 2 bedroom maisonette
It didn't seem to be a level playing field.
Also I think if someone isn't working and totally reliant on HB why should they have a lovely detached house.
Absolutely Alemci. I'm not envious and have no wish to live in Camden. But if the opportunity is there for one person to be subsidised to live near their support then the opportunity should be there to every other person in the country. But it isn't.
Think of somebody's rent being £500 a week. Which is £2,000 a month. So 20 people earning around £14,000 a year paying £100 tax to support this one person. And twenty people who cannot afford to rent or buy a house of their own. Sorry it's not on. And that's with the cap. How can people not see how crazy this is.
So what do you suppose we should "do" with all those people then Vivienne?
Here's an idea - introduce a rent cap, period - do not allow someone to charge £2000 a month rent, to anyone - that way everyone is happy because those people who are paying that much out of their earnings each month to pay someone elses mortgage and line their pockets are quite frannkly, being ripped off!
Camden is hardly Mayfair, FFS! It has always been a rough inner-London area. You see plenty of dodgy stuff going on. Rents are high because it's London. That's not the fault of ordinary people, the sort of people who lived there before our mad dysfunctional housing market sent house prices and rents mad. You do realise that the growth in house prices has zipped far ahead of growth in wages? And that this pushes rents up, given many buy-to-let landlords are using mortgages, and those who don't want to get the 'market rent'?
Shelter pointed out that if the price of food had gone up at the same rate as housing, a chicken would now cost £50. That's how mad our housing market is.
Housing benefit subsidies has fuelled this increase. Why do people not realise this. So let's take the food comparison. So a chicken is £50. I don't buy chicken because it's too expensive. But another person on benefit gets it free.
I do see that Vivienne, but this is still not the fault of people who, for whatever reason, are on benefits. Because we could the extend the "why should they get what i have to work for, for free?" argument to well, everything they have and just let them starve. You are exactly right that HB has enabled landlords to do this, they know they can rent these properties out at a premium when maybe they are not premium in standard. So poor repairs etc that someone on HB and grateful for a roof over their head (ive been there) just accept, compared to someone who is paying and would simply vote with their feet if the property was substandard.
So what is the answer? Decent social housing that excludes private landlords? Could that work?
The problem with rent control is that there are a lot of buy to let landlords who need rent above what rent control is set at in order to afford their mortgage, due to incredibly high house prices. If that happened then there is likely to be a lot of landlords going bust in pretty short order or immediately selling off their property. So there will be a glut of property suddenly on the market and a housing price crash. Rent control is one thing is it's brought in when prices are low, to stop them getting high, but very few buy to let properties are really owned outright, so it's not a case of a cut in income, it's a case of not being able to afford the mortgage after one month.
I'm sure a lot of people think that a housing crash which took out a lot of buy to let landlords would be a great thing, and I don't entirely disagree. But if prices crash in London, it's not just buy to letters which will be caught out. It's thousands and thousands of working people who have scraped and scrimped to afford their own home who will be plunged into serious negative equity and end up bankrupt and possibly homeless. That is the fear that stops governments introducing rent control, no one wants to be the government who crashed house prices and sent the middle class bankrupt in it's entirety.
I'm not quite sure if I agree with rent control. But it might be an idea. I think some form of rent control was in place in the 1970's but not sure. I think people could refer to the LA if they thought their rent was too high. But they then ran the risk of the LA saying no your rent is actually too low and then it would be put up.
I think prices in London should be allowed not exactly to crash but to find a level as are being propped up at the moment. But too many Tory voting btl landlords for that to happen. If interest rates rise then I think we will see some sort of property melt down. I think it needs to happen.
It's not just btl landlords, Tory voting or otherwise that would suffer though. It's all kinds of voting homeowners. Rent control would crash everyone's market, not just buy to let.
Also, buy to let exploded under labour, who heartily encouraged it - why assume that they're all Tory voters?
clyt - a housing market crash would actually be A Good Thing for many people. (And A Bad Thing for others.)
As for 'I wouldn't buy chicken', that's just one food item - if food prices had risen at the same extortionate rate as houses, all food would have gone up! Just as all houses have gone up, rented or sold.
Housing is unaffordable for many people, just as food would be unaffordable if chicken was £50 a pop and all other food items were just as expensive. Shelter and food are basic needs - this situation needs sorting.
the middle class will be bankrupt if we carry on like this.
Thousands and thousands of people might just have a chance of getting homes for themselves and thier family if prices go down in London
why should the gov use state money to prop up the financial decisions of one group over another
worth pointing out that thousands and thousands of voting homeowners would also benefit from this
it has been said before but I will say it again
high house prices transfer money from the young to the old and the rich to the poor
the only groups that benefit from them are
both groups would tend to be the more well off anyway
EVERYONE else benefits
and I see no reason why fiscal policy should favour those small selected groups at the expense of everyone else
Thats the thing though isn't it, if these BTL landlords have over invested, it hardly seems rational to say "oh well, they have paid too much for their properties so we must allow them to continue to charge over the odds"
The problem is that a housing price crash would definately a bad thing, it should have never got to this state in the first place - i don't blame either party, i blame greed which is rife, whatever the politics.
The thing is, no one should be profiting out of other peoples social housing needs. That is the thing, it is left to private landlords, who are businesses, not charities, to house the homeless. They make a healthy profit out of BTL - otherwise they wouldn't do it. Fair play.
So why don't the LA do this? Why don't they build/buy properties which they can then let out to low income families, at a profit? That profit can then be used to make the system more self supporting?
My parents have lived in social housing all their lives, paying rent out of their own pockets for most of it. Now my mum is a widow and living on DLA she gets HB, i bet if someone were to do the maths though, she will have paid in much much more over the years than she would have if she had bought the property from the LA. This makes perfect sense, doesn't it?
Oh no, hang on, Thatcher sold off all the council properties and created the BTL culture. The labour party allowed it continue. Now we have a big problem.
i'd like to point out the obvious
triple dip recession caused by bankers
triple dip recession makes a lot of people unemployed
once employed, not claiming benefits paying full rent on council property only a couple of months ago, - lets say wife is a part time dinner lady, her husband was manager at jessops.
People like this are not rich, but they didn't claim benefits.
now is being lumped into this daily mail homogenous herd of supposedly scrounging unwashed undeserving.
now having to claim benefits because of an economic crisis caused by the bankers, unregulated by politicians both not feeling any effect or paying for this btw - apart from an obscene bonus that wouldn't look very good
New housing benefit rules apply - as it's a new claim and change in circumstance, and the wife is clinging desperatley to her job which is now the only source of income.
there is considered to be a spare bedroom as - lets say they have two children a boy and a girl aged 8 & 9. In two years time, they will have to have seperate bedrooms according to Government criteria, however until then families like this have two options,
Lets explore move. families lke this who have been made unemployed becuase of the bankers are expected to move.
In certain areas of London they might live in a place like this along with working and non working londoners alike
not [[ https://www.edulink.networcs.net/sites/teachlearn/designtech/Gallery/Stimulus/Buildings/Semi-detached.JPG this]] they are expected to take their family, the children out of school and move to a different town, no friends, no family, no support network.
so they are being taken away from a big city where the odds are its more likley they will find work and not claim benefits.
I would wager that family will now take more tax payers money in other ways as with no friends or support, many mental health issues could ensue. and the job centre will pay expenses for job interviews, probably in london.
Remember 24 months from now, a family like this will be entitled to another bedroom anyway.
or they can stay, and top up housing benefit
but with one part time wage coming in, little sight of a job on the horizon, this family, who were getting by but got screwed by rich bankers have now got into debt.
the economic climate caused by the bankers is making ordinary people unemployed
and the Tories are winning the spin,
now they are scum
and the bankers have never and will not suffer.
and ordinary working people are being fed this disgusting bile by the murdoch press
sky TV finding business owners who are benefitting despite the recession and promoting that.
its almost orwellian the brainwashing of the press.
social housing addresses much more than the roof, it addresses the person. creates opportunities for children, activities for older people, gets funding from europe for play area, provides training, builds confidence, supports social enterprises.
to compare social housing to private landlords is an unevenly weighted comparison if done on housing costs alone and not taking into consideration the social return on the investment of public money.
and i forgot to say, that there is a distinct lack of properties for people to downsize to in many areas.
so HAs contact people and inform them that the council consider them to have a spare room and they will be expected to move or pay
and they say - right, i can't afford it i need to move
HAs then either refer them to council or look for a smaller property
most HAs don't actually have a huge amount of empty properties, that people can just move to,
so they go to council - who say ' sorry mate, but i've got 4 really homeless people, so unless you go private rented, your screwed.
private rented want a deposit
some councils help with this
so some people can get a private rented
please refer to my previous post pointing out that Labour were a shower of shite, is not a counter argument imo.
the housing situation has been squeezed for years so make those with property richer
i think you will find 'the evil bankers' did actually - legitimatley and truthfully cause the recession.
the recession ecompasses much more than housing, it covers jobs or the lack of
and most private rented wont accept people on benefits anyway
utterly pointless to bleat like mindless sheep about the 'bankers' causing this ( when actually it was the useless Gordon Brown buying votes from the gullible and happily let the bankers do what they liked as he raked in the tax on their profits). The point is that he caused a situation that needs to fixed, and can only be done by reining in the out-of-control benefits, as there is no money left, and borrowing more is not the answer.
Ok so what about the same situation in the rest of the world? Did GB cause that too??
Bloated public sector eh? Damn those nurses, doctors and teachers. What scumbags they are ruining the economy for everyone .
Yes the banks triggered the global recession. But the root cause was not banks but rampant overspending by successive western governments.
What the recession highlighted was the governments have been borrowing money for 30+ years, running a deficit year on year with no serious attempts at paying it back.
Now austerity has been forced upon us. And the sad thing is that most people still think that the govt can get us out of this by waving a legislative magic wand, taxing the rich and hey presto.....problem sorted.
What is the entitled culture the government are so concerned about?
Isn't everybody entitled to a roof over their head and food and clothing?
Unless we are to encourage homelessness, and starving families.
Yes everyone is entitled to a roof over their head but shouldn't be choosy on where the roof will be if you want the charity of the council . People seem to mix between luxury items and basic needs.
I said it and will say it again beggars can't be choosers . We should be grateful for this system . People in the same situation in other countries would be left on the streets or end up live with the extended family.
There are other ways to help industry, build houses, create jobs. Yet the financing which helps social housing providers to do this has been cut,
Rich developers have been allowed to sit on land for far too long.
build on greenbelts, sod the surrey sussex and cheshire sets, people need houses.
The national debt is high but lower than it's been for most of the last century. it has been higher in the past and it goes up after wars and worldwide recessions. i read soemwhere that it costs 6p / £ to repay debt now, and it cost 8p in 1996 - we are not on the edge of the precipice that Cameron wants you to believe we are
[[ http://www.ifs.org.uk/budgets/sr2010/opening_remarks.pdf from the IFS]]
"So our analysis continues to show that, with the notable exception of the richest 2%, the tax and benefit components of the fiscal consolidation are, overall, being implemented in a regressive way." The Institute of Fiscal Studies
"Cuts in welfare spending fall disproportionately on women's finances. Child benefit is paid almost 100% to women; while 53% of housing benefit claimants are single women. Both benefits have been cut significantly in real terms and eligibility has been tightened." www.wbg.org.uk/AboutUs.htm
niceguy - actually the whole point of the Bank of England is to allow the govt. to borrow. It's been around since 1694. So government borrowing is nothing new.
Got to love the neocons, though, bless them, they tip the world into the worst recession since the 30s and still try to convince everyone it's a. not the fault of their style of economics and b. their style of economics is the answer to their woes. Even though everyone can plainly see it's pants!
The banks played a huge part in the house price 'boom' (disaster). They funded it, they encouraged people to borrow ridiculous amounts, they made billions out of it during the boom. Only they conveniently forgot that capitalism means the gains are supposed to go primarily to shareholders, not into the back pockets of favoured employees.
"Every other country will be watching, he said, to ensure they don't repeat the same mistake as George Osborne's wildly unnecessary, misguided, doctrinaire and potentially dangerous spending cuts. They've let the Chancellor jump off the cliff first."
" Indeed, there has been a noticeable change in the rhetoric of the government of Prime Minister David Cameron over the past few weeks a shift from hope to fear. In his speech announcing the budget plan, George Osborne, the chancellor of the Exchequer, seemed to have given up on the confidence fairy that is, on claims that the plan would have positive effects on employment and growth.
Instead, it was all about the apocalypse looming if Britain failed to go down this route. Never mind that British debt as a percentage of national income is actually below its historical average; never mind that British interest rates stayed low even as the nations budget deficit soared, reflecting the belief of investors that the country can and will get its finances under control. Britain, declared Mr. Osborne, was on the brink of bankruptcy.
What happens now? Maybe Britain will get lucky, and something will come along to rescue the economy. But the best guess is that Britain in 2011 will look like Britain in 1931, or the United States in 1937, or Japan in 1997. That is, premature fiscal austerity will lead to a renewed economic slump. As always, those who refuse to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. "
You are totally right, but unfortunately too many people have fallen for government propaganda. They say the poor people on benefit are entitled, but should try looking at themselves. I have heard a right bunch of middle class entitled people on these threads.
Believe it when I see it
if you look at the data,
Cameron is spinning bullshit.
the war on the poor is unecessary,
the Womens Budget group consists of very eminent educated individuals and they think so
many US and uk economists think so
the institute for fiscal studies think so
Custardo, the war on the poor is not only unnecessary, but weird. How are the least powerful people in society to blame for anything?
If you want to know who is to blame, then just ask yourself who has the power to change things. They are the ones to blame for causing this situation and for not solving it.
And anyone who voted for them must bear some of that responsibility.
I too find it weird, watching the change in society perceptions and values has been unbelievable. It seems so unreal at times, in just a short space of time so many people have become hated by others. Or is this just Mnet
Beggars have less to lose than anyone else, Rhianna. Don't expect them to go quietly. Hope it's not a hot summer in London.
Well, I'd fight to save my home. Wouldn't you?
<cue scary music>
Nah, only joking. I'm sure they'll meekly wander off into the sunset, no trouble at all. And then we won't have to think about them any more. Except that they'll arrive somewhere else.
Maybe we could create a new state for them.
<Any resemblance to past events is purely in your own mind.>
I could have been the woman with 4 dc in the article and missed being (thankfully) by a whisker.
Five ish years ago my dh became very ill whilst I was pg with dc4. He was a higher rate taxpayer and I was a SAHM. It took nearly 2 years for him to recover, he nearly died many times. We survived financially because we were fortunate enough to have some savings, pil helped us and we claimed benefits. If dh HAD died I would be that woman.
It is scary to see that so many would be happy for me and my dc to be put miles and miles away from friends and family at such a time because I (shock horror) relied on state help for a while.
no no no a house price crash would be a good thing see my earlier post
why oh why do people think it is a good idea for the most expensive thing they will (prob) ever buy to go UP in value?
Msing - do you not have life insurance? As a higher rate tax payer surely that;s an essential , especially with only one of you working and lots of children?
Do people in work not have this ? I thought most people did so that, yunno, you can be self reliant and provide for your family yourself.
nice bit of sympathy there auntmaud no life insurance here - can't afford it, too busy !"yunno" providing for our family and just scraping by. I am sure there are many families just the same.
We could never afford life insurance neither.
From what I can remember to get the type that really covered you, not disclaimed in small print, would have cost a small fortune.
The same with private pension companies too. Although several we could have gone with years ago went bust.
we don't have life insurance either. only on our mortgage policy.
Don't mean to sound condescending here, but unless you are paying a whacking amount on top of your mortgage it might not be worth the paper its written on. This was clearly the case for us, of course I am going back many years. However, that was the general idea. I knew some companies were in trouble for miss selling, a bit like the ppi lot are now.
A proper full on house price crash would be a disaster initially for anyone with a mortgage without really significant equity (like 80% but more like 90% in reality I suspect) So, most homeowners under 50 with a mortgage really. Along with all the buy to letters. So you end up with huge swathes of the population with a massive debt to the bank and no way of discharging it, and debts are bigger than they have been at previous housing crashes, as house prices are so much higher now.
So, people start defaulting and declaring bankruptcy all over the place. This is likely to have the same effect as the sub prime crisis - banks cannot handle that level of default, and, as house prices have crashed, they're left with a bunch of devalued assets. This is the point when this starts to affect the non home owners, as the economy goes through the floor (or since our economy is already pretty bad, through the basement might be more accurate). All your first time buyers still can't buy, as the banks will not be offering any mortgages at all to anyone while they recalibrate/collapse/get bailed out. So all the cheap property gets snapped up by the really rich who have the cash readies to buy outright. The rental market goes through the roof as no one can actually buy, the market is flooded by bankrupts who now want to rent. War famine pestilence, four horsemen of the apocalypse etc etc.
A house price gentle slide - great. A house price stagnation while inflation slowly pushes wages up and banks offer lower multiples of salary at the same time...fine. A big massive crash bring properties down to 70s values? Careful what you wish for. I've outlined the doomsday scenario above, but it's not as fantastical as it might sound.
no you are not potato If one of us dies our mortgage is paid off. I'm not too worried as the policy matures in 3 years'. sorry you had problems with yours.
what I meant was, we had never taken out life insurance for loss of earnings etc
We have and had life insurance but dhs condition wasn't covered and as we didn't have a firm diagnosis until about 3 weeks before the surgery that saved his life, they wouldn't pay out.
Made us feel really pleased that we'd shelled out £££ a month for protection that didn't actually exist
Ah I see now. Yes I think there were a lot more problems with the small print on the loss of earnings, illness, etc.
We were told we had to have cover with our mortgage and got a payment of over 2k back, but we didn't have that mortgage for long. It could have been many more thousands if it had been our first mortgage.
Really sorry for you MsIngsFewmarbles, I can't imagine what you and your family have been through. I hope things are better or improving for you all now.
But Clyaetem just how many people would be affected by that crash?
How many people are mortgaged over 90% without means to pay it down a bit? If you took a mortgage with prices at an all time high and interest rates at an all time low and cant afford it then you kind of have to accept that there may be entirely forseable consequences that are not in your favour
How many more are affected by not being able to buy a home?
your language is very emotive but I disagree with the numbers involved and feel the scenario you describe would not happen.
so it still raises the question as to why fiscal policy etc etc shoould be constructed to protect these small numbers of people from a financially 'difficult' situation
what about savers? what about renters? what about people priced out?
the government can not protect us all from everything.
house prices have crashed before and the world still revolved
southWest - yes, it doesn''t matter what house prices do, unless you want to move, otherwsie as long as you can pay the mortgate the 'price' of your house os purely theoretical. The trouble s people are obssessed with the 'housing ladder' and assume they are buying an appreciable asset, just because that's what their parents did. When you factor in the real costs over the lifetime of 'owning' a property as oppose to renting, the difference in what you pay is minimal.
After reading THIS today, I am now convinced that the government has not a fucking CLUE wht they are dong or what they are going to do about the rising housing crisis. This is by far a worse scandal than folk having to pay excessive rents. The government need to get on top of this NOW - yeah, its not vote winning because there are too many daily mail readers who coudlnt give two shits about the plight of homeless families. The bill for this is mental!!!
There but for the grace of god - my DP is a builder, one of the ladies in the articles DH was a builder but his firm went bust, its happening all the time - we are struggling so how long before we become one of the statistics you are talking of on here? I have a job, but its poorly paid, high stress - should i get another one to work on top of it? I mean, i wouldn't want to be all "entitled" and actually expect to sleep would i??
They are "reacting" to the crisis but they aren't actually doing anything constructive and long term, probably because the people that need the help aren't their target demographic in terms of votes - it is sickening that families are having to live this way.
MsIngaFewmarbles - i can't help but wonder if you were "missold" that insurance then? I know that this is bandied about all over the place but id be certainly looking into whether or not you have some sort of come back. I am glad that your DH is on the mend, must have been a terrible time for you all xx
That was an unfortunate example - i think you will find most families will have normal size broods!
That's really kind. DH has been well for over 2 years now. Unless his body can regrow the organ they removed we should be fine
Checked into the misselling thing but sadly it doesn't apply to us. It was very scary at the time but it's just made us realise we are lucky to have who and what we have.
Anyway enough about us, back to the poor sods at the sharp end of all this.
I agree with Floggingmolly - I had to move away from my support network ie my friends community and family as I could NOT afford to rent in the area my parents lived and certainly when it came to buy I could not have afforded a house anywhere near my family. I agree rents and house prices are too dear in London and something needs to be done but what they are asking the Camden people to do is what I had to do and 1000s like me - move to a cheaper area. Its not social cleansing its what private buyers and renters have had to do for years.
Yes it is what people like me have had to do - it doesn't make it right when elderly parents are left on their own.
You have moved from swearing to grinning.
There is a difference between free choice and being made to move.
We moved for work as well and lived about 300 miles away from our extended family and it was the worst thing we ever did. There wasn't any work for us in our birth towns and at the time we felt like we didn't have many options. However, this is not the same and it is Social Cleansing, however you want to dress it up.
linerunner you just can't please some folk
Social cleansing is a ridiculous hysterical term for a simple realisation that the taxpayer has neither the stomach nor the means to pay any longer for hideously expensive accommodation for the non tax payer.
Anyway, you can call it what you like it's here, it's happening and lots of us think it's long overdue and are very pleased indeed to see it!
I agree that social cleansing is an over the top expression to be honest. Not sure what you would call it instead.
I suspect those that have to remain in Camden will have a few months of instability until they can find other accommodation....if they are lucky this will be social housing (unlikely) . Others will move away...it's a done deal, all gone through so people now have to make the best of it.
There is also the fact that from April everyone of working age will have to contribute something to their council tax so the Camden folk will have to find that too. I have no issue with contributing to CT and will just set up a DD as I did while working. We all use the services it pays for and it's coming at a time when councils are having to make cuts in other areas. I do worry that overall this is going to lead to a big loss of income due to non payment and recovery methods not being cost effective.
Not sure I can be very pleased at someone in dire straights having to uproot. I am overjoyed that people can no longer rent a 5k a month property all on housing benefit. THESE are the folk this was intended to target and not someone already struggling who might NEED to remain in somewhere like Camden due to caring responsibilities for example.
Sorry Morethan its exactly the same - When there is not enough money coming in to afford rent or mortgage in the place you want to live, whether you have to earn it all yourself, get your wages subsidised by HB or are on benefits inc HB you cannot afford to live there. What free choice did I have when I wanted to live in Wimbledon near my parents - none what so ever I couldn't afford to rent there I HAD to move out - no choice what so ever. Its NOT social cleansing its real life. BTW I used to travel back into London to work a 4 hour round trip and I was BLOODY BORN in London I am not whinging and complaining and using emotive names just because I cant afford to live in the City where I was born.
It would be helpful to find out who is being moved as there is no detail. are they working at all or totally dependent on the state I expect we will find out in due course.
I think you have a point Mrs D
It is social cleansing, however it's difficult to sympathise as the rents the councils are paying (£350 pw )are crazy. How can you fight for someone when it cost this sort of money to keep them? Who carries the cost?
it's not their fault and bloody awful for them. The answer is to block right to buy, rent control and cap hb. A combination of which should help to resolve things.
I think that most people agree that having four children without holding an amazing, secure job is a risk. ( by good job i mean, doctor, barrister etc) it's just not ok to think the state will keep you. It should help you but no, you don't have a right to live in a £1200 a month flat. If my dh divorced me for example i would have to move. That's life.
My personal feeling is that this will deter the next generation from having too many children. Which is a good thing. We all need to be responsible.
Totally agree Matilda. People need to take responsibility for their own lives, their own finances and their own children.
Too many women especially don't bother establishing a career or even job experience before having kids. They are then unable to get any decent work once their children are grown or if they are divorced and then they expect teh taxpayer to keep them.
So who os paying for the new school places and hospitals and infrastructures in the northern cities?
You know what I hate about this? All the posts that go "well, I can't afford to live in London, so you just have to suck it up."
Really? You want to live in a country where only the rich can live in the capital?
These things are not inevitable. We are the citizens of this country and we can change things. Instead of just muttering about people being "entitled" because they want to live somewhere.
"That's life" is not the answer to everything.
No, the country can't afford it. How difficult is that for people to grasp? We cannot continue to fund £500 a week flats for people. End of.
It is not difficult to grasp, no.
Moving people out of their homes, however, is not the answer. We need more social housing, we need to stop right to buy on the social housing that is left and we need to do something about the fact that no-one can get a mortgage in London unless they are rich.
How much do you think will be saved, Aunt Maud, by this action? When you factor in the costs of moving them, helping them to adjust to their new area, providing the housing, schools and health care that might not already exist in the new areas - and coping with the social and health problems that will inevitably arise (because they always do) when you move an enormous group of people from one place to another.
They will become displaced persons, refugees in their own country.
Too emotive for you? Then try for one minute to put yourself in their place.
What could the government have chosen to do instead? I mean rather than focus on the people who have least in society to solve the problems caused by the people who have most?
So eloquently put. The people who agree with this and other governmental cuts couldn't possibly imagine themselves in this position because they consider themselves to be superior.
Isn't this the type of attitude that has caused wars before?
They hardly have the least in society living in 2K a month houses on a tax free equivalent salary of £36 K for doing nothing all day. But don't let that little fact stop you.
How many of them are living on 2K a month, Auntmaud?
Plus - sorry if I am sounding like a broken record - they are not in control of the rents the landlords are charging.
What the govt needs to do is stop landlords charging exhorbitant rents. Whatever it takes.
Plus - as we all know - most people on benefits can't work for one reason or another. It's not a lifestyle choice, no matter what the Daily Mail says.
If we support the children in families that can't support themselves, we are investing in our own society, we are creating a healthier future generation.
I'm absolutely PMSL at the idea that most on benefits can't work! Why would that be , then?
solopower I will exchange your can't for won't.
Why can't they work?
They might be ill, unemployed, looking after children at home or carers for elderly parents. They might be business people who have gone bust or someone who has just been divorced.
Was that a genuine question?
Where's a clenched teeth icon when you need one?
I really thought you had more intelligence than to fall for government propaganda. They don't own the house do they? No didn't think so, they just live there. My word you are jelous.
9 people chasing every vacancy Maud
Well clearly if they aren't working they are unemployed Solo .
So now the working mother taxpayer is expected to fund someone's lifestyle choice not to work but to be a SAHM?
What would happen, Solo, if we ALL decided not to work for one reason or another, hmm? Go on, do tell while I find my banging head on brick wall emoticon.
I am on benefits with added DLA auntmaud and I can assure you that even with housing benefit I am on nowhere near the equivalent of £26k a year. Don't believe all the rhetoric which seeps from the mouth of IDS....who I would not piss on if he was on fire
I suspect this change will end up costing the country far more than it saves. No I don't want people claiming HB to cover the cost of living in a private let in Chelsea at £500 a week but this change will harm genuine claimants too....lots of them so let's hope a big social housing investment is going to take place.
The only time I got in £26k and more a year was while working. I am far worse off financially NOT working and accept this but do get pissed off with folk who assume I am rolling in cash.
Only 9? Pretty good odds I'd say.
*What would happen, Solo, if we ALL decided not to work for one reason or another, hmm? Go on, do tell while I find my banging head on brick wall emoticon.
I remember my first infant school teacher screaming on about this in 1969. I think he wanted to send all the boys off to the Vietnam War.
So, what would happen? You know what, I try to live by the very simple maxim . If everyone did what I am doing , what would happen?
It's one I recommend.
Some people think that 2 parents working to be able to afford luxuries whilst receiving funding for childcare, are completely selfish.
If more people were allowed to opt to sah then there would be enough jobs for those wanting to work.
There were 1000 applicants for a job my ds1 went for recently. Ok a good percentage didn't make interview but these are still a lot of people desperate to find work.
If everyone did what you did, Auntmaud , we'd all die of sarcasm overdoses.
It happens, I saw it.
Auntmaude The only reason they are paying rents of £500 is because they are renting to the council - the same flat next door will be £230 for a private rent. The flats are not worth £500 - the tax payer is being ripped off by landlords charging extortionate rents because they can.
As usual the blame and anger is being directed at the wrong end!
You are a card Mechanical
Morethan, luckily for most of us, the people whose opinion actually matters ( i.e the Govt.) think we don't live in a bonkers communist state where jobs are rationed to one per family to placate the Fair Police.
Do you genuinely believe that families where two parents work are selfish? Really? So which parent do you suggest jacks in their career to give to someone else?
And why do you think they can charge such high rents to the council, Tyga? Is it because , for years, councils have unquestioningly handed over whatever is asked because it was never their money and they simply didn't care and the LL knew this.
I think you aspire to a bit of landlordy-ness, auntmaude.
Money for old
council homes rope.
And why do you think they can charge such high rents to the council, Tyga
Abolition of area rent tribunals under Thatcher. Failure to reinstate by Major, Blair, Brown and Cameron.
The thing is Auntmaud people like you are impossible to argue with because you act like yours is the only worthy opinion.
I can TOTALLY see why people support this. I can see your side of the argument. But your attitude just gets people's backs up and makes meaningful discussion impossible.
BTDT linerunner hated it as it happens.
Littletyga says, " Auntmaude The only reason they are paying rents of £500 is because they are renting to the council - the same flat next door will be £230 for a private rent. "
So, can you now please explain why councils are paying twice as much as private renters for the same properties?
Exactly Auntmaude - so why are the tenants being blamed? That is my point.
They aren't. But they are being told that this simply cannot continue. The reason the rents are so high to the councils is because LL know they will pay without question. Now that they are not doing so, rents will fall which can only be a good thing altogether.
I'm not going to hold my breath on rents falling.
Will believe it when I see it. No-one can get a mortgage which is driving the price right up. It is getting almost impossible to find a 1-bed for £1000 in zone 2. Two years ago, there was a choice.
Me and partner, both working full time in professional jobs, struggle to survive. It shouldn't be like that.
No, it shouldn't. So both of you work full time in professional jobs for which you have probably studied hard and yet you can only afford HALF what an unemployed family have been receiving possibly for years?
Auntmaude you go worse.
So its ok to force people out of their homes, just so somebody else can move in. Sounds like social cleansing to me.
You carry on dressing it up how you like.
But your attitude in supporting this is not making you look too good.
morethan they are not being forced at all. If they can find the shortfall, they are welcome to stay.
Bit like real life for those of us who work and pay mortgage/rent. The banks or LL put the price up, we pay or leave.
Anyway, it's happening, it's widely supported, get used to it.
The unemployed family don't receive that - The LandLord does Good Grief!
Yeeeeeesss, in exactly the same way as they would if a working person was paying. What's your point?
But Auntmaud I don't blame the people who are in social housing. I've been unemployed because of ill health and it is shit.
I blame the government for allowing house prices to get so stupidly high, which they then have to make up for in HB. It makes no sense.
maybe some of the people in this situation may be able to find the extra money and it will give them more incentive to do so and they will be able to stay.
How are they supposed to find the extra money when there are no jobs out there?
In the past year, five people that I know who came to London to look for work have left because there is nothing here. People who are educated, with degrees and often extra qualifications.
These are young people with no children, who don't come from London. It is one thing for them to leave, quite another for someone who has children and whose family and friends live here.
How are you supposed to get a job if you have children and no qualifications when there are no jobs?
Haven't read the whole thread, but I'm sure one of the reasons the government are doing this is to push the working class labour voters into the poor (in other words already labour) constituencies, thus increasing the Tory vote in the more mixed areas and therefore the number of Tory MPs. It's been tried before, though not in so drastic a way.
well perhaps they were too reliant on the state in the first place. I honestly don't know but maybe they could cut back in other areas. Perhaps they may run a car for example. Trouble is it is all speculation as we don't know individuals circumstances.
what you are saying is quite worrying about your friends who are educated who cannot get work.
It definitely highlights the situation we may be facing at the end of 2013 with even more demands on our scant resources.
Yeeeeeesss, in exactly the same way as they would if a working person was paying. What's your point?
As I explained above their homes are only worth say £200 but being charged £500 and if they were in Social/Council housing their rent would be £100.
So if they were in a private rent, being charged the local rate, they wouldn't need so much Housing Benefit. They would be paying the £200 rent.
Because they are being housed by the council in a private (Usually an ex LA Flat - Oh the irony!) the LL can charge rent up to £500 - so he/she does!
So I'm saying the charge is an inflated one and the tenants are living in a bog standard flat with no fancy fixture or fittings but the tax payer is being charged luxury high end prices.
The tenant does not benefit or profit from this in any way shape or form.
rents will fall which can only be a good thing altogether.
No rents won't fall - because the rents being charged to the tax payer are not real, they are deliberately inflated and paid for by the tax payer.
These LL's currently taking HB tenants from the council will stop taking them on and just rent privately. Mainly to desperate people who need to live somewhere and because of the massive shortages will rent a basic flat in London for a lot of money.
The thing with Auntmaud is that she is just so much BETTER than these people because she works hard and has, presumably, studied hard. So just because her grasp on economics isn't so hot, it doesn't matter, she has a job, they don't. She should stay and they should go. Its really very obvious to me.
The point is actually not whether this is "social clensing" you can't blame the govt for tht when there are plenty of people like Auntmaude willing to do that for them, It is the fact that a large proportion of the working poor cannot afford adequate housing. Back when my parents were looking for housing, it was more of a choice actually - you either bought a property or you got a council place. Paid your rent and the council maintained your property over the years. On the whole, the concil was in profit and able to provide further housing for those in need.
Now its very different, now the housing market has taken away the choice from many, working class, middle class or professional people (it really matters not) and they are having to rely on renting. The LLs are rubbing their hands together because they are being looked to to fill in the shortfall. So professional people are paying over the odds, the council are paying even more over the odds to house people. The councils are most definately NOT in profit.
Seriously guys, if Cameron was the CEO or MD or whatever the head honchos are called, of a actual company he would be sacked in favour of someone who could actually put the company in profit.
What we need is LA owned properties for those who cannot, or CHOOSE not to buy their own house - the councils then charge the MARKET RATE for these properties with subsidies (maybe less of a high spec property) for those who cannot meet the rent. That way the council are A) making a profit from those who can afford to pay and B) not paying excessive rents for those who cannot afford it.
Now i'm no economist, but to me, in my blondeness, that makes perfect sense.
Id go as far as compulsary purchase orders on landlords of multiple properties - they must sell a proportion of their properties to the council to make it available to the council to make the profits the LLs would have made. The LLs will just have to find other ways to make money while they are sleeping.
Im not talking about people with one investment property or an inherited property, im talkin about people with "property portfolios" who are making millions out of other peoples fundamental needs.
So why didn't Labour do that in the 13 years they had in government. Instead of offering more and more and more subsidies into the pockets of private landlords. They created the problem.
Didn't see your last post frustratedworkingmum. But I would be in favour of some kind of sanction on multiple property owning landlords. They are just a greedy bunch of make a quick buck and never mind the consequences.
Viviennemary - the answer to your question is that they are a shower of shit too! The didn't create the problem though, that was the tories when they introduced the right to buy and pushed home ownership like it was the holy grail of well, everything. The labour party only made it worse
Having lived in Bradford it's an area of very high social deprivation, many social issues and few jobs, the schools are struggling with massive amounts of social movement and large amounts of children with eal. Adding another few thousand displaced into the melting pot would be disastrous.
In addition to this families displaced from their support networks would place a huge drain financially on an area not to mention the effect on the children.
What should have happened but it's too late now. The council houses that were sold should have had something written into them that they couldn't be let out privately for profit. Or had to be owner occupied. But that probably would have been overturned by some sort of human rights law.
also the government should do a national audit on who is living in the council housing. I believe sub-letting is going on and then maybe some of those properties could be given to genuine people on the housing lists and the original owners made to relinquish them as this is obviously illegal.
I don't think it was right to sell of the council housing either. I remember working with a bunch of colleagues who had been lucky enough to do this and boasting about what a killing they made when they sold it on - great.
I know people subletting , I reported it (three houses involved ) and nothing was done, they went to house, people in house told them they were just mates and occupier had nipped out. End of...
The point is that many people don't believe it right that unemployed people have to leave their homes to enable employed people to move in. Especially when the unemployed people will have similar rents in other areas.
Social Cleansing and you support it, just hope you can sleep at night.
BTW I am nowhere near in this position myself but I can empathise, sympathise and not welcome it. I daresay like most decent caring people.
Sorry morethan but EVERY thread I have ever been on that discusses HB make it quite clear that most HB is claimed by WORKING households - I hear that time and time again so how will only unemployed families have to leave their homes if thats true - or do you know different
Agree, Frustrated. (And not for the first time). And Little Tyga.
We need more council houses. Plus anywhere livable that is left uninhabited for over 6 months should be occupied by council tenants. So the owner would get the rent (once s/he had paid for any repairs) and the council would find them a tenant with a guaranteed rent.
What's not to like?
<Oh I know someone will find something. Truth is, some people can't wait to move in once the families have gone. What a surprise they'll get when they find (as Tyga said) that we are not talking about mansions. No. >
My apologies I didn't mean to offend I just forgot to include the working families. There was no particular reason for this.
Check out how our country spends its money including HB.
This is from 2008/009 has it gone up or down since then, I cant see posting something from 3/4 years ago has any bearing on this
Yes it's an impressive graphic, but I would love to see one for nowadays.
Btw, just heard on the radio that the govt have received billions (?) more in tax than they have paid out this month. This is partially accounted for by people sending in their tax returns before the deadline, but it shows that there is money, it's just a question of how they choose to spend it.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.