Advanced search

Social 'cleansing'? What are the implications?

(383 Posts)
Solopower1 Thu 14-Feb-13 16:34:49

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).

MariusEarlobe Tue 19-Feb-13 12:53:11

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

morethanpotatoprints Tue 19-Feb-13 13:03:49


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.

Mrsdavidcaruso Tue 19-Feb-13 13:50:34

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

Solopower1 Tue 19-Feb-13 19:06:11

Agree, Frustrated. (And not for the first time). And Little Tyga. smile

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. >

morethanpotatoprints Tue 19-Feb-13 20:16:11


My apologies I didn't mean to offend I just forgot to include the working families. There was no particular reason for this.

Rhianna1980 Thu 21-Feb-13 00:39:35

Check out how our country spends its money including HB.

Mrsdavidcaruso Thu 21-Feb-13 08:53:10

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

Solopower1 Thu 21-Feb-13 18:43:55

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, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: