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).

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.

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

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

Check out how our country spends its money including HB.

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.

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. >

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

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.

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

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

alemci Tue 19-Feb-13 11:21:39

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.

Viviennemary Tue 19-Feb-13 10:51:06

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.

MariusEarlobe Tue 19-Feb-13 10:43:54

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

frustratedworkingmum Tue 19-Feb-13 10:35:06

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 grin

Viviennemary Tue 19-Feb-13 10:19:19

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 Tue 19-Feb-13 10:17:12

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.

frustratedworkingmum Tue 19-Feb-13 10:10:11

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.

frustratedworkingmum Tue 19-Feb-13 10:05:40

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.

LittleTyga Mon 18-Feb-13 23:19:20

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.

LittleTyga Mon 18-Feb-13 23:11:59

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.

alemci Mon 18-Feb-13 22:40:04

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.

Dromedary Mon 18-Feb-13 22:38:19

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.

MechanicalTheatre Mon 18-Feb-13 22:31:23

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?

alemci Mon 18-Feb-13 22:26:16

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.

MechanicalTheatre Mon 18-Feb-13 21:47:47

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.

Auntmaud Mon 18-Feb-13 21:47:32

Yeeeeeesss, in exactly the same way as they would if a working person was paying. What's your point?

LittleTyga Mon 18-Feb-13 21:38:54

The unemployed family don't receive that - The LandLord does Good Grief!

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: