Government drawing up plans to help relocate the unemployed

What we need to is to build a factory for thousands of workers - maybe a chocolate factory - and then build low costing housing for the workers. Oh yes! I forgot! We tried that and then sold the business to the Americans.

I know they're not and not everybody has a shortage skill like I do. The point I'm trying to make is that, if the proposal is to have any effect and not be a huge waste of money, it needs to encourage the people who are costing the state the most to move. If all it does is make life a bit easier for skilled single people, who would probably have moved anyway, it will leave areas of the country as even worse ghettos than they are now.

Not everyone is like you though Daphne. As the article says there are two and three generations of unemployed people and if this helps them surely it will benefit everyone?

Mingg, I moved from Merseyside to London in 1978 to find work and I've never moved back from the South East. If I were to do that with this new proposal, I could possibly have taken advantage of it BUT I coped without the money. I didn't need it because I was single, so the government would have wasted its money.

Yes. People in the bottom 10% are going to be badly hit by the spending cuts. (How can they entitle it "Don't forget the spending cuts!" As if.)

Glad I brought a smile to your face. I didn't mean to insult people from Sunderland by suggesting they're random. I just chose a place in the North East, which I know has high unemployment. I'm sure there a places with even lower LHAs.

"Sunderland (random place in the North East)"

• not sure why but that statement made me laugh

I appreciate that families cost more in benefits but surely the aim should be helping all/any unemployed people find work and off benefits whether families or not?

prolesworth, I agree that politically, you can't get by for very long on blaming the previous government. After a while it becomes about how the government handles the crap situation it's in. I'm not speaking politically, though, I'm just saying what I think of Labour, and yes, I realise it's not adding a lot to the conversation.

Mingg, But it's families who need help moving when the breadwinner becomes unemployed...and it's families who are costing so much in benefits. If the proposal isn't aimed at them, it's not going to be effective. Single people or childless couples can't claim that much in benefits anyway and can already be more flexible about where they live.

I doubt this policy is aimed at families and I also doubt there would be thousands and thousands wanting to relocate. All the new builds in my area (and there are quite a few) offer social housing.

I agree with expat. It might work for a limited number of people, depending on their circumstances. As ever, there are people who can use these schemes for their personal benefit.

One question which occurs to me is what happens if somebody miraculously finds a well paid job in another area after possibly years of unemployment...and then gets made redundant? Will they be forced back to their original area? Or will the new council be forced to pay housing benefit?

Having found out the LHA for my area, I then looked up the LHA for Sunderland (random place in the North East). The difference for a 3 bed house is £226.46, so the "state" would actually be paying more than it was originally.

Anybody who has ever studied pre-1832 parish law might be hearing a few bells ringing.

Perhaps this policy isn't aimed at families and the vast amount of empty one bedroomed new build property's in city centres are going to be acquired by councils, that's certainly what i'd do

It really goes to show you what idiots are in power just now, too, mumble.

Anyone with a clue wouldn't have even dreamed up such a dumb ass policy because it's so far beyond stoopid.

Expat, it's just not going to happen. It's a ridiculously unworkable proposal that should never have been put forward.

Well, because the policy is not for them to be relocated, but for them to jump the housing queue and get top priority to be housed socially if they relocate for the purpose of getting a job.

a) What happens to those who were there and waited years and years to reach the top of the queue, many of whom are working, but working poor?

b) Where is all this social housing? The waiting lists are already enormous in most cities where employment opportunities are better.

c) Private tenancy laws - No DSS. No children. 6-month short-assured tenancy. Where are all these new DSS tenants, many with kids, going to go?

It makes no sense.

Prolesworth, I've never read the DM in my life and I voted Labour.

I really struggle to see the point of complaining about cutting incapacity benefit to people who shouldn't be on it.

Everyone knows that there are very few jobs out there and that it will be a long time till we have full employment again.

I just feel that people should put their energy into improving things for themselves and for others (eg through voluntary work) rather than ranting on that it's not fair.

We're almost £10k worse off this tax year due to losing dh's tax allowance and the new budget rules. I'm not moaning about that, I accept that it's necessary to try to get things back on an even keel.

There are people who are able to work in areas where there is work available yet choose not to. If there are others willing to re-locate why should they not get help to do so?

Limited to no social housing. Wait lists years long in most cities where employment opportunities are better. Private landlords able to state: No DSS. No children.

And people are saying this is a good policy?

It's not just whacked, it's idiotic.

You have to be a brain donor to think this will work because last I checked, you can't get blood from a stone.

Further to last post...

Just found the monthly LHA rates for 2008:

shared room rate £325.00
1 bedroom £564.98
2 bedrooms £675.00
3 bedrooms £750.01
4 bedrooms £1100.02
5 bedrooms £1350.01

tocca - I don't know the answers to your questions. The ads say nothing about "no DSS". However, the demand is so high that I suspect in reality that the answer would be "no". In any case, the ads on Rightmove demand two months deposit (ie. > £1600). I'm afraid I have no idea what the LHA in the area is. I live in an area with one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country, so presumably jobseekers want to move here. The devil's in the detail with this new idea, but it's going to cost if it's going to work.
Think about it...it's cheaper to keep a family on benefits in an unemployment black spot with low housing costs than to pay rent/mortgage interest, removal costs, new school uniforms and all the other costs involved with moving.

There is [u]no[/u] vacant council-owned property in the area. A couple of years ago I obtained some minutes. The council was aware that it wasn't hitting targets for available housing for high priority cases. However, it was decided that it was cheaper to pay the fines and house families in bedsits in neighbouring boroughs than to provide the housing.