Government drawing up plans to help relocate the unemployed

I think they should be targeting young people who don't yet have children, rather than families. I come from a background where emigration is the norm when work dries up locally. I always thought it odd that young people in deprived areas in the UK seemed reluctant to move to areas with better employment opportunities. When I came to London, everyone I knew stayed in hostels, on the floors of people they knew, etc until they got a (low paying) job and then lived in bedsits after that for a few years....

I think the proposal is one of those things which sounds good in theory but would only work in a handful of cases in practise.

I think it's terrible that some people are stuck in estates miles (and a very long bus journey) from any jobs. Social tenants shouldn't have less freedom of movement than private tenants or homeowners.

IME moving jobs to people doesn't work because the vast majority of jobs I've seen in poorer areas are filled by peole who travel in from other areas. There either needs to be a geographical restriction on job vacancies and/or more training/education in these areas so that local people are qualified for the jobs available.

Robert Owen's 'New Lanark' was so ahead of its time we still haven't caught up with that kind of innovative combination of employment/housing/social provision.

£900 interest - and they're paying it all? I know they don't use "your" interest rate, they use a set one of their own (I should imagine the logistics of trying to work it out based on individual interest rates, and the changes in interest rates that people have would be a night,are to manage I expect). And there's an upper limit of how much of the mortgage they'll pay the interest of - think its £175k - but could be wrong there.

I know exH on his £110k mortgage (actual mortgage payments were £800 when he went onto JSA/ESA) is around £112 a week (which is actually less than the LHA for a house that size, and less then the rental market value as well).

Expat - I think the theory is that someone that owns their own home is likely to have been working (unless they've inherited the house) and won't be wanting to sit around on benefits forever, ie they'll actually actively seeking work and won't be getting the help for an indefinite period of time.

Of course part of the problem is that they can't get HB to rent either HA/Council or privately until they've sold the house, if the house won't sell then they're stuck there.

"give it a year and it'll be"

but it isn't. What's the point of objecting to a policy on the basis of something it doesn't include?

Thatcher wanted everyone to do this. It didn't work then either.

A perspective from America:

The mortgage crisis (which many point to as the root of the financial crisis) has led to significant negative equity for many here in America. Many people were sold inappropriate mortgages, and many people over-stretched themselves to buy houses they had no hope of affording long-term.

The government has spent a tremendous amount of time and money convincing banks not to foreclose on people who couldn't pay mortgages due to job loss, debt, etc. (no facility here for paying interest on mortgages for those who need temporary help.)

However, it seems that many decided to exploit that leniency, and chose to stop paying on their mortgages (when they could afford it) because of negative equity - knowing they would probably not be foreclosed upon/evicted.

Many believe that a significant part of the 'recovering' US economy is down to people who have simply walked away from their mortgages, but continue to live in their homes. In the meantime, these consumers suddenly have their monthly mortgage money to spend on clothes, holidays, beauty treatments, restaurants, etc., and so the retail economy has been significantly stimulated making things appear far better for citizens than they really are.

The government is now starting to crack down on that 'loophole' and those people will not be able to buy property again for a very, very long time and will in many instances be chased for the amounts owed (if they could afford to pay and chose not to).

Will be interesting to watch what happens because many thought they were being clever by walking away from their negative equity. It appeared initially they could simply default with no consequences.

that's incredible, mama!

The interest is £900 per month tocca

Oh, I give it a year and it'll be, 'You've been on JSA over 12 months, in addition to losing 10% of HB, if you don't relocate we'll be cutting you back/off.'

So it's just 'get on yer bike' modernised into 'get in that removal van'.

see pinkgrapefruitjuice. And then go on Youtube and look for Tebbit's infamous speech. If you are unemployed under the Tories, even if it's down to their deliberate economic policies (Thatch threw people out of work to break the power of the unions and move us to a service sector economy) it is YOUR fault because you are lazy or stupid. Nowt to do with them.

but it isn't "get on your bike," is it? It's "if you want to move for work but the costs make it prohibitive, here's some help."

I remember this from last tory gov.

Get on your bikes!

Edam, where is there a suggestion that this is their fault?

also, I doubt that these incentives would be used to promote people moving into the SE. It would still be in tandem with efforts to get more growth outside the SE.

Yes, see, that's the argument, edam.

But you can equally argue that it keeps house prices artificially high.

High house prices cost the government enormously because they are a serious cause of many societal ills, anxiety and depression.

They have long needed dramatic correction, but the problem is that means financial loss for a few.

But again, v. the cost of inflated house prices for many?

High house prices = high rents, of course, and HB is getting cut.

They only pay mortgage interest once you've been out of work for three months. Cheaper than having the house repossessed and having to provide social housing, I expect. No other reason why they'd do it.

I can't believe the government pays mortgages for people. I'm pretty liberal, but that just blows my mind. I know, I know, the argument is that they wind up homeless and that apparently costs the government more.

But the reverse argument of that is that it keeps house prices artificially inflated.

Sometimes, when you sell a commodity, you lose money. But this apparently isn't allowed to happen with houses/house prices.

And I can tell you know, the cost to the government because house prices are kept so high is astronomical.

"the DWP are currently paying my friends £900 per month mortgage"

ermmm I doubt that very much - they'll be paying the interest on it.

but Skihorse - I think that's a little short sighted don't you to assume that it's as simple as "rent it out" and move on herself.

There will always be those who blame their geographical location or simply continue to inhabit their victim mentality and hold out their hands. There will always be those who grab life by the horns. Simple fact of life.

mama No, she has not "had" to turn down jobs, she's chosen to. Nobody made her buy that house and nobody is forcing her not to rent it out to someone else and move on herself.

I think a better plan would be to buy houses from people who've lost their jobs and are now in negative equity so that they can relocate and take up jobs, the DWP are currently paying my friends £900 per month mortgage whilst she's had to turn down jobs because she can't sell the house.

I have heard rumours that there is more to life than London...

I think this is just 'blame the poor for being poor' spin. If you are out of work, it's your own fault and nothing to do with mismanagement of the economy. And if you don't 'get on your bike', the government will paint you as a drain on society.

The environmental costs, as well as the practical difficulties, make this a poor joke. The South East, where most of the jobs are, is already short of water, with creaking infrastructure - if large numbers of people move, how are they going to get around? Because the roads and railways are already at capacity. And the only places left to build large numbers of houses are green belt or AONB or otherwise protected.

Also, if you encourage population shifts, you'll need new public infrastructure such as schools and GP surgeries. So you end up with more public money pouring into the SE and being taken away from areas that are already struggling.

And what about all these claims of investing in manufacturing instead of the finance industry? Can't see much room for affordable manufacturing industry in the SE - the cost of land is prohibitive. A landowner or developer can make far more money out of building houses than factories.

I can't help feel it's a bit "preaching to the choir" - since the dawn of time anyone with any get-up-and-go had got up and gone! E.g., my father is one of 5 from a remote Scottish whiskey village, only one remains in that village (worked for the still) - the others stretch as far as Canada - the generation before them spanning as far as the Whitsundays to Alberta.

Even my father, an engineer, took us from Scotland, to Wales, to Berkshire, to London, to Scotland, to London ad nauseum.