Government drawing up plans to help relocate the unemployed

where are the people going to go? so many private landlords are 'no DSS'. and, since the people are assumedly relocating to find work, it means they are unemployed and will need HB.

dumb idea.

that report was insane, though! (I remember it at the time). It was suggesting that people moved to London.

I don't see anything bad about help with relocation costs, though, if people are moving to where there is work (but not to London and the SE). Moving house costs a lot, and if it's a barrier to moving for work, then that's an issue.

The main thing is that the jobs that people are going to are genuine, not created by artificial subsidies. Better to spend money on helping people relocate for real jobs than to spend money on job schemes that aren't backed by actual demand.

(Now the housing benefit cut of 10% after a year... that IS forcing people to move, and that I don't agree with).

whomoved housing where people work is a good idea - as per Cadbury's and the more philanthropic industrialists in the 19th Century. Workhouse was very different!

I don't think you'd get many employers to consider it as it's not an expense they currently bear.

Part of the problem with companies relocating to areas of high unemployment is that the nature of the British workforce has changed considerably over the past 30 (or more) years. Many communities have been affected by the change from us being a manufacturing/industrial "power" to the majority of jobs now being in the service sector.

I'm not really making a point here. I actually think it's a good idea to make it easier for people to move to where there is work for them. I thought Local Authority tenants had always had the opportunity to "swap" or move to a different area anyway though?

I was born in a miing arwa (South Yorkshire) and many of the people who worked in the maine which had just opened were form Scoland. They ine where thay had worked had been shut down and they were offered jobs in Yorkshire along with a house to live in. This made the move easy for them and if they had not moved there would have been an unemployment blackspot in Scotland.

If Govt relly wants to move masses of people form place so high unemployment then they wll have to be offered a house to live in.

I was about to suggest employers could build housing where people are going to work, and then realised I had just reinvented the workhouse

Actually I'm not sure this is workable, lots of these people will be men who have families, will everyone up sticks and move to (for example) Reading because they have more jobs than say Scunthorpe? And are the children going to be guaranteed school places?

It's rubbish.

Firstly, it means if you're waiting for a council house in London, and have a job, you will, presumably, be bumped lower than someone, with council housing, somewhere else in the country, who is jobless.

Mmm. Popular.

And yes, I know that realistically, council housing in London is pretty much off the radar for all but the very desperate but, you know, there are still some that fall into that category. Eg. You could be living in an old-style housing-association place, with short lease, and have had children, and your relationship split up, and so on.

Secondly, it's a change of dealing with an effect of our nation's approach to industry. Instead of trying to widen the geography (and implicitly, type) of employment, with subsidies in an ideal world, or public sector jobs being relocated, they're going to privatise the problem.

It's basically what they're left with since they're committed, ideologically, to making the public sector smaller, and thus unable to use that as a stimulus to job creation, or to spreading work beyond the south east.

thirdly, it's window-dressing and distraction, largely from the ideology lying behind the second point. The numbers will be weeny, teeny. though I guess it has the potential of having a "stick" element attached to it at some future date, which will have the potential of being a sneaky benefit cut.

But chil - if these people agree to accept help to move out of an area with high unemployment who in their right mind would want to move froma private rental, or their own home into that house instead

And besides, they wouldn't stand a chance of getting a council house if they were already adequately housed, they'd go to people already on the housing list at the top who are desperate for a home to live in.

But isn't that Labour all over.... "No you can't move up in the world because then you won't need us!!! Stay down, suffer in silence and let us look after you."

In their 13 years they actively reduced social mobility and they're still at it...

I do think actually it is important to attract companies to all areas of the country.

Having so much of the private sector based in the south-east creates unnecessary and undesirable distortion effects.

But the problem that Iain Duncan-Smith has identified is a real one. If you have just got a council house or are near the top of the waiting list, then moving is next to impossible because you will go to the bottom of the list in the new area.

Ed Balls is talking about "on yer bike" politics. I understand why he is saying it, but it does seem to be an Ed Balls special - partisanship entirely for its own sake. I think even the most blinkered Labour supporter would agree that in principle, if people take the initiative to move for work, then they should have access to social housing if necessary.

Prolesworth I don't think you are an idiot!

The basic idea is that instead of central government getting all the new money that comes in from new houses, local councils keep it instead.

At the same time no targets are set from on high saying area X must have 4000 new homes.

The effect is hopefully to encourage much more incremental housebuilding - say one more house in every fifth street.

The public are a lot more happy about this sort of housing development than massive new estates suddenly appearing from nowhere. Also the effects on public services and infrastructure are easier to manage.

Obviously sometimes there is a need for large-scale housing projects, despite the unpopularity. Councils keeping more of the revenue from the new houses and the businesses around them will mean better provision of services.

Prolesworth

Labour is much more mobile than employment. That's why people migrate thousands of miles.

Housing availability is a real issue but by encouraging small-scale organic housebuilding with councils able to keep more of the financial benefits arising, the coalition is making some really good progress. It's amazing how much you can achieve by just aligning the incentives correctly! Grant Shapps is a really excellent housing minister.

Labour has absolutely nothing to say on housing, given their dire record. Labour policy on housing failed utterly. Their stupid targets which required low-cost housing on every single new project made it economically unfeasible to build new developments. A rather complete example of the depressing failure of centralised over-management.

"Wouldn't the money be better spent in getting companies to relocate to the areas of high unemployment?"

That already happens in designated areas. Several government departments have also relocated. But it's a case of mountains and Mohammed... easier to move house than to move a factory.

"If it only applies to council tenants who are unemployed and willing to relocate then that does not necessarily equate to an awful lot of people"

I think you'll find that 'willing' to relocate becomes less relevant the longer someone remains unemployed in future. The more options presented, the more this will be the case. Look out for similar initiatives coming down the pipe.

Wouldn't the money be better spent in getting companies to relocate to the areas of high unemployment? Otherwise you just create ghettos and make the problems of poverty so much worse.

Optimistic but arguably practical. If there's a chance to get someone off long-term unemployment and self-sufficient I can see it would be worth HM Gov spending a few hundred quid or bumping them to the top of a housing list in another town to do it.

Relocation isn't going to be appropriate for everyone and it won't be the first thing suggested but it has to be an option on the table rather than keeping people trapped in a jobless ghetto.

Chil - you're awfully optimistic there about them opening up the opportunity to those in the private rental and own homes.....