To think it won't be long before we have workhouses again?

[MrsTawdry]

I really know very little about politics but I know that there's a proportion of people who love benefits bashing and love abusing those who receive housing benefit etc.

It occurred to me recently that one "answer" to the housing crisis might be a sort of "Housing Centre" ....basic blocks of flats sort of thing...where occupants lose a portion of their JSA in return for a roof...and from there it's a step to being given food vouchers as part of benefits and working on a voluntary basis....litter picking etc.

Could this happen? Could a government legislate and make this happen?

I get really peed off about the social housing subsidy fallacy as well.

Another one that pisses me off - the "bedroom tax" when there is a shortage of one bedroom social housing BECAUSE GOVERNMENT POLICY FOR YEARS WAS TO BUILD BIGGER, "FAMILY", HOMES.

Sorry to shout but the whole thing is a remarkable piece of twattery.

SolidGold

here you go apparently there are now more "domestic servants" working in Mayfair than there were 200 years ago.

It's a growing industry! There we go...now we all have something to tell our DC to aspire to! "Be good and maybe you can go and be a tweenie" or something.

I really hope that as a society we'd draw a line at workhouses. I am sure a lot of members of our current government would be delighted with them though.

On a positive note, Emmaus run some voluntary, charitably supported communities for people who feel excluded and like they don't really want to re-enter "normal" society, due to how it has treated them in the past. The communities undertake tasks like refurbishing second hand furniture for sale, so contribute to their own running costs.

It's very interesting how busy threads like this one never make discussion of the day if they're a bit...you know...controversial. Or is that just me? I've had threads I've started be on MN "Discussions of the Day" and they had far less comments than this one.

I wonder how they decide then? If it's not the busy threads, which ones get chosen? Would it be the most "Like-worthy" for the FB page?

Woodhill

Rigsby rented out rooms and they weren't too good neither and he was creepy to Miss Jones

I wonder where this fantasy that council housing is "subsidised", comes from? My council house was built in the 1940s probably at the cost of about £100.

That's because that's what a subsidy is. If the council could let a flat for more money on the open market than they do to a particular tenant, then it's a subsidy to that tenant. it doesn't matter how much the council paid for the flat or accommodation. That shared resource, which belongs to all of us, is disproportionately benefiting one particular person in a very direct way.

it's the same if a council sold land to tescos when sainsburys offers more money. that would be a subsidy to tescos. would you be ok with that?

Simple are you not ok with some people having subsidised housing then?

*Derek I don't mean voluntary which is VOLUNTARY but being told that you have to go and work in a certain place for a certain amount of time per day to pay for your home/rent/food vouchers.

I don't think it's that far fetched.*

Not far fetched at all. It is, in fact, a requirement for JSA. The trouble is, they have set it up so that businesses, instead of hiring someone, instead sign on to get half a dozen people dividing up a job and working it for free. The was a case reported last fall of a guy required to go work for 'experience' at the place that let him go, doing his actual former job.

Simple are you not ok with some people having subsidised housing then?

No, I didn't say that. though I think a system where 30 percent of people need it ("it" being housing benefit) is out of whack. And that system isn't helped by just giving out more housing benefit.

I am just saying we should call it what it is. There are those that insist it isn't subsidised when it obviously is.

If it is subsidised then good. I would not want to live in a society which cared nothing for those with less earning power. That would be terrible.

To live in a society where those with low earning capacity or ill health were not helped by those with more spending power...would be a nightmare.

I don't think it's people SAYING it's subsidised which others don't like...it's the way in which it's said. With a sneer.

Sneering at the poor is repugnant.

I don't think it's people SAYING it's subsidised which others don't like...it's the way in which it's said. With a sneer.

there are at least two people above who disagree that it's a subsidy.

I agree, the very poor should be protected from homelessness, as should the disabled. But our state goes much much further than that.

the very poor

Please define "Very poor"

Because I'm in social housing and I'm probably not very poor. Don't have a car of course...can't afford that. No holidays...can't afford those.

All my clothes are 2nd hand.

And yes..I work and so does DH. We have two children, we don't drink or go out either.

But we can eat and just about manage. We're working class...we both work...we live in social housing....we can't afford private.

Where should we go then since only the "very poor" should be "subsidised"?

Where should we go then since only the "very poor" should be "subsidised"?

when I say very poor, I mean not 30%.

We have cornered ourselves into situation with a housing shortage, the real problem, into a position where 30% of Londoners need help with housing. When people scream for more benefits, that just makes the problem worse.

we can't afford private.

and people want more social housing because the rental conditions are better. Why not make private rental as secure? Lots of people are forced into private housing and want secure tenancy, but social housing is limited.

When I say the state goes well beyond simply ensuring people have housing (and I don't suggest that people should live in shared housing. People should have a proper home), I mean that housing benefit is tight to local rents (and I mean really local). What that means is that we are supporting people to live in the most expensive area of the country, and by extension in the western world. I don't see why people have the right to live in central London. it's enormously expensive, and people are being subsidised by other people who themselves can't afford to live in central London.

Look at countries with rent control, such as New York and Portugal, the living conditions of tenants are terrible.

keep the rental conditions are better in that we can't get 2 months notice yes...I'd love to see private rental made secure....or at least "more secure" but on MN whenever that's suggested, all of the landlords cry "But we need the right to ask bad tenants to move" and they do don't they?

Of course people have a right to live in central london if that is where their home is. You can't refuse people the right to live in their own community! The housing crisis has destroyed communities as people are forced to move on constantly.

I think that private landlords who offer long term tenancies should be allowed a reward....such as....if the tenant agrees to a ten year tenancy for eg, then the tenant is responsible for the council tax. Short tenancies...then landlord must pay the council tax themselves.

I would personally prefer a nice private let in a better area if it were long term. But they never are...and I've rented for the past 20 years....so have experience.

SolidGoldBrass I've never heard such a pile of crap in my life. Who do you think serves you in a shop, drives your buses, looks after your children, cleans your workplace, builds your homes and roads and looks after the sick and elderly? Go back to the dawn of man and it's true that man cannot survive without some form of labour to provide food, shelter and warmth. If you don't do it yourself someone else has to do it for you. We have enough people who genuinely can't work who need support without supporting people who've decided they can't be bothered to work because they quite fancy 'painting pictures and walking the dogs'. The vast majority of people wouldn't go into work if they had a choice of a comfortable life with no labour. And the minority who would, would soon stop if the majority of their money was taken off them to support the idle. And you know what happens when you have a class of the idle supported by the labour of others from whom they take the majority of the fruits of their labour? It's called slavery and it's generally thought to be a bit unpleasant. Not working out of choice when you can is morally wrong because you place a burden on other people. And it's a burden which diverts help which could better go to people needier than you.

I read solid as meaning, instead of forcing people into working for benefits and helping big big companies increase their profits further by benefitting from cheap/ free labour, why can't they do other "voluntary" stuff like walking neighbours dogs, helping elderly neighbours. It would still be helping the community but not by increasing Tescos profits by getting a job seeker in to do that work at a reduced cost.

If companies know they can get half a dozen job seekers in at the cost of one full time member of staff the it's going to impact jobs, causing more to be on job seekers and I guess you coukd say that's heading towards slavery with those much better off benefitting from fruits of others labours.

I dunno what the answers is, but cutting benefits, making claimants work for their pittance isn't going to make the families who work long hours and still need food. Wages need to be fairer..

Nicked yes me too. I read Solid's post the same way as you. Of course there will always be people who seem to think they personally are footing the entire bill for any welfare payments.

Height of ignorance that mindset.

Long hours and still need food banks better off, dunno what happened there.

I think you've strayed into the realms of fantasy with this one. Which party do you think would be either dumb enough or rich enough to implement this?
hmm

UKIP seem like a likely candidate....

Look at countries with rent control, such as New York and Portugal, the living conditions of tenants are terrible.

New York is not a country, but i am sure you know that.

I don't know what you mean by rent control, but there are jurisdiction in US and Canada that tie rent raises to inflation for tenants already in place, but can be set to any level once a tenant moves out. This appears to be what New York calls "rent stabilization". In any case, it does happen outside New York. Yes, "rent control" (slightly different) has some huge problems.

Of course people have a right to live in central london if that is where their home is. You can't refuse people the right to live in their own community! The housing crisis has destroyed communities as people are forced to move on constantly.

There you go. That's a huge problem. That goes well beyond making sure people aren't homeless. And it is incredibly costly.

So, where can I get this right?

As I see it most of the problem is that people are just not paid enough. Hotel cleaners in New York earn double what their London counterparts do. This is because most of them are in a union and refuse to work for the minimum wage.
New York is hardly a centre of left-wing ideology but it seems to work there.

In order to restore balance society must recognise the sick role as an undesirable state and individuals must accept their moral obligation to recover as quickly as possible and return to work. The solution is to change people’s behaviour by transforming the language and culture of welfare, and by using sanctions as a ‘motivational tool’ to prise people out of their sick role

Simple yes it does go well beyond. Because we don't...yet...live in a country where the poor don't matter.