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?

It's a terrible state of affairs. :( The uber rich have everything whilst everyone else is toeing a fine line between constant work and bankruptcy.

Well I suppose a mortgage holder can sell their home if they can't make the payments Simple and then they have capital. Those who 't own a home do not have that fallback do they?

Sure, that's what mortgage holders have to do. If they can't afford their place, they have to move.

That's exactly my point. HB tenants are protected from something that others aren't.

" HB tenants are protected from something that others aren't."
not sure what you mean here? Whether or not you claim HB does not affect what kind of tenant you are. And anyone who doesn't pay their rent gets evicted..

I know someone who bought a flat (outer London) in the late 1980s, when they worked for a couple of months for their brother who was a roofing contractor. So the brother fiddled the paperwork to make it look like he was paid more than he was, and had worked for him for longer, and that it was a permanent job (it wasn't). So this person got an Endowment mortgage on a London flat he could never normally have got - in the 80s when the prices were just about within reach. Literally a month or two later he 'went on the sick' and later got Incapacity Benefit. The taxpayer paid his mortgage for decades. He never worked again. Was an actor so got the odd job but maybe one or two a year and they dried up by the mid 1990s.

I'd imagine (haven't spoken to him for years) that flat is now paid for. He literally didn't pay a penny for it for years - and at one point claimed Housing Ben for it, at the same time as renting it out whilst he moved back in to his mother's.

I think there is a case to take back into public ownership - and turn into council flats and houses - any home like this which has been uttely bought by the taxpayer.

In the early years, Housing Ben paid full mortgages. Later, only the interest part of endowment mortgages which were mainly interest anyway.

BTW, I did dob him in to the Benefits Fraud snitch line but nothing came of it. He'd had tenants in there for maybe a decade of the time the Housing Ben was paying the mortgage. I guess they were either overworked in that region, or couldn't find proof. So now he is sitting in a free London flat, bought by you and me. How many thousands of people did the same?

Joffrey that flat would only be paid for now if this guy had an endowment policy, otherwise it was interest only. Anyhow that could not happen now, his mortgage would not be paid these days.

Lots of people were actively encouraged by mortgage brokers to "up" their earnings or go self cert to get a mortgage not so many years ago - 100% mortgages were not in the least uncommon and they can work fine if the payments are affordable, now it is tough to get a mortgage and house prices are ridiculous. My 1st place was 40K - 2 years salary, as I said upthread it would market now for 185k and salaries have not risen so that would be 9.5 x salary. Future generations I predict will only buy homes if they inherit or make a huge salary

Yes, he had an endowment, for sure.

My brother bought his house in 1980 for £10,000. I missed the housing boat, sadly. Is why it pissed me off so much that this person now lives in a large flat that could house a family, paid for by the state.

I think the state should retrospectively claw back their equity in places and above a certain level, they become council properties. I know someone else who had at least a decade of their mortgage in the 1990s paid for by Housing Ben, then got a well paid job and never had to pay that back.

Selling of council houses I think was the start of a slippery slope, I know at least 3 people who bought their parents houses at the age of 18/19 for tuppence ha'penny and are now sitting on a bloody fortune.

not sure what you mean here? Whether or not you claim HB does not affect what kind of tenant you are. And anyone who doesn't pay their rent gets evicted.

What i mean by that is HB tenants have a buffer between market rent and their rent. Yes, they have to pay rent, but if their wage goes down, they get more HB. Mortgage holders don't have that luxury.

But, as I said, I understand that renters on low income need help, and I am happy that we give it. What I don't think taxpayers need to do is house them in literally some of the most expensive neighbourhoods in the world. That seems extravagant to me, and not what a safety net is supposed to do.

oh I see what you mean yes.

But keepit if they're in central London in a council house or flat and get HB as a top up due to low wages.... if you move them on and flog off their homes to wealthier people who can pay market prices... who is going to do those menial, minimum wage jobs in the heart of those most expensive places in the world? Maybe the yuppies' houses will decrease in value if there is raw sewage running down the street.

There are thousands of properties sitting empty in some cases for decades and there is a campaign to allow the reclamation of these...

here's the site I've come across it before but it seemed to me that the advice is just that...advice and that putting any of it into practice would be extremely hard.

I think she was talking about private renters joffrey

Those renters on low incomes are the people who serve in shops and bars and museums and tourist attractions and clean the hospitals and work in schools and while I agree you cant subsidise people to live in Kensington and Chelsea you do need these workers to live in the Capital. This is the minimum wage (maximum wage in many cases) large organisations paying 6.5 per hour - the worker gets topped up by the tax payer and its all shit really. They only really get topped up if they have kids, people with no kids working 40 hours per week on NMW get no help - 750 per month approx. take home to pay everything, and not adding to the economy as they pay little tax and cant afford to spend any meaningful money - financial limbo

who is going to do those menial, minimum wage jobs in the heart of those most expensive places in the world?

London is a huge place.

If the state continues to refuse assistance to those most in need, stops funding councils and makes parishes responsible for poor relief, then, yes. Large enough buildings will again be used to house the poor communally. I don't think it would be soon, exactly. But, I'm sure that if Cameron rules for as long as Thatcher did, he'll manage it.

Which party would be foolish enough. Well, I think that question has been answered already.

Agree with so many people on this thread.

If the work needs doing, then make it a proper job and pay a proper wage for it.

Unless we have full employment, some people will always be unemployed. There but for the grace of God go I.

Unless we have better employment regulation some people will always be particularly badly treated by employers and underpaid. There but for the grace of God go I.

Some people are less talented than others. Inevitably, under anything resembling capitalism, some people will earn more than other but no one, in a rich country, should be left without a reasonable standard of living. As much of the gap as possible needs to be plugged by employers paying a living wage so the taxpayer doesn't subsidise shitty pay.

There is a pernicious brainwashing going on from the govt one one hand and the elite in the other- not necessarily a conscious conspiracy but so mutually beneficial they continue it more and more eagerly - which tells us that the rich get rich by hard work and talent, and those less rich should just work harder and be better. A terrifying number of people in the middle internalise this because they can use the same logic to sneer at those less fortunate as them and feel better about their lot. This is great for big business as it makes people feel pathetically grateful for the shitty badly paid job they have managed to get, and attention is deflected away from shitty wages and shitty conditions and onto the people who people think haven't been diligent or clever enough to get a better job. The whole process is whipped up by the govt as a way of gaining support for scrapping the welfare state while implementing socialism for business. It's terrifying. And I now see why Aldous Huxley believed that the next great oppression would come about not by force and fear but by making people believe there was a need for what was happening.

I was brought up- in shameful ignorance- as a Tory. I am utterly utterly horrified not just by what this govt is doing but by the principles I was brought up to believe in. This is their natural conclusion and it's evil.

Woozlebear you nailed it for me, thanks for that post.

a little off the point, anyone listening to LBC right now? former jobcentre advisor - "I got Brownie points for cruelty"

I am certainly not saying that essential jobs (cleaning, nursing, refuse collection, retail sales) etc shouldn't be done, and it isn't true that no one wants to do them. A job for which you are paid at least a living wage and treated fairly (no coerced, unpaid overtime, no skimping on health and safety, no management bullying, etc) is a good thing to have, whether it's cleaning toilets or digging ditches. I do, however, support people who would rather stay on benefits than take a shit job (zero-hours contract, an employer pulling every trick in the book to underpay employees, filthy or hazardous work for which no proper training/safety equipment is provided, etc).
There are, also, layers and layers of pointless, poorly paid jobs that don't need to be done in the first place, such as scammy ad selling, inspectors of inspectors, etc. The idea that Being Employed is a virtue in itself is a stupid one.
Of course, another problem specific to the current climate is how much harder it is to get anywhere by hard work on its own, if you are starting from a place of poverty. All the old advice about setting up as a cleaner/dogwalker/babysitter is obsolete, as all that stuff has now been taken over by agencies who have discovered another category of exploitable workers (often illegal migrants or schoolkids or anyone else they can pay less than the minimum wage to) and therefore undercut anyone who is trying to do the work as an independent. The involvement of agencies in service-level jobs is generally problematic - the person who does the work gets less money than the company/individual for whom the work is being done (eg cleaning/delivery/catering) because the agency is in the middle taking its cut and the agencies often treat the actual workers as disposable subhumans and offer no opportunities for training or advancement.

I actually do think we will see workhouses again. I also think there are many who will justify it (evne if not publicly), as the nation have been encouraged to think of all benefits claimants as the lowest of the low. & it will satisfy those who think the poor and lower paid are un-deserving of living an improved life anyway

& spot on HowCanIMissYouIfYouWontGoAway

At the moment it's called a B&B. If you cross one of those with a hostel, a refuge or a shelter, hey presto, you've got a workhouse. To be honest, I'd be surprised if there isn't one in the country somewhere. I've a sneaking suspicion that the workhouse, formally thought closed in 1930! is actually open for business.

Simple yes London is a huge place. I suppose you'd prefer people with "menial" jobs who work in the capital to catch 9 buses into work?

Except the buses are striking - over pay, some want more than £7.50 per hour the cheek!

Grumpy perhaps the unemployed could carry litters with the bankers on them? There could also be some young offenders drafted in to piggyback all the cleaners into town?

Why not? Oh God it is such a messy state of affairs and who would know where to begin to clear it up? The election is coming and who the hell can make it better?

Try reading "Getting By", it might allow you to develop a more compassionate understanding of poverty