Tory Government’s benefit cap is unlawful and causes 'real misery for no good purpose', High Court rules

[Skutterfly]

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/benefit-cap-judicial-review-welfare-payments-government-loses-lawsuit-court-case-judge-misery-a7802286.html

Finally

Agree, Tinkly. I grew up in a rural backwater and moved to London for work. About half of my parent friends have moved out in search of houses with gardens etc.

My parents lost their house when interest rates shot up in the 1970s. They moved several times to find somewhere they could afford to live and raise a family (including to the aforementioned rural backwater).

It's an interesting concept isn't it, the one about where people should live. Is living in say Covent Garden in itself desirable if you're on benefits or a low wage? What exactly extra crack of the whip does that bring to a person?

I guess you could extend the idea to its logical conclusion though and say that given the UK is an expensive country everyone earning less than £50 k should go and live somewhere cheaper because they can't afford to stay here. Guatemala maybe, or Egypt perhaps.

Oh, FFS! and move every time their rent goes up

No you've misunderstood. This isn't about moving house within the same area, it's about moving away from areas where all housing costs several times the national average, to normal areas.

I am assuming that most of the country is cheap enough that the cap isn't an issue, so it's the fraction of people who live in expensive areas that would be affected, and the members of that fraction would only have to move once.

Covent Garden is desirable because money is spent on things like infrastructure, so youll have better transport options, nicer public areas like parks, more funded arts festivals and events, probably more spent on things like policing and street lighting, and more opportunities to access subsidised theatre and other events - London gets far more spent on these kinds of things per head than other areas of the country.

IMO in-work beneftis are fucking criminal.

We as a nation are in essence paying e.g. Tesco shareholders cash directly because the wages aren't enough to live on, plus the redistribution of wealth into private land lords in the form of housing benefit.

Wouldn't it be better if at last the local authority was providing that accommodation so there wasn't a net loss from public to private?

In the late eighties my entire circle of friends from uni moved to London and the south east for jobs.
Well, weren't you the lucky ones, able to be financially, emotionally independent. What about the factory workers, those with little opportunity and little education, lived there all their lives, rely on gran for childcare and Mum for the odd loaf of bread...

Oh yay. Presumably now they have decided they can't cap people at an average wage, they will be making up the extra payments with court magic.

Or taxes from the few of us who do any work...

One of the two.

London attracts more sponsorship from business to provide the arts. Lots of things are not provided by public money. I expect the Grenfell Tower residents were grateful for subsidised opera!

I was born in the city I live in. I've lived here all my life. The fuck I would suddenly uproot everything and move halfway across the country to somewhere rents are cheaper.

This is my home town - not London but expensive - and I won't be displaced because we are poor and rents are too high.

So what will you do?

Bringing the Grenfell tragedy into this to try and make a point is...wow, not ok.

Yes, Bangkok, I think so.

If my mortgage rate goes up and I can't afford my house any more, I have to move. Why is that different for someone whose rent is being paid (in whole or part) through taxpayers?

Bringing Grenfell into the discussion does at least raise the point that there are plenty of people for whom London isn't a "thing you do" for a while involving a nice little chi chi lifestyle and gastropubs before the kids come along and you fuck off out to the suburbs. It's also a home. And it's a place where many people are not exactly living the Guardian Weekend magazine on a daily basis but are actually really struggling just as they would in Bury or Fleetwood or anywhere.

So..the judge said it was inhumane but yiu all think you know better? Nice

Didn't feel particularly lucky Dawndonna paying a fortune to live in a tiny flat 200 miles from my family. But needs must.

Or perhaps I should have gone back to the arse end of nowhere and signed on for the rest of my life, so that I wasn't pushing London rents up for the locals?

So..the judge said it was inhumane but yiu all think you know better? Nice

And if another judge says it is humane, you'll presumably change your mind?

Austerity hurts the economy.

Bangkok agree entirely. Just think how many affordable homes could be built with the £10 billion a year we currently hand over to private landlords. And we'd go a significant way to helping the NHS out of its crisis with the £26 billion we're paying out in tax credits. It's a national scandal that deserves attention. Yet instead people are up in arms about "someone getting money that I don't".

Gloria The newspaper report seems slightly odd, though, as the judge refers to the work requirement as discriminatory againsy single parents (who are overwhelmingly female) but it's the cap itself that gets the headline mention. I know they are part of the same wider changes, but it would be possible to keep the cap but remove / amend the 16 hour work rule

Dear god what is the world coming to when you can't live on £20,000 a year to sit on your ass and do bugger all.

😂 Oh dear.

Well, weren't you the lucky ones, able to be financially, emotionally independent.

So the grit and determination required to leave family behind in order to find a better life is actually luck.

Blimey.

Providing public housing doesn't solve all the problems though. Tenants end up buying them for a greatly subsidised reduction. This is why we have a housing shortage as well as not building enough of course.

Lots of people didn't bother much about education. They were content to stay local and go to the big employer. In recent years there has been much more emphasis on everyone getting a good education. Moving to London is now eye watering my expensive and in fact you would be better off staying in a cheaper city and having a half decent job. At least housing is affordable to some extent and a couple who are both nurses can afford a home in Wigan! Nothing is affordable in London. Unless they build on the green belt it is difficult to see where enough land is coming from to build 'council' Hines for rent.

Ffs gemboats are you just trying to be awkward? I am well aware dla/pip can be claimed in or out of work . My point was as they CAN be claimed IN work it is esa that is evidence of of a persons inability to work and free themselves from the benefit cap.

Only 6% of the UK is built on. There is plenty of space for more houses.

Public housing is a great good that is in the long term self funding from the rent receipts in perpetuity. It also means that people pump more of their wages back into the economy as they aren't all going on rent or mortgage costs.

Didn't feel particularly lucky Dawndonna paying a fortune to live in a tiny flat 200 miles from my family. But needs must.
You rather missed the point, there.

So the grit and determination required to leave family behind in order to find a better life is actually luck.
You too.
Oh, and yes, there is some luck involved, luck that you had the good fortune to be born to parents who would ensure that you were able to access fully the education on offer. Luck that you had parents who would be there to nag you about your exams, to ensure that you were properly fed therefore able to concentrate. Etc, etc, etc. as the fabled King of Siam once said...