No job? Here's an eviction notice from your council house!

[Dillydaydreaming]

You just couldn't make it up could you? Here.

Just the way to get people INTO work - "sorry mate, I know there are fuck all jobs out there but you've been unemployed a year now so get out".

Because of course being homeless while out of work will make life much easier won't it . And being homeless gives an even better basis for finding work than a council house does - right?

Fucking stupid scumbag Tory Council full of thickos unable to think an idea through. Do you know what, I didn't vote for this Govt but neither did I vote Labour, I felt the time was right for change but my God I hate this shower with a passion - not an ounce of bloody compassion amongst any of them - thick rich tossers in the pay of the banks and businesses mostly.

Even more hilarious is that iWandsworth comes along with that idea just as this is announced.

Nice one Wandsworth!

I wonder what the European Court of Human Rights will make of that! Right to a home and family life and all of that. I hope someone seeks legal advice.

I thought I was still asleep and fucking dreaming when I saw this today!

Is it actually legal? Seriously?
Way to go....so these people end up in homeless/temp accomodation instead at ££££££s per week,because the council would have a hell of a job proving that these people have made themselves 'intentionally homeless'.

Roll on the next election.

It's a crap idea - I understand that there needs to be ways of helping people into work, I see families where there are three generations who have never worked and overcoming that sort of mountain is hard.

Making people homeless will not achieve anything apart from making them even more unemployable though.

By the way - as you can see from my OP - am a bit irritable and hormonal today.

This isn't about punishing people who are made redundant or cannot find a job.

"It is about having a way to penalise those who can't be bothered to make the effort."

This bit of the article I I agree with..........

Aren't they saying that it applies to people who do not make an effort to find work? Not to people who genuinely cannot find work.

Cross posted with Rosa...

And who makes that decision, how do they know?
Why will making someone homeless change anything?
It's a stupid idea dreamt up by those who have nothing better to do with their time.

So if they are homeless (and we are talking young men here) won't that impact on the crime rate - or am I just being thick?

Presumably women with children will be exempt. Or will they evict whole families? Great idea - Dad refuses to work MW job so children evicted from home. Nice eh?

Your average disadvantaged young male with nothing to lose will survive somehow - by any means that takes.

I work with homeless people already and it's a struggle with the limited resources we have. Much of our input is voluntary, soup kitchens, support with literacy and the like. Too many people are already sleeping rough.

Thing is I used to be be MOR with regard to politics. I just don't trust politicians anymore because their policies seem hellbent on squeezing those least able to cope. Look at DLA, IB, HB - all benefits designed to help the poorest in society survive OR to support the extra costs of disability.
It seems more and more that instead of supporting people we are being asked to judge them and it isn't nice.

These people should be housed in areas where there are no jobs. This isn't people just out of work for a few weeks we're talking about, it's the long-term unemployed. I do believe that people have the right to a home, but I do not believe people have the right to choose where they live. These homes are in prime locations for the working people of London, many of whom are priced out of the area and forced to commute in from distance. It makes far more sense for them to live close to where the work is, and those that have proven themselves unwilling to work to live elsewhere.

JLK2 - how are you going to test that? Have you ever been unemployed? People can be trying to get jobs for months and months (and in the current climate, that's what will happen) and it does not mean they are workshy, or deserve to be thrown out of their homes. It means the jobs aren't there - or a matter of maths if you like, too many people chasing too few jobs.

I am in my early 50s, and have seen two Tory Governments: they like high unemployment because it makes people frightened and thus more controllable, they are too afraid to ask for basic human rights like a home, or employment rights.

What I find increasingly disturbing about threads like this is the way people judge and decide that people have deserved their misfortune. There was an interesting story in the Guardian about it on Saturday:
www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/nov/11/oliver-burkeman-just-world-bias

The truth that bad things happen at random is too frightening for a lot of people. It says something unpalatable about human nature as far as I am concerned. And if you have any intelligence, have a bit of compassion, in the hope that it may be extended to you when your random bit of bad fortune comes along

Don't agree with this policy.

I think it is a continuation of a policy that Labour were thinking of.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-512354/Anger-Labour-tells-unemployed-tenants-job-lose-council-house.html

What a charming idea. A family has been rocked already by unemployment, due to whatever reason, and are struggling, so let's toss them out into the street, instead of making the effort to assist them to improve their situation. Moving them to where the jobs are will NOT help. Many are living in a particular area because their support system (family/friends) are there, and they may rely on that support system to help with childcare, transportation, and such. Relocating someone to an area where there is a job is not much help if they still cannot work due to no reliable or affordable childcare or the like.

Sadly the fact that Labour thought of it first does not surprise me! I've long thought all political parties were one and the same.

Yes, I think these type of policies are planned across different governments, and each government works towards implementing them.

Harriet Harman was working on increasing pensionable age, and the Coalition implemented it. John Major's govt had teh idea of tuition fees and Labour implemented it.

at the Labour policy - far more draconian than what appears to be proposed here!

This - which hasn't yet been passed - applies only to new tenancies. The detail of how it would be implemented hasn't been made clear, but as the stated criteria is in work or actively seeking work then those bits are easy to apply (in work or claiming JSA).

What is less clear is what this may mean for those on other benefits, or what it might mean for managing th housing waiting list and prioritisation process. Perhaps there will be more Labour ideas for them to nick?

I agree with Rosa too.
I also believe working people should get priority if they cannot afford to buy or rent privately.

I presume that millionaires who fail to pay their tax bills will also be subject to some sort of 'creative' punishment in the spirit of this?

In our area, the local authority has decided to prioritise people who work or 'contribute' on a voluntary basis for council housing. Sadly, they do not consider that carers of ill and disabled relatives are 'contributing', despite saving the country a huge care bill and being rewarded with very little in the way to live on. Another badly thought out mess

I read it as "people who don't make an effort" to find work. That is not the same thing as throwing the unemployed on to the street. If council housing is at a premium then maybe people who are at least trying to get on should benefit.

What about the thousands of Druggies and Alcoholics? They can never be employed (unless they sort themselves out), but of course they are classed as dissabled.
If you are just a lazy bum with no dependants then why should you get a council house?

Ripeberry ---do they?

It's very simple Ripeberry - they will go on the street and will be committing crime - moreso than now. Doesn't matter anyway - obviously not workable as a policy - just some thicko councillor stirring people up from what I can see.

Anyone who thinks this Government, or any Government, is geniunely interested in tackling the real problems and penalising those in the wrong is living in cloud cuckoo land. They always go after the easy targets. They can't fight back and they get to spin crowd pleasing headlines. Job done.

Bastards.

Fucking bullocks isn't it, this from the same bunch of scumbags that kicked the families of rioters out (did they actually manage that one or did the court say no?).

our illustrious leaders don't want to help anyone but themselves to our tax money and the poor can go die in a ditch (save on getting a council worker to dig the grave).

Given that the majority of the Tory government live in many roomed mansions houses and are extremely wealthy....

What will it take for people to finally snap, waken up and revolt?

How do you define, 'Don't make an effort' when the person is on JSA and has to demonstrate proof of job applications?

'I also believe working people should get priority if they cannot afford to buy or rent privately.'

They can qualify for housing benefit, and the majority of people who live in HA/council housing are employed.

The number of people who 'can't be bothered' is a drop in teh ocean compared with tax avoiders, corporations especially.

'These people should be housed in areas where there are no jobs.'

Because there's just loads of housing free in those areas, too.

You're right, OP, you couldn't make this shit up.