Send them to Hull: London to house it's homeless up north

[boredandrestless]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2103298/Send-Hull-London-house-homeless-north-save-money-rent.html

Just seen this on a friend's facebook feed. What do other's think of this?

Good idea.

For people who have no real conections (family) and no work why not. They would have to provide proper jobs too. They can't just dump families in Hull or anywhere else.

There are more houses and jobs up here because there are less people. It makes sense to attempt to spread people around a bit more. I would be concerned, however, about moving vunerable people away from their support network, should they have one.

In principle it's a good idea but I hope it is properly planned out and the people moved are given extra support to help them fit in with a new community and find a job, friends etc.

Who has to 'provide jobs'??

London has been doing this with Essex for years, disasterous affect on services (schools, NHS, social services etc)

Its not really news, My borough (not london) paid another town to take a load of it's social housing off its hands, part of a "regeneration" scheme to clean up a dodgey area - course it only ghettoises people more in the place they're sent to but other town gets money in the short term so = happy, this town makes some of it's social problems disappear without having to solve anything so = happy

course on the other hand, yes, those of us who rent/buy privately have to move to cheaper parts of the country if we can't afford London, BUT it's not as simple a comparison as that because of the WAY its done and the ghettos it creates

I can't imagine being given a house over 200 miles from where I currently live and having to completely up sticks. Do they support the cost of actually getting there? It must be hard to move away from everything you know like that.

On the other hand why are people having to move where they are told? Is it because it's impossible to go from being homeless to getting a private rental down south?

I private rent and rent what I can afford, it's not all covered by my housing benefit (I'm on benefits as I'm a carer to a child with a disability) so I had to think carefully about which areas I could afford and cut my cloth accordingly.

A lot of problems with this

People have networks and responsibilities which are important. Lots of people help others out on a casual basis eg looking in on elderly neighbours, helping their parents by doing their shopping, that sort of thing
Then you have the whole issue of removing children from schools and will there be spaces in the places they move to
All of the reciprocal childcare arrangements and childcare from neighbours and family will be lost - these are often the things which enable someone to work if something comes up
Job availability / good transport links are linked to rents. There is a reason that the SE is more expensive and that is because there are more jobs / opportunities here

I am fundamentally against the idea of "poor people" being bussed up north to live in areas which are cheap for a reason (ie no jobs). It doesn't make sense to me and a lot will be lost in terms of community and so on.

If people want to be relocated then that is fine.

Also who is going to pay for the moving costs? It will cost a bomb to move a family that far away. At the moment I guess people bear their own costs (?) but you can't expect people who are skint to pay £100s to move their stuff up to somewhere they don't want to go in the first place?

It's an idea with a lot going for it. It's a myth that civilisation, jobs and opportunities stop at the M25. They don't. There's a lot going on in towns all over the country and it could be the best thing that happens to these people... a chance for a new life. Speaking as someone that actually did move 200 miles from their home town in order to improve their life chances, I can't see why those with few ties and responsibilities can't relocate. Certainly anyone that's single, jobless and homeless has no excuse for staying put.

And people in London won't have to look at those bloody poor people.

Clogging the place up with their neeeds and wants.

www.thisishullandeastriding.co.uk/t-cope-homeless-Croydon-says-Hull-charity/story-14018490-detail/story.html

Hull already struggling to cope with it's own homeless.

And has a shortage of jobs already.

And temp accomodation can cost £400 pw.

This is a crap idea as it locks people into long term unemployment and will end up being expensive. It's social cleansing.

"I can't see why those with few ties and responsibilities can't relocate. Certainly anyone that's single, jobless and homeless has no excuse for staying put."

It's not the same when there is no choice involved. You moved through CHOICE to BETTER your circumstances. Some people getting slung out of their homes will be very vulnerable. The govt says it won't apply to the disabled but not everyone whose vulnerable gets disability benefits. I have a diagnosis of a major mental illness and i DON'T qualify for DLA. Luckily I don't live in an expensive area, I would crack up if treated like this and my kids would suffer.

It's totally arbitrary.

That is a good article.

The other question of course is - the SE ship all their unemployed families elsewhere - so how are the receiving areas supposed to pay for all the additional benefits & doctors & school places & admin & all the rest of it.

Who has been saying it only applies to people with few ties and responsibilities?

There has been no guarantee of that at all.

Mm yes, that is going to be great for Hull isn't it. Let's find a city with a fuck load of problems and then dump a few more on it. .

I do think though that moving OUT OF CHOICE should be made easier. Housing lists etc should be more centralised so that if you actually have the gumption to apply for jobs outside your local area you can do so knowing that you will still be able to have council/subsidised housing should you still need it. I think that is what puts a lot of people off moving, the worry that they might be able to get a job elsewhere but they won't be able to afford to house their family so they sit around in areas with no work because at least they have a roof over their heads.

Madness. Don't think they'll suddenly find a way into employment and so off the council's books:

worst job cuts

They did it in the 1950s, 1960s (?) to the town where I went to school. Fairly small town nearly doubled in size as they built a huge new estate to accomodate a lot of jobless/benefit claimants.

Of course there weren't enough/any jobs for the hundreds and hundreds of people that they put in this town. The locals were furious as suddenly there was a lot more competition for any jobs that were going and local services were stretched to the max. 60 years on the estate is as rough as anything, mainly as it was built as cheaply as possible at the time so the housing is terrible. So the only people who live there now are still jobless/benefit claimants. Its like a big rough ghetto.

I think this is a daft idea! Hull already has one of the highest rates of unemployment in Britain, and bringing in more unqualified labour is hardly going to help the situation, is it?

Why don't they ship them out to wealthier areas instead (Berkshire, Cambridge...)? Places with lower unemployment and higher disposable incomes are more likely to be able to offer (at least menial) job opportunities for these poor people who are being treated despicably, IMO :(

'well i moved 657283 miles to better myself i don't see why etc etc etc'

• you probably were moving to something; an offer of a job, a centre for your industry...people who will be relocated will go from being homeless with a support network to homeless, period. Not the same.

i say this as someone who did move thousands of miles. I was 25, no kids, and had a job offer. I would not today, with children, friends, ILs fuck off to Hull on the off chance that mayhap i could make a go of it. Lucky me, I get to choose- these folk won't

London did it to Essex after the war. My Great Aunt always referred to "them" as London OverSwill.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/80-jobless-per-vacancy-in-hull-7237435.html

80 JOBLESS PER VACANCY IN HULL

You don't think the use of 'Hull' in the article is poetic licence? The sentence says 'could be' as far away as Hull which is pretty vague and suggests the reporter was looking for somewhere synonymous with 'back end of beyond' to get a response. 'Could be' as far away as Hull. 'Could be' as close as Croydon.

This happened under the last Tory government but they shipped them all down to Hastings on the South East Coast. The town fell into utter deprivation and became known as little London by the sea. It still hasn't recovered and I don't think it ever will.

Surely housing is cheaper in Hull because people there have no money and little in the way of job prospects. To send coach loads of jobless Londoners in search of cheap housing helps no one except a few private landlords who will have a steady stream of tenants backed up by housing benefit.