Social 'cleansing'? What are the implications?

[Solopower1]

Camden Council wants to move 750 poor families north to places like Bradford and Leicester. They say that because of the new benefit caps (which limit total welfare payments to £500 a week for families, no matter how many children they have or how much they have to pay for rent), some families are not going to be able to afford to live in London. So they're shunting them all up north.

I don't think this is a new idea, btw, but I still find it shocking.

When the govt were discussing these benefit cap plans, they must have worked out the implications for the families that would no longer be able to afford to live in their houses. And they will have realised that this would happen more in the poorer, Labour-run (?) councils. It's inspired, it's so clever. In one fell swoop they free up all the lovely expensive properties being wasted on poor families, and the Labour councils get the blame for it. It's absolute genius, don't you think?

So what sort of place will London be, when the heart is ripped out of it, and all the children go? Perhaps a tad melodramatic, but the Pied Piper springs to mind - not that I am blaming the Mayor and Corporation of Camden, particularly (don't know enough about it, tbh).

money.aol.co.uk/2013/02/14/council-to-export-poor-familes-to-north/

I'm not quite sure if I agree with rent control. But it might be an idea. I think some form of rent control was in place in the 1970's but not sure. I think people could refer to the LA if they thought their rent was too high. But they then ran the risk of the LA saying no your rent is actually too low and then it would be put up.

I think prices in London should be allowed not exactly to crash but to find a level as are being propped up at the moment. But too many Tory voting btl landlords for that to happen. If interest rates rise then I think we will see some sort of property melt down. I think it needs to happen.

It's not just btl landlords, Tory voting or otherwise that would suffer though. It's all kinds of voting homeowners. Rent control would crash everyone's market, not just buy to let.

Also, buy to let exploded under labour, who heartily encouraged it - why assume that they're all Tory voters?

clyt - a housing market crash would actually be A Good Thing for many people. (And A Bad Thing for others.)

As for 'I wouldn't buy chicken', that's just one food item - if food prices had risen at the same extortionate rate as houses, all food would have gone up! Just as all houses have gone up, rented or sold.

Housing is unaffordable for many people, just as food would be unaffordable if chicken was £50 a pop and all other food items were just as expensive. Shelter and food are basic needs - this situation needs sorting.

the middle class will be bankrupt if we carry on like this.

Thousands and thousands of people might just have a chance of getting homes for themselves and thier family if prices go down in London

why should the gov use state money to prop up the financial decisions of one group over another

worth pointing out that thousands and thousands of voting homeowners would also benefit from this

it has been said before but I will say it again

high house prices transfer money from the young to the old and the rich to the poor

the only groups that benefit from them are

people downsizing

BTL landlords

both groups would tend to be the more well off anyway

EVERYONE else benefits

and I see no reason why fiscal policy should favour those small selected groups at the expense of everyone else

Thats the thing though isn't it, if these BTL landlords have over invested, it hardly seems rational to say "oh well, they have paid too much for their properties so we must allow them to continue to charge over the odds"

The problem is that a housing price crash would definately a bad thing, it should have never got to this state in the first place - i don't blame either party, i blame greed which is rife, whatever the politics.

The thing is, no one should be profiting out of other peoples social housing needs. That is the thing, it is left to private landlords, who are businesses, not charities, to house the homeless. They make a healthy profit out of BTL - otherwise they wouldn't do it. Fair play.

So why don't the LA do this? Why don't they build/buy properties which they can then let out to low income families, at a profit? That profit can then be used to make the system more self supporting?

My parents have lived in social housing all their lives, paying rent out of their own pockets for most of it. Now my mum is a widow and living on DLA she gets HB, i bet if someone were to do the maths though, she will have paid in much much more over the years than she would have if she had bought the property from the LA. This makes perfect sense, doesn't it?

Oh no, hang on, Thatcher sold off all the council properties and created the BTL culture. The labour party allowed it continue. Now we have a big problem.

i'd like to point out the obvious

triple dip recession caused by bankers
triple dip recession makes a lot of people unemployed

once employed, not claiming benefits paying full rent on council property only a couple of months ago, - lets say wife is a part time dinner lady, her husband was manager at jessops.

People like this are not rich, but they didn't claim benefits.

now is being lumped into this daily mail homogenous herd of supposedly scrounging unwashed undeserving.

now having to claim benefits because of an economic crisis caused by the bankers, unregulated by politicians both not feeling any effect or paying for this btw - apart from an obscene bonus that wouldn't look very good

New housing benefit rules apply - as it's a new claim and change in circumstance, and the wife is clinging desperatley to her job which is now the only source of income.

there is considered to be a spare bedroom as - lets say they have two children a boy and a girl aged 8 & 9. In two years time, they will have to have seperate bedrooms according to Government criteria, however until then families like this have two options,

1. Move 2)pay

Lets explore move. families lke this who have been made unemployed becuase of the bankers are expected to move.

In certain areas of London they might live in a place like this along with working and non working londoners alike
not https://www.edulink.networcs.net/sites/teachlearn/designtech/Gallery/Stimulus/Buildings/Semi-detached.JPG this they are expected to take their family, the children out of school and move to a different town, no friends, no family, no support network.

so they are being taken away from a big city where the odds are its more likley they will find work and not claim benefits.

I would wager that family will now take more tax payers money in other ways as with no friends or support, many mental health issues could ensue. and the job centre will pay expenses for job interviews, probably in london.

Remember 24 months from now, a family like this will be entitled to another bedroom anyway.

Pay
or they can stay, and top up housing benefit
but with one part time wage coming in, little sight of a job on the horizon, this family, who were getting by but got screwed by rich bankers have now got into debt.

the economic climate caused by the bankers is making ordinary people unemployed

and the Tories are winning the spin,

now they are scum

and the bankers have never and will not suffer.

and ordinary working people are being fed this disgusting bile by the murdoch press

sky TV finding business owners who are benefitting despite the recession and promoting that.

its almost orwellian the brainwashing of the press.

social housing addresses much more than the roof, it addresses the person. creates opportunities for children, activities for older people, gets funding from europe for play area, provides training, builds confidence, supports social enterprises.

to compare social housing to private landlords is an unevenly weighted comparison if done on housing costs alone and not taking into consideration the social return on the investment of public money.

and i forgot to say, that there is a distinct lack of properties for people to downsize to in many areas.

so HAs contact people and inform them that the council consider them to have a spare room and they will be expected to move or pay

and they say - right, i can't afford it i need to move

HAs then either refer them to council or look for a smaller property

most HAs don't actually have a huge amount of empty properties, that people can just move to,

so they go to council - who say ' sorry mate, but i've got 4 really homeless people, so unless you go private rented, your screwed.

private rented want a deposit

some councils help with this

some dont

so some people can get a private rented
some cant

please refer to my previous post pointing out that Labour were a shower of shite, is not a counter argument imo.

the housing situation has been squeezed for years so make those with property richer

i think you will find 'the evil bankers' did actually - legitimatley and truthfully cause the recession.

the recession ecompasses much more than housing, it covers jobs or the lack of

and most private rented wont accept people on benefits anyway

utterly pointless to bleat like mindless sheep about the 'bankers' causing this ( when actually it was the useless Gordon Brown buying votes from the gullible and happily let the bankers do what they liked as he raked in the tax on their profits). The point is that he caused a situation that needs to fixed, and can only be done by reining in the out-of-control benefits, as there is no money left, and borrowing more is not the answer.

Ok so what about the same situation in the rest of the world? Did GB cause that too??

Bloated public sector eh? Damn those nurses, doctors and teachers. What scumbags they are ruining the economy for everyone .

Yes the banks triggered the global recession. But the root cause was not banks but rampant overspending by successive western governments.

What the recession highlighted was the governments have been borrowing money for 30+ years, running a deficit year on year with no serious attempts at paying it back.

Now austerity has been forced upon us. And the sad thing is that most people still think that the govt can get us out of this by waving a legislative magic wand, taxing the rich and hey presto.....problem sorted.

What is the entitled culture the government are so concerned about?
Isn't everybody entitled to a roof over their head and food and clothing?
Unless we are to encourage homelessness, and starving families.

Yes everyone is entitled to a roof over their head but shouldn't be choosy on where the roof will be if you want the charity of the council . People seem to mix between luxury items and basic needs.
I said it and will say it again beggars can't be choosers . We should be grateful for this system . People in the same situation in other countries would be left on the streets or end up live with the extended family.

There are other ways to help industry, build houses, create jobs. Yet the financing which helps social housing providers to do this has been cut,

Rich developers have been allowed to sit on land for far too long.

build on greenbelts, sod the surrey sussex and cheshire sets, people need houses.

The national debt is high but lower than it's been for most of the last century. it has been higher in the past ? and it goes up after wars and worldwide recessions. i read soemwhere that it costs 6p / £ to repay debt now, and it cost 8p in 1996 - we are not on the edge of the precipice that Cameron wants you to believe we are

good way of explaining the defecit

http://www.ifs.org.uk/budgets/sr2010/opening_remarks.pdf from the IFS

"So our analysis continues to show that, with the notable exception of the richest 2%, the tax and benefit components of the fiscal consolidation are, overall, being implemented in a regressive way." The Institute of Fiscal Studies