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/

It is not difficult to grasp, no.

Moving people out of their homes, however, is not the answer. We need more social housing, we need to stop right to buy on the social housing that is left and we need to do something about the fact that no-one can get a mortgage in London unless they are rich.

How much do you think will be saved, Aunt Maud, by this action? When you factor in the costs of moving them, helping them to adjust to their new area, providing the housing, schools and health care that might not already exist in the new areas - and coping with the social and health problems that will inevitably arise (because they always do) when you move an enormous group of people from one place to another.

They will become displaced persons, refugees in their own country.

Too emotive for you? Then try for one minute to put yourself in their place.

What could the government have chosen to do instead? I mean rather than focus on the people who have least in society to solve the problems caused by the people who have most?

Solopower.

So eloquently put. The people who agree with this and other governmental cuts couldn't possibly imagine themselves in this position because they consider themselves to be superior.
Isn't this the type of attitude that has caused wars before?

They hardly have the least in society living in 2K a month houses on a tax free equivalent salary of £36 K for doing nothing all day. But don't let that little fact stop you.

What Custy said.

How many of them are living on 2K a month, Auntmaud?

Plus - sorry if I am sounding like a broken record - they are not in control of the rents the landlords are charging.

What the govt needs to do is stop landlords charging exhorbitant rents. Whatever it takes.

Plus - as we all know - most people on benefits can't work for one reason or another. It's not a lifestyle choice, no matter what the Daily Mail says.

If we support the children in families that can't support themselves, we are investing in our own society, we are creating a healthier future generation.

I'm absolutely PMSL at the idea that most on benefits can't work! Why would that be , then?

solopower I will exchange your can't for won't.

Why can't they work?

They might be ill, unemployed, looking after children at home or carers for elderly parents. They might be business people who have gone bust or someone who has just been divorced.

Was that a genuine question?

Where's a clenched teeth icon when you need one?

Auntmaude.

I really thought you had more intelligence than to fall for government propaganda. They don't own the house do they? No didn't think so, they just live there. My word you are jelous.

9 people chasing every vacancy Maud

Well clearly if they aren't working they are unemployed Solo .

So now the working mother taxpayer is expected to fund someone's lifestyle choice not to work but to be a SAHM?

What would happen, Solo, if we ALL decided not to work for one reason or another, hmm? Go on, do tell while I find my banging head on brick wall emoticon.

I am on benefits with added DLA auntmaud and I can assure you that even with housing benefit I am on nowhere near the equivalent of £26k a year. Don't believe all the rhetoric which seeps from the mouth of IDS....who I would not piss on if he was on fire

I suspect this change will end up costing the country far more than it saves. No I don't want people claiming HB to cover the cost of living in a private let in Chelsea at £500 a week but this change will harm genuine claimants too....lots of them so let's hope a big social housing investment is going to take place.

The only time I got in £26k and more a year was while working. I am far worse off financially NOT working and accept this but do get pissed off with folk who assume I am rolling in cash.

Only 9? Pretty good odds I'd say.

*What would happen, Solo, if we ALL decided not to work for one reason or another, hmm? Go on, do tell while I find my banging head on brick wall emoticon.

I remember my first infant school teacher screaming on about this in 1969. I think he wanted to send all the boys off to the Vietnam War.

So, what would happen? You know what, I try to live by the very simple maxim . If everyone did what I am doing , what would happen?

It's one I recommend.

Auntmaude.

Some people think that 2 parents working to be able to afford luxuries whilst receiving funding for childcare, are completely selfish.
If more people were allowed to opt to sah then there would be enough jobs for those wanting to work.

There were 1000 applicants for a job my ds1 went for recently. Ok a good percentage didn't make interview but these are still a lot of people desperate to find work.

If everyone did what you did, Auntmaud , we'd all die of sarcasm overdoses.

It happens, I saw it.

Auntmaude The only reason they are paying rents of £500 is because they are renting to the council - the same flat next door will be £230 for a private rent. The flats are not worth £500 - the tax payer is being ripped off by landlords charging extortionate rents because they can.

As usual the blame and anger is being directed at the wrong end!

You are a card Mechanical

Morethan, luckily for most of us, the people whose opinion actually matters ( i.e the Govt.) think we don't live in a bonkers communist state where jobs are rationed to one per family to placate the Fair Police.

Do you genuinely believe that families where two parents work are selfish? Really? So which parent do you suggest jacks in their career to give to someone else?

And why do you think they can charge such high rents to the council, Tyga? Is it because , for years, councils have unquestioningly handed over whatever is asked because it was never their money and they simply didn't care and the LL knew this.

I think you aspire to a bit of landlordy-ness, auntmaude.

Money for old council homes rope.

And why do you think they can charge such high rents to the council, Tyga

Abolition of area rent tribunals under Thatcher. Failure to reinstate by Major, Blair, Brown and Cameron.

The thing is Auntmaud people like you are impossible to argue with because you act like yours is the only worthy opinion.

I can TOTALLY see why people support this. I can see your side of the argument. But your attitude just gets people's backs up and makes meaningful discussion impossible.