Don't cap my benefits - BBC1

[SoleSource]

Anybody watching?

DH paid for me to go to college (we,, rent bills etc) and I worked for some of it too but I think educated people pay far more tax back into the system as a rule than toilet cleaners and TEND to have better outcomes for their family long term.

But I'd like to see universities provide far more family accommodation so that would be covered better anyway.

Toilet cleaning etc DOES need to be done absolutely, and I for one would do it now if I was offered (even that seems to need a specific NVQ rather than degrees and post grads), but it's not as if there's a shortage of under qualified people anywhere.

Tbh, I know it is difficult, and some imaginative solutions may need to be found. BUT it is imperative that this is done, shipping people out of London is NOT sustainable, and is ducking our responsibilities imo.

I don't suppose it was 'easy' to set up the NHS. Or 'easy' to build the London Underground. But somehow these big projects were possible in the past. And my personal opinion is that this is a major problem of our time that we need to address now, both for economic and social reasons.

So instead of just going along with the Tory line of 'these skivers need flushing out of London' let's have some imaginative and long term solutions that actually help the innocent parties in this, who must be the children. Get it right for those children and they can flourish, get it wrong and we potentially then have to pay benefits for those children and thenTHEIR children etc etc.

One possible solution is to look at wasted spaces, that may not be derelict, but nevertheless are ground acreage. These can be redeveloped, with private developers given rights to build on some of it, which covers a lot of the costs, then social housing can be built alongside. This is happening in our city - people are looking at roundabouts, at car parks, at dual carriageways. And that has the benefit of mixing private housing and social housing which is a MUCH better plan.

(obviously when I say 'looking at roundabout's I'm not implying building all over a roundabout, rather being really imaginative about what the best use of the total land under the roads/roundabouts/carparks is, and exploring loads of options).

Land suitable for building on in London is very scarce, you really can't compare London with the rest of the Uk.
The NHS and the underground were built way before the capital became overcrowded as were most of the social housing that we currently have.

But the answer isn't to shift large numbers of people out, in a temporary sticking plaster fix.

I am absolutely convinced that imaginative solutions MUST be explored, to create a housing capacity fit for today and the future, that will not bankrupt the treasury.

For example, local authorities could buy up every plot with a rundown small house on it that came on the market, bulldoze it, and replace with modern purpose built flats, possibly housing 3 or 4 families where there was 1 house; they would then be in permanent control of the housing benefit bill for those families. It would require initial investment but this has got to be a long term solution.

Yes, the NHS was developed before the capital was overcrowded, but the country's finances were in a terrible state post-WW2, but politicians were braver in those days and dared to make a difference.

I do agree that moving people and displacing families is not a good solution. I also agree that we need a more permanent solution. However, I don't currently see what that solution could be at a cost which will not put the public purse under enormous pressure.
I think that working people, particularly those in low paid jobs should be the priority for financial help with housing in London. I think that those who don't work and haven't worked for more than two years (with the exception of elderly and disabled people) should be moved to cheaper areas. It isn't ideal, but I think that we need to prioritise.
I don't think it is workable to force landlords to rent their properties below market rates as we live in a free market and I think forcing landlords to rent at a loss will result in fewer rental properties being available and a black market being created for rentals within a 'private' sector.
I don't think the health risks of building on brownfield sites are worth the risk or financial expense.

So I suppose I agree with the cap in as much as those meeting the working hours criteria currently get financial help without a cap and those who don't work or work very very few hours don't get excessive financial help. The only part that I think should be reviewed is a timeframe so that people out of work short term get enough financial hell to remain in their current homes.

Let's remember; if a person living in a property that they have a mortgage on becomes unemployed they don't get unlimited financial help to stay in their home and sometimes they have to move if they don't secure employment quite quickly. So homeowners have faced sanctions on their homes for decades, why should we not have a similar system for renters?

I do agree with a lot of what you have written, and for sure it is a difficult problem!

I suppose my thinking is less about the current generation of tenants, and more about the next, because I cannot see that for children of vulnerable families, it can possibly be in their interests to be moved away from families/schools etc, and may jeopardise their schooling, which then repeats the cycle over another generation. And whilst, yes, people who own houses are at the mercy of the mortgage companies, I think (generalising hugely), those people are often in a better position to support their children through that change (I know that is a huge generalisation, but that's all we can work in really).

It's just too easy to say 'ship them all out to Birmingham' - that isn't going to solve the problem at all.

Thinking back to the programme, a lot of the families shown were dysfunctional at best. Now what if a family like that happened to live near a grandparent who really was a good support to the child (I'm thinking from the experience as a parent at school, there are many families like that). Removing that good input is directly harming the child's life chances, and therefore directly increasing the potential drain on the country's finances.

One other solution might be to only allow planning permission for multiple dwellings if a set proportion is built as social housing, to be sold to the council.

So if a developer puts in a proposal for, say, 20 dwellings (property developers are very good at finding land to build on that government is not), why not say that 20% (ie 4) have to be social housing, of a fixed number of bedrooms, to be purchased by the council at cost price. The developer still gets a good return, isn't out of pocket, but the council doesn't need the hassle of cleansing a brown field site.

I think some councils do this. IIRC when an old hospital near here was developed the council insisted on 10% of the build being social housing.

Sometimes moving away from extended family can be a good thing. Breaking ties and starting afresh for some families can be as beneficial as being close to families is for other families. It's very simplistic to think that families are a great support network for dysfunctional families.

With regard to the building programme suggestion: lots of developments only get permission granted on the basis that a percentage of homes will be 'affordable homes', unfortunately not much is being built in the areas with the most need so the affordable percentage is a percentage of nothing.

I am in central London and there is a huge amount of building work going on in my area - the skyline is full of cranes building tall residential buildings. A lot of these developments were on former car parks or old industrial buildings - London actually has more empty plots than you'd think, even in zone 1. But they are expensive to finance, and it's hard to get planning permission, so they are being built by private firms who are marketing most of the flats to overseas investors. There is already a target for a percentage of these to be social housing. The aim I think is 50% but realistically it's usually less than that, as if it was as high as 50% the development wouldn't be financially viable. E.g. this 42 storey tower in Islington will have 144 affordable homes, plus 170 for joint ownership.

What constitutes an affordable home though, can somebody on the average wage (£27k) afford to live in one without govt help?

There is a big difference between affordable/shared ownership housing and social housing.

I would like to see these development all containing a proportion of housing which would be bought at cost price by the local authorities, and which would stay in council ownership, to start rebuilding our much reduced social housing stock.

Lily; I agree with you about some of those homes being for social housing. Affordable homes are not affordable for many.
Another thing though: who wants to love on the 42nd floor with children? These tower block developments are not suitable for all families.

True, but then we need to ask serious questions about what people's specific needs are. Otoh, some of my family coped very well with children on much higher floors living in the Far East, and it was regarded as normal, not as something undesirable; with today's rules on accessibility and H&S I don't think it's the issue it was, and many high rises have their own outdoor space - thinking of the flats in our city, many of which are social housing, and the remainder of which USED to be, there is a large quadrangle, a big lawn area, a basketball court, so the kids there are not deprived of outdoor space.

(Sensible allocations would in an ideal world ensure that people who NEEDED a dedicated house, eg those with disabilities, would find that one was available, those for whom a flat was ok would also be able to be allocated a flat).

I think the problem is that solving this problem requires quite radical solutions, and I don't think any of today's politicians are prepared to be brave and creative, they prefer the 'radical' solution of moving people out, people who are not in a position to help themselves, or to argue their corner.

*Just for once in this godforsaken craphole of a country I'd like someone to stop bleeding their heart for poor ickle benefit claimants being told expecting people to pay out for them to have rent at £500 a week is unreasonable - and to actually look out for the "just getting by" people who come in just above the line for fucking everything and get sod all - but often live in shittier conditions by far.

I have fuck all issue with areas being more or less expensive to live in - the south east is expensive... we couldn't afford to live there - so we don't. I'm bloody sick of uncapped benefits whacking private rental prices on a whole through the roof though and shitting on those who don't claim who can't afford them because they've gone so bonkers as the state's been subsidising the whole happy snowball. I'm fucking sick of the lot of it - sick of the hysterical "woooo you must be a Tory and read the Daily Mail cos it's all evil evil evil you evil capitalist don't you care in your little palace" shite that gets thrown about on here as well. If it got the whole fucking mess sorted out - I'd vote for the bloody Naked Stripping Elvis Party in a heartbeat and read the fucking Beano on a daily basis.*

Applauds miaowthecat - exactly !!

It's really tough for so many people, I know.

But tbh, building more social housing would help people in work as well as out of work, because housing is the biggest drain on most people's budgets, and it was never ever meant to be like that. It shouldn't take almost all of people's wages to pay for a roof over their heads.

And it is shortsighted to say 'they are scroungers, stuff them', because they may well be, but kick them when they are down, and we continue to have to pay for them, and probably their children as well.

Imagine the scenario where benefits claimants were all as the man on the show, with 7 children. If none of those children work, then we have 7 times the problem to pay for in the next generation.

Far far better to retain state control of housing for the poor, invest in education and try and ensure those children go on to be economically active contributors, so that the problem is not exacerbated many times.

The top floor flats probably won't be affordable - usually they penthouses and the most expensive in the whole building. I don't think most of these flats will be as high as that anyway, it's just a recent example I linked to but there are many low-rise flats being built as well. Apartment living is really common in London (I grew up in one) and is not such an issue for families here, especially in the inner boroughs and in social housing.

I have sympathy for those who've fallen on hard times.

I don't think anyone who has had SEVEN children deserves uncapped benefits though. What a piss take.

I havent seen the programme so could be talking shite here, but surely the person who had 7 kids was one in a million? what about everyone else, instead of focusing on one very unusual situation?

There are clearly hard cases, but there is also a problem that needs to be addressed.

I am a higher rate tax payer, wouldn't be eligible for CB etc. If I was the sole income earner in our household, we could not afford 400pw rent.

I'm not saying 'shove out the poor' and for that matter I'm not in London, but there is clearly an issue with a market where poor people on benefit can live in a house that an earner in the top 10% couldn't afford to rent. That is one skewed market. Who lives in South London - 6 figure earners and the very poor? Where the hell do the middle go?

Something has to be done to readdress this for the sake of both the poor and the middle, otherwise we end up with gated houses surrounded by ghettos.