Or alternatively why isn't it up to these people to find their own housing?
Many do - but those who are unemployed find it hard to find private accommodation as few landlords will rent to them., So they have to go to the council or their agents for social housing.
BUT it doesn't answer the question of if it was politically motivated by Newham Council to suggest moving people to Stoke, why it isn't politically motivated for Westminster to do similar. And is there any chance of having the housing minister Grant Shapps apologise for the lies in his statement?
Changes to the council’s housing allocations policy
The consultation
The laws that cover the way that local councils allocate their housing are due to change when Part 7 (Housing) of the Localism Act becomes law in 2012. It offers councils, like Ealing, the opportunity to reconsider the way they manage their housing register and to give extra priority to certain groups to reflect local demands for housing.
In Ealing we are proposing a series of changes that aim to support the development of balanced communities where people want to live and work while continuing to help those in the greatest housing need. In Ealing, council housing has a valuable role to play in supporting people looking for employment and recognising the contribution made by hard-working families who play a valuable role in the community.
BUT it doesn't answer the question of if it was politically motivated by Newham Council to suggest moving people to Stoke, why it isn't politically motivated for Westminster to do similar. And is there any chance of having the housing minister Grant Shapps apologise for the lies in his statement?
One went public the week before the Mayoral election - the other didn't?
One went public the week before the Mayoral election - the other didn't?
Wasn't it Brighter Futures chief executive officer Gill Brown in Stoke who went public with this and not the council.
Do you think housing minister Grant Shapps should apologise for his lies in his statement - and why hasn't he condemned Westminster Council for failing to take advantage of the thousand homes available in the area?
"Newham council argues that it can no longer afford to house tenants on its waiting list in private accommodation. It says the rise in rents caused by the Olympics and the demand for housing from young professionals has seen rents rocket in east London."
Even according to them its market rents that are an escalating problem. And those with rented accommodation in London are slaving to pay ever increasing rents.
"Newham council argues that it can no longer afford to house tenants on its waiting list in private accommodation. It says the rise in rents caused by the Olympics and the demand for housing from young professionals has seen rents rocket in east London."
Even according to them its market rents that are an escalating problem. And those with rented accommodation in London are slaving to pay ever increasing rents.
Any politician who proposed rent control would become an instant hero to Londoners.
They had rent control in New York that bastion of capitalism so there's no real objection to having it in London
I think they still have rent control in NYC. Opponents actually point to NYC and the absurd results it sometimes produces, yet that is because it applies to some apartments and not others. Applying it to all rental properties would avert this.
LHA for a 3 bed house in Stoke is only £109 per week. I don't know how many properties there are in Stoke charging those rents, but you have to also remember not all landlords accept housing benefit recipients.
Indeed, dotty1, and even today it is perfectly lawful to discriminate against benefit claimants (no matter how well behaved they are) because you still regularly see the words "No DSS" in both newspaper and online rental property listings.
I am pleased that thanks to Stoke's Brighter Futures Housing Association, this social cleansing story has been been given wide publicity on TV, radio and online. In particular, credit goes to Sky News this evening where it was pointed out that it's more affordable homes that are really required.
But it appears Tory-led boroughs are also weighing up such a move, according to a proposal sent to Westminster council by one of its private providers, Smart Housing Group (SHG), that suggests rehousing "150 people within the next 12 or so months" as far away as Derby and Nottingham, "and ideally with an option for Smart Housing Group to increase this number over time to perhaps closer to 500 properties". Westminster confirmed this was "one of the options we are looking at".
What I think is happening is just what was predicted. People are being forced out of central London into further boroughs. This is causing rental price rises in those boroughs. People from there and central London are then moving to boroughs that are even further out and causing price rises there too. Meanwhile families with local ties throughout London are moving into more cramped spaces and finding other ways to adapt to the situation such as kicking out older children if in their borough the problem is locating larger properties rather than an overall shortage...
Some of the families he has evicted have moved into smaller one or two-bedroom flats, preferring to stay in familiar areas, near schools, but crowd several people to a room, he said. At least two have been split up during the re-housing process, with older children, in their late teens rehoused in separate accommodation from their parents
What were we told by Government supporters - it'd only affect the benefit claimants in affluent houses in Chelsea and Westminster and how the move on housing benefit caps was the best thing done since sliced bread?
So why is one of the POOREST boroughs of London being forced to send people 150 miles away to Stoke-on-Trent?
Maybe the benefit claimants in affluent houses in Chelsea and Westminster move to poorer London areas pushing up the rents as housing demand outstrips supply. Then people in the poor area need to move to areas where housing is even cheaper so their housing benefit can cover the rent.
The reason might be the new influx of these over the next 6 years to parts of Newham and Hackney .
V&A Museum
University of the Arts Campus for 6500 students
UCL's huge research facility .
Sadlers Wells theatre .
The Smithsonian
Waltham Forest and Newham are desperate to start the gentrification process . Added to this areas like Leyton and Leytonstone have rather nice terraced housing and you can see why the powers that be want to get ride of certain sections of society . Property prices in these areas are still soaring. Stratford has become one of the best transports hubs in London . The moneyed in nearby Canary wharf are eyeing up the area as a good investment .
I live in Leyton and can see the gentrification in progress. A three bed terrace was 230k in 2008 they are now 500k and rising . How are locals expected to compete with these ?
Newham council is shameless . I'm sure the councillors all live and own properties in the area so its just vested interests . Sending the "unwashed" to areas outside London is pure unabashed cleansing. Sadly nothing will stop it .
Any politician who proposed rent control would become an instant hero to Londoners.
Not when the person they rented from decided to not make a continous loss and sell up, or look for a better return elsewhere.. They would then be homeless Londoners. And if that caused house prices to fall, there would be another group of Londoners sitting on negative equity.
I didn't see the argument here. High demand and high cost areas have housing thats too expensive for poor people. Either people who can afford it will occupy it, or people who can't will - one lot are going to be living somewhere they don't want to be - however, you organise things.
i don't see how its politically driven ethnic cleansing. if you are a Conservative, richer people living in Newham does you no good at all - the local Labour MPs will still have a massive majority. Richer people in Islington doesn't ditch Corbyn, for decades. . Equally, poor people moving to Bexley is the last thing you want - as it dilutes a safe seat. If you want to gerrymander London, you have to move the poor out from the key marginals and move new voters in. There's no sign from that map http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/aug/28/vast-social-cleansing-pushes-tens-of-thousands-of-families-out-of-london and the election results . http://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2015/may/07/live-uk-election-results-in-full Safe labour seats are losing the most poor voters but staying safe - while thats not happening in in places like Eltham or Brentford - that do matter electorally.Conspiracy theories only make sense if someone gains from them.
The reason might be the new influx of these over the next 6 years to parts of Newham and Hackney .
V&A Museum
University of the Arts Campus for 6500 students
UCL's huge research facility .
Sadlers Wells theatre .
The Smithsonian
Waltham Forest and Newham are desperate to start the gentrification process . Added to this areas like Leyton and Leytonstone have rather nice terraced housing and you can see why the powers that be want to get ride of certain sections of society . Property prices in these areas are still soaring. Stratford has become one of the best transports hubs in London . The moneyed in nearby Canary wharf are eyeing up the area as a good investment .
I live in Leyton and can see the gentrification in progress. A three bed terrace was 230k in 2008 they are now 500k and rising . How are locals expected to compete with these ?
Newham council is shameless . I'm sure the councillors all live and own properties in the area so its just vested interests . Sending the "unwashed" to areas outside London is pure unabashed cleansing. Sadly nothing will stop it .
It's the nature of poverty that you can't afford to do expensive things. Welcome to planet earth. Glad to hear that taxpayers' money is being used responsibly for once.
Trouble is that people need housing where they work. Soon nurses and policemen in London will need huge wage increases to allow them to live near their work. Market forces and all that. Bin men will need to be on 50 grand, Bus drivers 60 grand, tube drivers on 80 grand.
Not when the person they rented from decided to not make a continous loss and sell up, or look for a better return elsewhere.. They would then be homeless Londoners. And if that caused house prices to fall, there would be another group of Londoners sitting on negative equity.
Its always about controlling rents and building more property's with the left, cramming more and more people in to the same space. They never consider controlling immigration and reducing the number of people, while at the same time increasing the quality of life.
Trouble is that people need housing where they work. Soon nurses and policemen in London will need huge wage increases to allow them to live near their work. Market forces and all that. Bin men will need to be on 50 grand, Bus drivers 60 grand, tube drivers on 80 grand.
People already live miles away from their work I think over a million people commute into London everyday
Comments
BUT it doesn't answer the question of if it was politically motivated by Newham Council to suggest moving people to Stoke, why it isn't politically motivated for Westminster to do similar. And is there any chance of having the housing minister Grant Shapps apologise for the lies in his statement?
Is their a human right it would violate? What would Nick say?
The government have made a related change to the law.
http://www.ealing.gov.uk/info/200628/current_consultations/1144/changes_to_the_councils_housing_allocations_policy
The public don't like the idea anyway.
http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/tenancies/fairness-tops-%E2%80%98birthright%E2%80%99-in-housing-allocation-poll/6521467.article
One went public the week before the Mayoral election - the other didn't?
Do you think housing minister Grant Shapps should apologise for his lies in his statement - and why hasn't he condemned Westminster Council for failing to take advantage of the thousand homes available in the area?
"Newham council argues that it can no longer afford to house tenants on its waiting list in private accommodation. It says the rise in rents caused by the Olympics and the demand for housing from young professionals has seen rents rocket in east London."
Even according to them its market rents that are an escalating problem. And those with rented accommodation in London are slaving to pay ever increasing rents.
Any politician who proposed rent control would become an instant hero to Londoners.
I think they still have rent control in NYC. Opponents actually point to NYC and the absurd results it sometimes produces, yet that is because it applies to some apartments and not others. Applying it to all rental properties would avert this.
Indeed, dotty1, and even today it is perfectly lawful to discriminate against benefit claimants (no matter how well behaved they are) because you still regularly see the words "No DSS" in both newspaper and online rental property listings.
I am pleased that thanks to Stoke's Brighter Futures Housing Association, this social cleansing story has been been given wide publicity on TV, radio and online. In particular, credit goes to Sky News this evening where it was pointed out that it's more affordable homes that are really required.
Finally, here's the correct link that shows that Westminster City Council are also trying to deport local residents to Derby and Nottingham: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/apr/24/tory-westminster-council-tenants-derby
But it appears Tory-led boroughs are also weighing up such a move, according to a proposal sent to Westminster council by one of its private providers, Smart Housing Group (SHG), that suggests rehousing "150 people within the next 12 or so months" as far away as Derby and Nottingham, "and ideally with an option for Smart Housing Group to increase this number over time to perhaps closer to 500 properties". Westminster confirmed this was "one of the options we are looking at".
Except those Londoners who owned rental properties.
The ones from Stoke?
.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/apr/24/london-landlords-housing-benefit-cap
It is saving a fortune on free school meals! The whole of inner London is gradually getting cleansed.
Maybe the benefit claimants in affluent houses in Chelsea and Westminster move to poorer London areas pushing up the rents as housing demand outstrips supply. Then people in the poor area need to move to areas where housing is even cheaper so their housing benefit can cover the rent.
V&A Museum
University of the Arts Campus for 6500 students
UCL's huge research facility .
Sadlers Wells theatre .
The Smithsonian
Waltham Forest and Newham are desperate to start the gentrification process . Added to this areas like Leyton and Leytonstone have rather nice terraced housing and you can see why the powers that be want to get ride of certain sections of society . Property prices in these areas are still soaring. Stratford has become one of the best transports hubs in London . The moneyed in nearby Canary wharf are eyeing up the area as a good investment .
I live in Leyton and can see the gentrification in progress. A three bed terrace was 230k in 2008 they are now 500k and rising . How are locals expected to compete with these ?
Newham council is shameless . I'm sure the councillors all live and own properties in the area so its just vested interests . Sending the "unwashed" to areas outside London is pure unabashed cleansing. Sadly nothing will stop it .
Could you not have started a new thread instead of resurrecting a 3 year old one???
Not when the person they rented from decided to not make a continous loss and sell up, or look for a better return elsewhere.. They would then be homeless Londoners. And if that caused house prices to fall, there would be another group of Londoners sitting on negative equity.
i don't see how its politically driven ethnic cleansing. if you are a Conservative, richer people living in Newham does you no good at all - the local Labour MPs will still have a massive majority. Richer people in Islington doesn't ditch Corbyn, for decades. . Equally, poor people moving to Bexley is the last thing you want - as it dilutes a safe seat. If you want to gerrymander London, you have to move the poor out from the key marginals and move new voters in. There's no sign from that map http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/aug/28/vast-social-cleansing-pushes-tens-of-thousands-of-families-out-of-london and the election results . http://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2015/may/07/live-uk-election-results-in-full Safe labour seats are losing the most poor voters but staying safe - while thats not happening in in places like Eltham or Brentford - that do matter electorally.Conspiracy theories only make sense if someone gains from them.
Why though?? Newham has two Labour MPs on massive majorities, a Labour Mayor ,and every member of the council is Labour.https://mgov.newham.gov.uk/mgMemberIndex.aspx?FN=PARTY&VW=LIST&PIC=0 It is a one party state.
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/jul/16/tenants-in-england-spend-half-their-pay-on-rent!
We are already into another Rachmann era.
Trouble is that people need housing where they work. Soon nurses and policemen in London will need huge wage increases to allow them to live near their work. Market forces and all that. Bin men will need to be on 50 grand, Bus drivers 60 grand, tube drivers on 80 grand.
Its always about controlling rents and building more property's with the left, cramming more and more people in to the same space. They never consider controlling immigration and reducing the number of people, while at the same time increasing the quality of life.
People already live miles away from their work I think over a million people commute into London everyday