Options
The coalitions social cleansing begins in earnest, just before Christmas
tghe-retford
Posts: 26,449 Forum Member
✭✭✭
The start of what I would term "social cleansing" has begun, as many councils now, just before Christmas, start moving families out of the city of London to places such as Luton and Hastings. Half of the London councils questions also stated that homelessness was going to increase as a result of the measures that the coalition Government wanted to bring in.
Well, I hope the NIMBYs and those who have a dislike of the poor can sleep soundly in their beds tonight, no doubt not giving a damn about those families and individuals, of which many work (only 1 in 8 housing benefit claimants are out of work) who now face being uprooted and split apart before Christmas or put on the street. Merry Christmas from the coalition.
I notice the housing minister keeps being very insistent on repeating the £21,000-a-year paid by the taxpayer claim alongside the words, "How many could afford to pay that?". It's as if they're trying to stoke up even more resentment, and I would not be surprised if the coalition has more draconian plans up their sleeves, hence the rhetoric being given by the housing minister to stoke up the fires of the right wing commentators, newspapers and core voters to bring in and justify further cuts to housing benefit.
Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-11979147
Well, I hope the NIMBYs and those who have a dislike of the poor can sleep soundly in their beds tonight, no doubt not giving a damn about those families and individuals, of which many work (only 1 in 8 housing benefit claimants are out of work) who now face being uprooted and split apart before Christmas or put on the street. Merry Christmas from the coalition.
I notice the housing minister keeps being very insistent on repeating the £21,000-a-year paid by the taxpayer claim alongside the words, "How many could afford to pay that?". It's as if they're trying to stoke up even more resentment, and I would not be surprised if the coalition has more draconian plans up their sleeves, hence the rhetoric being given by the housing minister to stoke up the fires of the right wing commentators, newspapers and core voters to bring in and justify further cuts to housing benefit.
Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-11979147
0
Comments
A family renting a four bedroom house gets £400 a week. That's £1,600 per calender month, more than enough to rent a house.
OK Maybe they can't get a million pound mansion in Westminster, but neither can hard working, low paid taxpayers.
All the coalition have done is evened things up between those out of work and those in work.
It's not fair that people who earn nothing should live so well in properties that hard working people on low wages can only dream about.
Nail on the head.
Many of these people do work and will be on a low wage. They will have even less money if they now have to travel further to get to work.
So if someone like me works and can't afford social housing, let alone private housing, and I don't live in London where rents are higher, what sort of housing, if any, do you expect those claiming housing benefit to live? This is, unless of course, you suggest that any worker (don't forget, only 1 in 8 housing benefit claimants is out of work) who claims housing benefit doesn't work hard..?
This one extreme example has been used to justify this ideological urban cleansing, and it's absolutely ludicrous.
Why?
Are there plans to cut the rate of top up housing benefit?
Plus you seemed to have missed where it said in the article that some people wanted to move out of London.
Hackney or Luton?
I would think that there's a few who would jump at the chance to get out of Hackney if the houses were better, or the schools or the quality of life.
Are you unaware of how social housing rules work? you can't move to another part of the country because the council you move to will not take responsibility for your housing. You have to have been resident for at least a year I think.
Source: http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/other/9780108509551/9780108509551.pdf
Yes, but let's not let facts get in the way of an opportunity to demonize the Government.:rolleyes:
Personally, if I lived in Hackney, I'd jump at the chance to move out. Not necessarily-in some places, you can if you have a proven strong familial connection to the area you're moving to (oddly enough, I went to a seminar on this subject a couple of weeks ago).
I work, and know my limits as to where I can live, why should that be any different for people who claim the ridiculously high housing benefits?
As somebody has said, they didnt go far enough cutting them. £400 a WEEK for a family is a complete joke, far too much. I dont get paid that much, and couldnt afford to live in a house costing that much, why should people who dont work be able to?
It isnt social cleansing, its commen sense and fair to the millions of people who do work, but who can afford less than those on housing benefits.
You should never be better off on benefits than in work, that seems completely fair to me, why not to the OP?
You have to hand it to the Daily Mail and the coalition, their propaganda against the poor works. I'll criticise the Government if I believe I am justified to do so. Don't want me to? Contact your MP and ask him/her to introduce a new bill to prevent anyone from criticising the coalition, I am sure many on here would love that idea. I would find such a move a blatant attack on freedom of speech.
It's no good posting a message on a debating forum and then berate people when they disagree with you - argue your case
And again, someone who assumes that the housing benefit changes is only applying to those who don't work. Let me spell this out in no uncertain terms to anyone who doesn't get it:
Only 1 in 8 housing benefit claimants are out of work. This means the vast majority of claimants are in WORK. The people you are condemning for living the life of riley at your expense are most likely in WORK. The vast majority of people out there on housing benefit who WORK and are EMPLOYED in LOW PAID JOBS who will be affected by the measures set out by the coalition.
Which bit of the vast majority of housing benefit claimants are in work are people having difficulty understanding?
Secondly, this doesn't just apply to London as the press like to do because they seem to think that only London exists, this measure is also being felt across the country, Nottingham is one example close to me that springs to mind.
It's probably all down to just labelling benefit claimants as lazy, scrounging leeches, ignoring the fact that the vast majority of housing benefit claimants work and the horrid scenario we have in the UK of treating housing as an investment and not as a roof over someone's head and shelter as it should be.
There's some truth in that. Places like Hastings have a lot of B&Bs that will take homeless people, so councils that don't have them use them for temporary accommodation. Then, when they establish that they don't have a legal duty to house those people, they stay on in the town as they have nowhere else to go. I live about 30 miles along the coast, and our council uses accommodation in Hastings.
Years ago, the GLC moved a lot of people into Hastings. I think maybe there was some kind of joint deal to build estates or something, as London didn't have enough building land. Some Hastings born and bred people attribute many of the town's social ills to the influx of Londoners in the 60s and 70s.
Hastings station was the first time I ever saw UV light in a British public toilet. I was quite shocked!
Your missing an essential point here - the undeserving poor now includes those on a low income not just the disabled or unemployed.
If a porter or cleaner at say Chelsea & Westminster Hospital can't manage to live near their place of employment on the wage paid, then we will just have to do without them and the roles they fill.
The market dictates and we must obey.
Oh and the Govt were talking about changing the definition of homelessness so very few people will be of NFA.
Hmmmm Hackney must be rough if Luton represents a quality of life increase
Nobodys being made homeless
The OP's point, if indeed he has one, appears to be that people could be being made homeless, if not for the fact that they aren't. I think. Do try to keep up!:p