Quite right. I lived in shared houses and flats for years before I got my own (privately rented) place with my partner. The thought of going to the council and demanding my own flat never even crossed my mind. Sadly too many people don't share our realistic mentality and think the state and middle class tax payers owe them a living.
May as well bring back the workhouse, and no doubt that'll be on the cards run by the private sector for profit. Having said that, there is no shared housing around here unless you are young and homeless (and even that'll be under threat if housing benefit is axed for young people) - so that'll be people forced onto the street.
Reducing Housing Benefit will reduce rents (there's already evidence of that happening, with Central Lodon rents down for 6 months in a row), and that will ultimately lead to more middle income people able to afford good areas. Hopefully it will also lead to more benefit recipients able to live in the bottom 30% of properties (that's where HB is standardised now) - but at the end of the day it's not my responsibility as a taxpayer to subsidise poor people to live in areas I couldn't afford to live in myself."
That's not what I am seeing. Rents in both the public and private sector here have risen by £20-30pcm, and that's after the housing caps have been introduced.
People need to realise that:
a) housing is not a luxury;
b) private landlords are not there to provide a social service for housing people, they are there to make profit - and nothing else. Middle income households who can't get a mortgage from the bank will make far more profit for a landlord than a single person on a low wage.
May as well bring back the workhouse, and no doubt that'll be on the cards run by the private sector for profit. Having said that, there is no shared housing around here unless you are young and homeless (and even that'll be under threat if housing benefit is axed for young people) - so that'll be people forced onto the street.
What does living in a shared house have to do with bringing back the workhouse? Loads of my friends live in shared flats with either friends or via people found on gumtree etc, and they are perfectly happy. Of course they would love to live in a 5 bedroom house in Westminster but they are realistic.
And I am sure there are plenty of 2 or 3 bed flats or houses in Retford which could be rented by friends sharing together, rather than turning up at the local council demanding a tax payer subsided home.
99% of working people cannot afford to live in Westminster without state aid. So its not obvious to me why the council should be paying out over £300m a year to house people on low incomes/on benefits in an area where only millionaires/the very rich can afford the rental/house prices.
The middle class/middle income people - now forced to commute from miles away on overcrowded public transport - were socially cleansed from central London years ago. But no one cares about them - they are just expected to work hard, pay their taxes and watch while others who don't work or earn far less than them get to live in an area which none of them can afford.
I live in outer London - where these people may have to move to cos its cheaper. Its not so bad - and personally I find the terms used on here like 'deportation' (with its overtones of the Nazis/Yugoslavia) offensive. Being asked to live in an area where rents are lower is not deportation - and Croydon and Ilford are hardly the equivalent of the Warsaw ghetto!
The language people are using is just over the top - moving home to a cheaper area is not 'deportation'.
Of course a lot of that housing will have been paid for out of the public purse to supply social housing for, oh you know, firemen, nurses, bin men, etc.
So the present government has been in power for just under 2 years and introduced a HB cap from this month. Meanwhile the previous government was in power for 13 years and one of its councils has a waiting list of 32,000 and it seems is blaming the present one's HB cap, the Olympics or anything else except itself or the previous government.
I don't suppose such facts will matter though.
The leader of Newham council on Sky News Boulton and Co blamed the government for lack of housing. No mention of the New Labour eras housing building programme, or lack of it, though. At least his female opponent, can't remember where she was from, put the argument for a cap.
Of course a lot of that housing will have been paid for out of the public purse to supply social housing for, oh you know, firemen, nurses, bin men, etc.
What makes these people more deserving of social housing over other professions, many of which have lower salaries and less benefits?
The leader of Newham council on Sky News Boulton and Co blamed the government for lack of housing. No mention of the New Labour eras housing building programme, or lack of it, though. At least his female opponent, can't remember where she was from, put the argument for a cap.
Labour built less council housing in 13 years than the Tory govt in 1951 did in one year.
If there is a shortage of social housing you cannot entirely blame this govt. Gordon Brown basically prevented councils from building council homes while he was Chancellor.
Labour built less council housing in 13 years than the Tory govt in 1951 did in one year.
If there is a shortage of social housing you cannot entirely blame this govt. Gordon Brown basically prevented councils from building council homes while he was Chancellor.
There are too many people. This needs to be addressed. The over-population of this isle cannot be sustained. Who will grasp the reins?
What makes these people more deserving of social housing over other professions, many of which have lower salaries and less benefits?
It was just an example of people social housing was supposed to be for. Remember the low and medium waged support the infrastructure that allows the rich to live in these areas. Without them you would get collapse.
Normally, I'd be on the side of the victims of Tory economic policies (but not in this case).
Back in 1979 I was unemployed and had to move 400 miles south to London in order to secure employment. I lived in a hostel for 6 months and then in shared rented accommodation for another three years before finally being in a position to afford a place of my own.
Why should people on benefits be given the privilege of deciding where they want to live when workers like me are not?
Labour built less council housing in 13 years than the Tory govt in 1951 did in one year.
If there is a shortage of social housing you cannot entirely blame this govt. Gordon Brown basically prevented councils from building council homes while he was Chancellor.
It has been all governments since 1979 that are to blame for this mess, starting with the Blessed Margaret.
And I am sure there are plenty of 2 or 3 bed flats or houses in Retford which could be rented by friends sharing together, rather than turning up at the local council demanding a tax payer subsided home.
That's if you can find any who can share. From experience, they're usually having families and therefore cannot share. You'd also have other potential problems too along with what happens if there is an argument between the parties, legal rights, if the landlord allows it, etc.
The only way it'll work is if people are made to live together without a choice, and that'd be done in the private sector (but who'd do it - it wouldn't be as profitable I fear to house several lower paid single people). I've done it before and it's a mixed bag. Great if you get the right people together, but if just one wrong person moves in, it can feel as if its hell on earth - late night parties, anti-social behaviour, drug taking, crime - that's what I had with one bad tenant doing shared housing when I got made homeless.
Thank goodness I got my flat when I did, I dunno what I'd have done being made homeless if it was 2012 instead of 2002.
It's not just Newham either because it now turns out that Westminster City Council is also considering the deportation of at least 150 homeless housing benefit claimants 130 miles away to Derby and Nottingham
Why aren't Westminster Council using some of "more than a thousand properties currently advertised on the Rightmove lettings website within a five-mile radius of Newham" as claimed by Grant Shapps. He also claimed that Newham was "politically motivated" in their letter. So what's Westminster Council's reason for the "deportation"?
Why aren't Westminster Council using some of "more than a thousand properties currently advertised on the Rightmove lettings website within a five-mile radius of Newham" as claimed by Grant Shapps. He also claimed that Newham was "politically motivated" in their letter. So what's Westminster Council's reason for the "deportation"?
Or alternatively why isn't it up to these people to find their own housing?
And lets avoid this 'deportation' hyperbole - just saying if you expect the state to pay for your housing maybe you shouldn't expect to be housed for free for life in St John's Wood or Belgravia where you would need to earn £250,000 a year to buy a home locally. Its just not fair on taxpayers who could never dream of affording to live in the same areas.
Do private landlords want to home poor people? Like I said before, they are there to make profit.
Landlords get up to £20bn a year in housing benefit at present in total - under the old system councils were required to fund claims well above what local people paying their own way could afford.
£20bn a year funding for your pension (i.e your buy to let properties) is not a bad little earner for all those BTL landlords! They are the real winners from housing benefit.
Comments
Maybe Newham should make some enquires in Poland. There may be some housing associations there, that can help.
Its highly unlikely it was true, no doubt it made good radio though
People need to realise that:
a) housing is not a luxury;
b) private landlords are not there to provide a social service for housing people, they are there to make profit - and nothing else. Middle income households who can't get a mortgage from the bank will make far more profit for a landlord than a single person on a low wage.
What does living in a shared house have to do with bringing back the workhouse? Loads of my friends live in shared flats with either friends or via people found on gumtree etc, and they are perfectly happy. Of course they would love to live in a 5 bedroom house in Westminster but they are realistic.
And I am sure there are plenty of 2 or 3 bed flats or houses in Retford which could be rented by friends sharing together, rather than turning up at the local council demanding a tax payer subsided home.
The leader of Newham council on Sky News Boulton and Co blamed the government for lack of housing. No mention of the New Labour eras housing building programme, or lack of it, though. At least his female opponent, can't remember where she was from, put the argument for a cap.
What makes these people more deserving of social housing over other professions, many of which have lower salaries and less benefits?
Labour built less council housing in 13 years than the Tory govt in 1951 did in one year.
If there is a shortage of social housing you cannot entirely blame this govt. Gordon Brown basically prevented councils from building council homes while he was Chancellor.
There are too many people. This needs to be addressed. The over-population of this isle cannot be sustained. Who will grasp the reins?
It was just an example of people social housing was supposed to be for. Remember the low and medium waged support the infrastructure that allows the rich to live in these areas. Without them you would get collapse.
Back in 1979 I was unemployed and had to move 400 miles south to London in order to secure employment. I lived in a hostel for 6 months and then in shared rented accommodation for another three years before finally being in a position to afford a place of my own.
Why should people on benefits be given the privilege of deciding where they want to live when workers like me are not?
It has been all governments since 1979 that are to blame for this mess, starting with the Blessed Margaret.
The uk is not over populated it is just the SE that is over populated
The only way it'll work is if people are made to live together without a choice, and that'd be done in the private sector (but who'd do it - it wouldn't be as profitable I fear to house several lower paid single people). I've done it before and it's a mixed bag. Great if you get the right people together, but if just one wrong person moves in, it can feel as if its hell on earth - late night parties, anti-social behaviour, drug taking, crime - that's what I had with one bad tenant doing shared housing when I got made homeless.
Thank goodness I got my flat when I did, I dunno what I'd have done being made homeless if it was 2012 instead of 2002.
So Labour or Tory = no difference?
Or alternatively why isn't it up to these people to find their own housing?
And lets avoid this 'deportation' hyperbole - just saying if you expect the state to pay for your housing maybe you shouldn't expect to be housed for free for life in St John's Wood or Belgravia where you would need to earn £250,000 a year to buy a home locally. Its just not fair on taxpayers who could never dream of affording to live in the same areas.
Would Scotland take the overload perchance?
So why not spread new arrivals around the country, are there enough jobs outside the south east?
For some policies, that is correct
They tried that, most moved to London at the earliest opportunity
Landlords get up to £20bn a year in housing benefit at present in total - under the old system councils were required to fund claims well above what local people paying their own way could afford.
£20bn a year funding for your pension (i.e your buy to let properties) is not a bad little earner for all those BTL landlords! They are the real winners from housing benefit.
They are welcome, if government policies increased employment opportunities by supporting investment so that more jobs were created