London To Paris

[hilltop]

Plenty in this article, Spoiled for choice:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/oct/04/benefit-cuts-population-movements

Shifting unemployed people out of central London seems to be a formal Government policy.

Never have the interests of the Metropolitan elite been so nakedly pursued.

And, after a period of very low housing starts, no prospect of Councils building houses, yet this would be a sensible and useful stimulus to growth.

[robo1968]

Plenty in this article, Spoiled for choice:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/oct/04/benefit-cuts-population-movements

Shifting unemployed people out of central London seems to be a formal Government policy.

Never have the interests of the Metropolitan elite been so nakedly pursued.

And, after a period of very low housing starts, no prospect of Councils building houses, yet this would be a sensible and useful stimulus to growth.

Benefit cuts 'will force thousands into suburbs'..... should read 'Gov't stops giving out ridiculous handouts to landlords'

utter sh1te

[thecrashingisles]

Benefit cuts 'will force thousands into suburbs'

The utter horror. That Guardianistas and their ilk think that living in suburbia is a fate worse than death explains quite a few of this country's problems.

[JustAnotherProle]

The utter horror. That Guardianistas and their ilk think that living in suburbia is a fate worse than death explains quite a few of this country's problems.

Some of the comments are amusing

If this is deliberate policy to use the eviction of the poorest to lower rents, this has to be the nasty party at its best

Yes, lowering rents so that people who actually work for a living can live near to where they work is terrible isn't? It would be terrible that some champagne socialist BTL landlords may end up in a bit of financial bother!

[thecrashingisles]

Some of the comments are amusing

@BettySwallacks

Its your level of misunderstanding that allows the blue + yellow tories to get away with this extreme-right social terrorism.

The unemployed aren't renting privately in most cases. It is a small part of the total problem. The Tory aim is to lessen the stress on the entire housing stock by emptying it, lowering rents across the board.

Those in private rented housing in most cases have been there for many, many years - staying in homes subsidised by housing benefit because of previous unemployment. These families face the greatest heartache - being booted out of their homes to allow Osborne to finish Thatcher's dream.

And if anyone believes this only applies to London - think again. We will see all our major cities undergo huge, unmerited population shifts as this starts to bite.

I am now truly, madly horrified.

[Gone baby gone]

Plenty in this article, Spoiled for choice:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/oct/04/benefit-cuts-population-movements

Shifting unemployed people out of central London seems to be a formal Government policy.

Never have the interests of the Metropolitan elite been so nakedly pursued.

And, after a period of very low housing starts, no prospect of Councils building houses, yet this would be a sensible and useful stimulus to growth.

So you would rather have people who are employed in central London living in the suburbs and travelling in every day, and use their taxes to subsidise keeping the unemployed in the centre and keep rents and prices high... um, why exactly?

[thod]

I find it quite laughable that the threat is 'having to move to the suburbs'. I find the suburbs a very pleasant place to live. In fact most of London's residents do live in the suburbs. It is an insult to them to say that their districts are somehow so inferior, that even the unemployed should not live there. Am I supposed to feel sorry for this unemployed family when they are forced to move from Mayfair to Richmond or the foreign lands of Rickmansworth.

[hilltop]

I would not live in either central London or its suburbs.

The point is rather the economic cleansing of the City.

I do not for a moment believe that rents will be reduced, rather clearing out some tenants will enable gentrification and higher rents.

Both the policy and the Guardian's reaction confirm how London centric policy thinking is.

By the way, was this in the Tory manifesto? Where was the Liberal input to this?

[Mrs Bear]

The utter horror. That Guardianistas and their ilk think that living in suburbia is a fate worse than death explains quite a few of this country's problems.

Let alone in the Great Wasteland known as 'south of the river'.

[robo1968]

I would not live in either central London or its suburbs.

The point is rather the economic cleansing of the City.

I do not for a moment believe that rents will be reduced, rather clearing out some tenants will enable gentrification and higher rents.

Both the policy and the Guardian's reaction confirm how London centric policy thinking is.

By the way, was this in the Tory manifesto? Where was the Liberal input to this?

A mate of mine used to live in a very posh area near me, it is full of wealthy people sure but there are many other types of wealthy people you wouldn't necessarily want as your neighbours, he left in the end because it was getting on his nerves

My point is high rent/expensive areas don't automtically attract perfect economic types but to call this 'economic cleansing' is looking far too deeply into what is an attempt to stop a massive waste of public money to people who know damn well how to play the system

The sooner it starts the better.

[Gone baby gone]

The point is rather the economic cleansing of the City.

"Economic cleansing"

You could just as easily say that to continue to encourage the jobless to live in central London is an attempt at "social eugenics".

If they want to stay there, they could always... get a job. If all the low earners were forced out, this will either have a huge detrimental effect on the local services, or raise the wages paid in such jobs.

As for rents not falling... you think that LHA has nothing to do with high rents in most cities?

[Agentimmo]

A mate of mine used to live in a very posh area near me, it is full of wealthy people sure but there are many other types of wealthy people you wouldn't necessarily want as your neighbours, he left in the end because it was getting on his nerves

My point is high rent/expensive areas don't automtically attract perfect economic types but to call this 'economic cleansing' is looking far too deeply into what is an attempt to stop a massive waste of public money to people who know damn well how to play the system

The sooner it starts the better.

I once lived in Sth Kensington for a year. The worst "community" I've ever lived in. Full of horrible, agressive snobs who thought the fact they lived in the area gave them the right to treat every worker like dirt. Neighbours were graspers of the highest order. Many were into BTL'ing, but didn't declare it as such. They had a number of 1-bed apts and just collected the rent themselves.

You can be sure that Mr. Osborne & Co. won't be introducing any laws that have a negative impact on the wealth of this strand of society...........

[TeddyBear]

I would not live in either central London or its suburbs.

The point is rather the economic cleansing of the City.

I do not for a moment believe that rents will be reduced, rather clearing out some tenants will enable gentrification and higher rents.

Both the policy and the Guardian's reaction confirm how London centric policy thinking is.

By the way, was this in the Tory manifesto? Where was the Liberal input to this?

Higher rents? Do you actually live and rent in London (edited to add to say, I see you don't...do you actually know anything about the market here then)? Do you understand anything about the difference between council/HA/private stock in London?

Who do you think is going to be paying higher than LHA will pay? (only exception being places 5 bedrooms +)

Edited October 5, 2010 by TeddyBear

[thecrashingisles]

As for rents not falling... you think that LHA has nothing to do with high rents in most cities?

That's been dealt with on the Guardian page:

For all those blathering about how this will drive down rent, well yes perhaps for a few rich buy to let Landlords, but most inner city properties for rent are owned by small letting companies who are mortgaged to the hilt and simply can't afford to lower their rents no matter how much anyone fantasises about creating a low rent utopia.

So you see... reducing the amount of money spent on rent can't possibly reduce rents.

Edited October 5, 2010 by thecrashingisles

[robo1968]

I once lived in Sth Kensington for a year. The worst "community" I've ever lived in. Full of horrible, agressive snobs who thought the fact they lived in the area gave them the right to treat every worker like dirt. Neighbours were graspers of the highest order. Many were into BTL'ing, but didn't declare it as such. They had a number of 1-bed apts and just collected the rent themselves.

You can be sure that Mr. Osborne & Co. won't be introducing any laws that have a negative impact on the wealth of this strand of society...........

I don't think anyone will escape cuts

[skomer]

Plenty in this article, Spoiled for choice:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/oct/04/benefit-cuts-population-movements

Shifting unemployed people out of central London seems to be a formal Government policy.

Never have the interests of the Metropolitan elite been so nakedly pursued.

And, after a period of very low housing starts, no prospect of Councils building houses, yet this would be a sensible and useful stimulus to growth.

Yep the title of the thread says it all - London is going Parisienne

Central London will become a playground for the toffs, non-doms and increasingly the foreign oligarch class

In reality it will be the more down at heal but still relatively pleasant suburbs that will be worse affected as the feckless and the wreckless move in.

Its going be interesting to see which Tory or Guardian voting suburbs are going to take the direct hit.

Edited October 5, 2010 by skomer

[Dorkins]

Central London will become a playground for the toffs, non-doms and increasingly the foreign oligarch class

That happened years ago. The only ordinary people in middle class parts of London are those who bought when it was cheap.

[Executive Sadman]

Its a lovely park, but i sometimes would like to see Hyde park turned into one big council estate, just so the unwashed are right on the establishments doorstep.

[skomer]

That happened years ago. The only ordinary people in middle class parts of London are those who bought when it was cheap.

Not really true - still plenty of poor living in rented accomodation in the London Boroughs of Westminster, K&C, Camden etc or in the many council estates (which presumably are not affected by this legislation). Inner London is much more mixed than say its Paris equivalent.

Westminster for example, will be happy to rehouse them in the cheaper areas in Outer London, Surrey, Herts etc

I'm sure all these Tory voting constituencies will be very happy with having the urban poor deposited into their neighbourhoods

As they say, be careful what you wish for

[frugalboy]

So you would rather have people who are employed in central London living in the suburbs and travelling in every day, and use their taxes to subsidise keeping the unemployed in the centre and keep rents and prices high... um, why exactly?

Quite...I'm all for subsidising people on relatively low pay, who actually keep the city running (teachers, nurses etc.), to live in or near the centre but why on earth should a "workless" family be given tax payers' money to live within walking distance of some of the most desirable neighourhoods on the PLANET. The sense of entitlement makes my head want to explode. If I found myself unemployed with no private means of being able to stay in a nice area, I would expect to have to move to a shithole in the middle of nowhere. That's life.

[kingsgate]

Quite...I'm all for subsidising people on relatively low pay, who actually keep the city running (teachers, nurses etc.), to live in or near the centre but why on earth should a "workless" family be given tax payers' money to live within walking distance of some of the most desirable neighourhoods on the PLANET. The sense of entitlement makes my head want to explode. If I found myself unemployed with no private means of being able to stay in a nice area, I would expect to have to move to a shithole in the middle of nowhere. That's life.

+1.

I am doing all right and I can't afford to live in certain posh parts of London.

So, why should someone who is dependent on other people's charity (for that is what "benefits" really are!) be able to do so?

It is a waste of money putting unemployed wasters in mega-expensive areas in the middle of expensive to live in cities, when you could house them far cheaper further out.

[Austin Allegro]

It always annoys me that people on benefits are seen to have some sort of automatic right to live where they've always lived, despite not contributing to the system. Why should they? My family, who lived in rural Scotland since the year dot have been scattered to the four corners of the British Commonwealth over the last century to find work and housing, and were even encouraged to do so by the state under the assisted passage schemes. Yet if they were Del and Rodney from a council flat in Kensington they would have the left screaming for them to stay put!