Guardian: Number of homeless households moved out of London soars

[disenfranchised]

Anybody else predict a continued anti-immigration backlash when large unproductive migrant families are dumped on HB into predominantly white English areas?

[bear.getting.old]

It's wholly wrong to be sending people on benefits from the south to the north. Many towns in the north already have too many benefit claimants and high unemployment. The few local taxpayers there will now have to pay even more. Just look at how high the council tax bill of a northern place is compared to a booming southeast town. And the services in the north are lacking, they don't even get weekly bin collections

[iamnumerate]

7 hours ago, bear.getting.old said:

It's wholly wrong to be sending people on benefits from the south to the north. Many towns in the north already have too many benefit claimants and high unemployment. The few local taxpayers there will now have to pay even more. Just look at how high the council tax bill of a northern place is compared to a booming southeast town. And the services in the north are lacking, they don't even get weekly bin collections

Places in the south don't get weekly bin collections either.  Saying that I think that there should be some fiscal transfer to compensate for this.  That would be a real win win scenario.

Edited November 1, 2018 by iamnumerate

[dougless]

On 29/10/2018 at 16:22, Giraffe said:

 

OR more accurately:

 

The government, which has spent the last 15 years creating policy to pump house prices into the stratosphere, while at the same time creating a low wage economy, stressed the housing benefit taxpayer cash transfer to buy to let landlords was all of its own making.  The government also stressed that since the very same policy makers and their friends were in most cases buy to let landlords themselves, the situation will be tolerated.

This current Government really do have a problem with the cost of supporting stupidly high housing costs.  I can't see the current figure of £23 billion staying at that level for much longer before they have to do something about it but I wonder what they will do?

[dougless]

This could be a Government promotion for rehousing:

 

[PeanutButter]

See, the thing is:

 

Quote

 

• The UK population is projected to increase by 3.6 million (5.5%) over the next 10 years, from an estimated 65.6 million in mid-2016 to 69.2 million in mid-2026.

• England is projected to grow more quickly than the other UK nations: 5.9% between mid-2016 and mid-2026, compared with 4.2% for Northern Ireland, 3.2% for Scotland and 3.1% for Wales.

• Over the next 10 years, 46% of UK population growth is projected to result from more births than deaths, with 54% resulting from net international migration.

• The UK population is projected to pass 70 million by mid-2029 and be 72.9 million in mid-2041.

 

 

 

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationprojections/bulletins/nationalpopulationprojections/2016basedstatisticalbulletin

Infinite growth in a finite world. But where do we put everyone?

 

[simvastatin]

9 hours ago, iamnumerate said:

Places in the south don't get weekly bin collections either.  Saying that I think that there should be some fiscal transfer to compensate for this.  That would be a real win win scenario.

Yes we do, I live in north London and we get weekly bin and recycle collections

[simvastatin]

17 hours ago, bear.getting.old said:

It's wholly wrong to be sending people on benefits from the south to the north. Many towns in the north already have too many benefit claimants and high unemployment. The few local taxpayers there will now have to pay even more. Just look at how high the council tax bill of a northern place is compared to a booming southeast town. And the services in the north are lacking, they don't even get weekly bin collections

Lol

i understand where you are coming from 

[Captain Kirk]

3 hours ago, PeanutButter said:

See, the thing is:

 

 

 

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationprojections/bulletins/nationalpopulationprojections/2016basedstatisticalbulletin

Infinite growth in a finite world. But where do we put everyone?

 

All resources, including land, are finite. If there isn't enough land to house a person then there wouldn't be enough land to feed that person, hence they'd already be dead.

So it's a specious argument.

[Aidan Ap Word]

1 hour ago, prozac said:

Yes we do, I live in north London and we get weekly bin and recycle collections

Outside of London - in the 4 places I have lived within 15 miles of the M25 - we have had bi-weekly bin collections for years. Recyccling one week, and landfill the next (well, almost/mostly/not 100% reliably).

[simvastatin]

23 minutes ago, Aidan Ap Word said:

Outside of London - in the 4 places I have lived within 15 miles of the M25 - we have had bi-weekly bin collections for years. Recyccling one week, and landfill the next (well, almost/mostly/not 100% reliably).

A lot more resources are spent on london 

I have always wondered why?

[iamnumerate]

1 hour ago, prozac said:

A lot more resources are spent on london 

I have always wondered why?

As a Londoner I would like less money spent on housing benefit here, it would make my life a lot better.

[longgone]

32 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

As a Londoner I would like less money spent on housing benefit here, it would make my life a lot better.

where are they going to stick them then ? They seem to have more power than the average working londoner. 

[simvastatin]

13 hours ago, iamnumerate said:

Places in the south don't get weekly bin collections either.  Saying that I think that there should be some fiscal transfer to compensate for this.  That would be a real win win scenario.

How would giving money to the north be a win for the south?

[iamnumerate]

3 minutes ago, prozac said:

How would giving money to the north be a win for the south?

If it resulted in more homes in the south or rather less people needing homes it would be.

Edited November 1, 2018 by iamnumerate

[simvastatin]

1 minute ago, iamnumerate said:

If it resulted in more homes in the south or rather less people needing homes it would be.

That does not make sense.

[iamnumerate]

1 minute ago, prozac said:

That does not make sense.

If the South paid the north to take people from the South, then the North would get money and the South would get less people.  A win win for both.

Less people would have the same effect as more homes (but quicker and cheaper).

[simvastatin]

3 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

If the South paid the north to take people from the South, then the North would get money and the South would get less people.  A win win for both.

Less people would have the same effect as more homes (but quicker and cheaper).

But why give them money if they are happy to take them.

[PeanutButter]

3 hours ago, Captain Kirk said:

All resources, including land, are finite. If there isn't enough land to house a person then there wouldn't be enough land to feed that person, hence they'd already be dead.

So it's a specious argument.

What?

[Captain Kirk]

12 hours ago, PeanutButter said:

What?

Well, except for fiat currencies which are infinite. We will never run out of land. It's impossible.

I think it was the Daily Mail where I saw someone (an amateur landlord I'm guessing) argue that there isn't enough land to house everyone. I guess this person also believes that the food we eat comes from outer space, or somehow just materialises on the supermarket shelf.

I don't know how much land - and air for that matter - is needed to support a human life but I know it is a lot more than the space needed to house one.

[iamnumerate]

13 hours ago, prozac said:

But why give them money if they are happy to take them.

I am not sure that they are happy to take people from the South (of course if they are then great).

[simvastatin]

23 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

I am not sure that they are happy to take people from the South (of course if they are then great).

Why give people free money they will waste it.

[winkie]

22 hours ago, Aidan Ap Word said:

Outside of London - in the 4 places I have lived within 15 miles of the M25 - we have had bi-weekly bin collections for years. Recyccling one week, and landfill the next (well, almost/mostly/not 100% reliably).

Tri weekly collection would not be a problem.....even the so called recycling is not majority recycled, a fallacy, burnt or buried maybe or sent off into the abyss, who knows what is done with it....something clean and useful one would like to think, out of sight out of mind ......as a start try not to buy food and liquid wrapped plastic, then will hardly need a weekly collection.....or return it to whence it was purchased for them to dispose of.....ethically.

Edited November 2, 2018 by winkie

[honkydonkey]

10 hours ago, Captain Kirk said:

Well, except for fiat currencies which are infinite. We will never run out of land. It's impossible.

I think it was the Daily Mail where I saw someone (an amateur landlord I'm guessing) argue that there isn't enough land to house everyone. I guess this person also believes that the food we eat comes from outer space, or somehow just materialises on the supermarket shelf.

I don't know how much land - and air for that matter - is needed to support a human life but I know it is a lot more than the space needed to house one.

The land to feed people can be anywhere on earth. Your argument doesnt work in terms of housing solely in the UK; a country that has to import food to feed everyone. 

[maverick73]

If the government had true control of spending, they wouldnt not need to fleece the mass through back door taxes. They love low IR, it keeps the fake economics purring, as if it is the bees knees, rather than real the dog poo... homeless, unaffordables, low wage earners, middle classy in the over priced luxury boudoir...  just a bunch mugs geared up for a burning ?