Sunday, October 24, 2010

Now we have social clensing-unbelievable

Council plans exodus of the poor

there are so many contrarian indicators around,you know something is going to happen.The blt market is not an alternative to social housing in any way shape or form...quite how you can have this during apparently the worst recession for 70 years is beyond me...The only comparison is japan where tokyo properties are 90% in some cases cheaper than 1991 in actual terms despite almost zero interest rates....this is tulips from amsterdam

Posted by taffee @ 11:10 AM (2388 views)
Please complete the required fields.



25 thoughts on “Now we have social clensing-unbelievable

  • Let’s see what the London councils themselves have to say, in their official report [link to PDF] on the issue:

    “Figures compiled from the DWP’s own data show that 159,3702 households across London will face a reduction in the LHA they receive by October 2013. Of these, an estimated 9,990 families could be forced to move from central London to secure cheaper accommodation elsewhere in London or outside of London.”

    Fewer than 10,000 households in a city of millions. That’s hardly “social cleansing”.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • It’s not fun for those affected but what’s the alternative? Just keep throwing money at the London housing market?

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Traditionally, if you want to live somewhere expensive you needed to earn a good salary to pay for it.

    Maybe I am missing something, but I can’t see why working people – who may well be quite short of money – should be paying for the unemployed to live in prime areas they themselves couldn’t afford.

    The new ‘cap’ on housing benefit is £400 a week I believe. How many working families could afford that kind of money?

    The ‘outrage’ over this is just pathetic.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • “Not fun for those affected”?
    (a) It’s hardly an ordeal either;
    (b) The government is not responsible for providing fun.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Some perceptive comments:

    From the article: “200,000 people face losing their homes because private landlords enjoy a healthy rental market buoyed by young professionals”
    From the comments: “There just aren’t 200,000 young professionals ready and waiting to move into family homes in London.”

    “Strange when it hits London Labour gets excited – didn’t give a damn about social cleansing when they were in power in places like Cornwall.” [and many other expensive rural areas around the country]

    “Why should average working families in Leeds, Bristol, Liverpool, Glasgow, Cardiff, or anywhere else, pay higher taxes so that unemployed families can live in Kensington and Chelsea for free?”

    “I always thought it was strange how I have to pay an enormous amount of rent but my neighbour who is unemployed seems to get their flat for free.”

    “Why not ship them all off to Tuscany? It’s probably cheaper to rent large villas in the Tuscan hills than property in Central London, and the weather and the diet are a darned sight better too.”

    “I speak from experience. I myself was priced out of London, moved to the Home Counties and ultimately abroad. I am not alone. No politician wept a concerned tear for my fate. No politician lamented my departure or used it to talk of “social cleansing”. If adjusting one’s outgoings to one’s income is fascist, I guess I must be fascist. Funny that, I had always thought it was just plain common sense.”

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Drewster @5 said..
    “I always thought it was strange how I have to pay an enormous amount of rent but my neighbour who is unemployed seems to get their flat for free.”

    Whilst we would probably never be natural political allies, I’d agree that there is a stupidity in spending the absolutely huge amounts that are current in central London. This is co-joined to a notion that I find discomfort with expressing:IE That immigrants to this country should not assume to be entitled to the same safety net that the indigenous do.To base our social safety net on ‘need’ is to invite the creative of the world to exploit the countries resources.
    If you are supposedly fleeing for your life, no amount of ‘connection’ to others of your diaspora should entitle you to 2k a week B&B or a council flat ahead of our own children. I feel those immigrants in housing need should be put right at the back of any queue for two reasons.

    Natural fairness and justice towards those here for perhaps generations

    A signal back to Mogadishu or wherever that the road is one that must be only worthwhile treading if your life really is in danger – you have no ‘rights’ to connection or rights to live in our capital city…..it may be any place that the naturalised population find less than ‘desirable’.
    Travel the world and you’ll see why people find this tiny green island a magnet – we cant house everyone who takes a fancy to bettering themselves…..theres literally billions of them, and naturally so.

    I feel a ten year qualifying period to the greater benefits of our system should also be mandatory too…..and that we need a national conversation to define ‘we’.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • WON’T SOMEBODY PLEASE STOP AND THINK ABOUT THE CHILDREN??!

    etc.

    (and those poor buy to let landlords)

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • @ braindeed #6

    I agree with your comment @6

    should we be called racist ? I don’t think so, I think these views are socially fair and progressive.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • braindeed,

    Those aren’t my words, I was merely quoting from the comments below the article. Nevertheless I do agree with them all. I’m surprised you say “we would probably never be natural political allies”. If your political & economic views are pragmatic, based on real numbers, and in favour of best-value spending, then you’ll probably find we agree on many things.

    Labour MP John Cruddas’ use of the term “social cleansing” is an appeal to emotion, in an attempt to override rationality.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • “Now we have social clensing-unbelievable”

    Did you think that all of this had an end taffee, does terrorism?

    Welcome to the humble beginnings of the much awaited NWO.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • [email protected] said….

    ‘If your political & economic views are pragmatic, based on real numbers, and in favour of best-value spending,’

    ….thats a rather catch-all phrase, hard to argue with in it’s bald state.However, I regard the general thrust of the coalition policy towards the deficit to be ill-conceived, dangerous, and to have very little inherent ‘best-value’ intent. I think of them as basically class ridden and cruel – still think of me as a cohort?:-)

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Whats this? people atcully get £400/week for free to live in central london??? for doing nothing… this is a disgrace

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Come to that we already have a “socially cleansed” country, or rather socially segregated: the wealthy congregate in certain areas (large low density houses), the poor elsewhere. Mixing of people on different income bands is not found in many places I think. This is the path we are going down and this govt is set to continue along it.

    I’m interested in the people affected by this housing benefit cut. Were those living in expensive accommodation on benefits from the beginning, or did they lose their jobs, or were they immigrants/asylum seekers? Is this information available anywhere?

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Yes, it is rather a catch-all statement. It’s difficult to sum up a political position in so few words.

    If you’ll allow, I’ll divide your statement into two parts. There are the individuals who make up the two coalition parties, and then there are their policies. On the former: I’m sure that some Tory MPs, and probably some Lib Dems, harbour barely-concealed snobbery and cruel class-ridden views. I’ve never been comfortable with that element of either party.

    As for their policies, I don’t think it’s class-ridden or cruel to alter the system to ensure that the unemployed are always better-off working, and don’t suffer massive marginal tax rates as benefits are withdrawn. Nor do I think it’s particularly dangerous to lay off half a million public-sector workers (out of a total of over 6m) gradually over this five year parliamentary term; especially considering that since Labour came to power in 1997 the number of public-sector workers has risen by 914,000. (Source for both figures: Sunday Times.) I don’t blame the Tories for the cuts; I blame Labour for raising false hopes and for handing out massive numbers of jobs which simply weren’t sustainable in the long term. As I see it, Labour were bribing the electorate with their own money; and I’m glad that the people saw through it and rejected them.

    Incidentally, the cuts are nowhere near as severe as the media have been implying this week. Stephanie Flanders, the BBC economics editor, posted this graph on her blog [link] last week:

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • the point missed here imo is since when did the whole of london become so ‘great’ most of the parts I’ve seen are rubbish ares full of crime,drugs and all sorts which apparently people pay £500,000 to live in

    This is the delusional part……..75% of london is horrific which is why prices were so cheap in the early mid 90’s

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • btw there were no cuts as spending is set to increase until 2015…this just shows how much the public are zombies

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • @letthemfall,

    You can have socially mixed neighbourhoods without the hefty housing benefit bill, if you have a wide variety of different house types in the neighbourhood. Poor people can choose whether to live in a larger house in a shabby area or a tiny flat in a posh area. If you look at the nicest European cities, they often have such mixes. Unfortunately much of the UK isn’t developed that way, as our planning legislation inhibits it.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • rubbish….london and our cities have always has rubbish areas that no-one wants to live in we are no different,except that apparently the new new is that only wealthy people can afford to live within the m25…history says this is wrong and I am certain this will be proved so.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Prior to the election, I was no fan of our George – he didn’t present well, and seemed a bit of a twit..

    ..now I’m beginning to think that he’s actually a smart and tactical cookie, who maybe didn’t need his old school tie to impress DC..

    Why? Well, the HB issue had become a transparent and outrageous waste of taxpayers’ money, that needed to be addressed. Doing nothing in the face of an austerity progam was unthinkable – but what to do?

    Capping the weekly cost was an obvious call; but at what level?

    He could very easily have set the cap at something modest and reasonable – perhaps £1k pm for a three bed home; but he sussed that this would generate a self righteous backlash from those losing out..

    ..what he did was to set the cap at a level that few had any idea was actually being exceeded, and in itself caused outrage that such sums had ever been paid.

    He nevertheless expected a reaction – one that has now happened, and one that makes the opposiiton look rather stupid in the popular gaze..

    ..once their huffs and puffs are laughed away, he can come back and drop the cap..

    ..smart stuff..!

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Uncle Tom

    A very perceptive observation, clever indeed, if indeed he is as clever as you and that was indeed the plan.

    I see this as a Blackadder/Prince Regent situation. You being the smart Blackadder of course Uncle Tom.

    Perhaps you should write to him Uncle Tom and commend him on his cleverness on handling a difficult situation.

    But please be sure to point out to him how and why he’s been so clever (just in case he is as thick as a whale omlette)!

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • 12. drewster said…

    As I see it, Labour were bribing the electorate with their own money;………………nothing new there, don’t tell me, tell Sid

    I’m glad that the people saw through it and rejected them….yes they did reject NL…..BUT…this is a Conservative led coalition with no mandate to carry out this savagery, at least Labour won an election (we could argue over the figures, but please, don’t)

    Incidentally, the cuts are nowhere near as severe as the media have been implying this week……..they are if they affect you directly.

    A word you should look up: empathy

    Now lets just agree to disagree.We most certainly would sit in different coloured seats – don’t presume a moral superiority, I respect your right to a different opinion, even if I recoil from most people expressing it.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • braindeed,

    Yes I have empathy with the people losing their jobs. But what are we supposed to do with the people who are doing truly pointless or poor-value jobs? Should we just let them continue, digging the country into more debt and burdening the rest of us with more taxes?

    Yes those half-million people have mouths to feed, they might have a family to support and a mortgage to pay. But just because they are public-sector workers doesn’t mean they have a God-given right to a secure job, unlike workers in the private sector. I feel plenty of sympathy for private sector workers who lose their jobs too; but the state can’t and shouldn’t bail out every company that can’t compete in the global marketplace. Otherwise we’d all still be driving British Leyland cars and typing on Acorn computers.

    The best thing the government can do is soften the blow by offering decent redundancy packages & retraining programmes, and encourage growing companies to relocate to deprived areas. The worst thing they can do is carry on paying people to do work which is no longer wanted or needed – whether they are public-sector or private-sector workers. (Incidentally, I’d include bankers in the list of workers who shouldn’t have been bailed out by the government.)

    Yes you’re right, we would sit on different coloured seats. I’ll continue to respect your opinions too – I’m sure we’d agree on some issues, though clearly not all.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • drewster
    It does seem to be an article of faith that the public sector is replete with pointless jobs, a view that appears to be encouraged by some of the more curious job titles. I would suggest that the world is full of jobs that add little value to society – advertising, manufacturers of cheap goods that fall apart, public relations, etc, as well as the ghastly bankers and estate agents of course.

    The whole issue of the deficit is not so much a question of the country being in debt (it usually is anyway) but who is advantaged and disadvantaged by maintaining or reducing it. In general policy is dictated by the rich and powerful (our current crop of senior ministers plus “business leaders”); they certainly benefit, while the vulnerable are those most “in it”. In my view the emphasis should be placed on distributing wealth more evenly, which would address problems of economic inactivity and prevent the economy being dominated by a small group. The nordic countries have made progress this way.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • So you can still get £250 for a one bedroomed flat, that’s not bad. You can rent somewhere pretty decent for that money in London. In fact I wouldn’t want to pay much more than that myself, so what’s the problem?

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • 25. need-a-crash said.. so what’s the problem?

    The conditioning is doing it’s job I see.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



Add a comment

  • Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
  • Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user´s views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
  • Please adhere to the Guidelines

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>