Housing Benefit Cuts?

[Dandyman]

Dandyman

The social mix of central Brighton has changed incredibly in the past two decades largely due to Grauniad reading, mid-high earners who have moved down from London.
What is the difference?

In London itself, the Isle of Dogs was 100% socially cleansed in the 1980s.
This issue is an old issue that was ignored by the liberal left consensus until the tories looked to cut housing benefit.

The difference Mona, my old drinking buddy, is that the DFLs are not forcing people out of social housing although they may be forcing up the prices of private accommodation.

 

[Tooting Gull]

Nothing to do with 'lefty' scaremongers, the tories were as open, if not more than labour about cuts, and why start a sentence 'and with respect' when you mean nothing of the sort ? before you start questioning my insight, have a look at your own , my helen keller analogy never questioned her intelligence, or ridiculed her, i just used it to demonstrate the obviousness to everybody the size and scale of cuts that would be needed, you, however , didnt want to see that, it would have scuppered your 'nasty tory' retort.

Trust me, I can't make the 'nasty Tory' case any better than you do yourself. As for your rather poor analogy, nice try, but epic fail on the escape from your hole.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

What about key workers? Carers and such like that have very low wages compared to the cost of living?

The key workers get paid though so add on housing benefit up to £400 and they can live in perfectly reasonable areas. I have a key worker in one of my flats and she gets some of her rent paid by housing benefit and she lives in the Preston Park area - hardly a sink estate.

In the past I've agreed with the RSCH a 10% key worker discount for any of their staff on any of my rental properties and I know I'm not the only landlord with that type of agreement for key workers.

The government is additionally telling social landlords to charge up to 80% of market rates which will in put into effect will also drive lower income families out of the inner cities.

Maybe I'm not reading this correctly but how is the government telling social landlords to charge 80% or the market rate ( rather than 100% ) a bad thing ?

 

[User removed 4]

As for your rather poor analogy, nice try, but epic fail on the escape from your hole.

Rubbish, you were just wrong,deal with it.

 

[Danny-Boy]

I see. So the famously pinko, muesli-munching, sandal-wearing, sun-dried-tomato-eating, woolly-minded liberal that is, err, Conservative London mayor Boris Johnson thinks these ConDem charlatans are shafting the poor and about to create ghettos. I think he might be right.

Maybe he wants to rehouse people on Boris Island....and make it a new country?

 

[mona]

The difference Mona, my old drinking buddy, is that the DFLs are not forcing people out of social housing although they may be forcing up the prices of private accommodation.

Point is that the issue is the same. To be pedantic, the Thatcherite idea of selling council housing had a far more devastating effect.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Point is that the issue is the same. To be pedantic, the Thatcherite idea of selling council housing had a far more devastating effect.

So true.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Maybe he wants to rehouse people on Boris Island....and make it a new country?

Boris is simply worried that the folk kicked out of the central bits of London will move to the 'burbs and affect his suburban heart land.

 

[k2bluesky]

I wonder what % of working Londoners actually earn over £54000 and could/would want to pay such huge rent for a house in town (far more likely to commute), bloody crazy making London's landlords rich at the taxpayers expense. Anyone out of work long time in central London should be moved out to cheaper areas or even given the 'average' pay of the country's workers around £24000 (then taxed) and told to find there own accommodation & pay their own bills as everyone else has to.

 

[drew]

Dictionary.com Unabridged

so its hardly going to create this problem, rather the opposite.

and why exactly is this even a problem. as i understand it, its a peculiarity of the UK that the inner residential areas of our cities are the place of the poor. i dont believe that it will really change much anyway, not in the wholesale way its being presented.

for perspective £400pw is £1600pm. thats a lot even in London and would only impact a few boroughs there and in other cities. no one against it is explaining why should we subsidise the unemployed to live in expensive accomodation, while middle income people cannot afford to live there - ironically then having to commute from cheaper areas? doesnt make alot of sence does it?

the "community" issue is a bit of an emotional red herring imo, one of the first things people from inner London areas do when they have the money/opportunity is move out of the area, to the suburbs or bordering counties.

maybe it is, but for who? i dont mind either way.

i respect the community ideal, just have observed how people tend to migrate away from the inner city as the opportunity presents. a mate lived in Bermondsey all his life, his dad and 3 sisters have all left, his girlfriend's family have similarly all moved out of Wapping where they grew up. their reasons are many, and they all talk about the community too, yet all sought a better life (in their opinion) for their families somewhere else. Another community replaces the old, people join new communities else where. waves of immigration over time have meant places and their communities change, but now we think its time to set them in stone?

The point is the social level of the area remains the same though because as the existing residents may proper and move out, they are replaced by poorer ones, normally through immigration. It's not just the inner cities that people leave. Look at rural communities where locals are unable to compete for properties.

The problem is that the cap is not just £400 because that is for a 4 bedroom property. There is a sliding scale for example, £290 per week for a two bedroom property.

As much as I don't like Boris, I think he is right in what he is saying. This is a politically motivated move rather than anything to do with austerity measures.

Get the poor out of inner cities and that paves the way for 'regeneration' and private profit. The downside is that when the poor leave the inner cities then they go somewhere else and become someone elses problem.

The downside of moving low paid out of these areas is then that they are not available to do the menial tasks for which they get their low pay, ie cleaning hospitals, schools and all the other tasks that the middleclass and above expect others to do for them.

Unfortunatley, it seems this coalition is hell bent on making policy based on their political ideals of minimising the state and on anecdotal stories from the likes of the Daily Mail that are then perceived by many to be the norm rather than the exception. The credit crunch and subsequent deficit are convenient excuses to justify their actions.

 

[beorhthelm]

The point is the social level of the area remains the same though

if that were entirely true, there wouldnt be the high rents in these areas. the gentrifcation and change to the community has already taken place. i wonder how real rather than imagined some are. London in particular i very splintered. Herr Tubthumper quite rightly points out above Boris is probably worried about the Labour voters moving out to the blue suburbs, i suspect the Labour MPs are concerned for the same reasons.

This is a politically motivated move rather than anything to do with austerity measures.

Get the poor out of inner cities and that paves the way for 'regeneration' and private profit.

of course its political. the political idea that the government cant keep spending more than it receives in tax. but so is the oppostion, who think its inherently wrong to regenerate or make a profit.

The downside of moving low paid out of these areas is then that they are not available to do the menial tasks for which they get their low pay, ie cleaning hospitals, schools and all the other tasks that the middleclass and above expect others to do for them.

that is a concern. however there will still be cheaper accomodation close (ie a bus ride away) to these facilities and social housing, though i believe it would be better if policies where coordinated to increase this where needed. I still havent seen the case made for why the state should subsidise the unemployed to live in expensive central locations. those in low pay jobs often dont qualify for the housing benefit, so have to live further away from those jobs you mention.

The credit crunch and subsequent deficit are convenient excuses to justify their actions.

the deficit is not the product of the recession, its due to planing to spending than received. yes, its a political ideal to have a smaller state based mostly on principles and what the treasury accounts show, rather than what the Daily Outrage says. i know you and others dont agree with that, though its good to get discussion to the level of principles and ideology rather than petty swipes at totems.

 

[Castello]

I still havent seen the case made for why the state should subsidise the unemployed to live in expensive central locations. those in low pay jobs often dont qualify for the housing benefit, so have to live further away from those jobs you mention.

The point you are missing and continue to fail to see, is that tenants dont set rent levels. If rents are too high and and are not met by HB the poor and unemployed witll be forced out of the areas they live and more importantly work. If they have to travel a long way to work they will be paying out more on transport and spending more time away from home.

I appreciate that tories outside of london dont care about these people, but as someone whos job it is to work with the poor and unemployed I do. I also would like to live in a city that is balanced between rich and poor, rather than having a centre that is a richmans playgound and the outskirts filled with sink estates. This is the mess that is Paris, Londoners dont want that.

I do feel rather exasperated that the quality of life in london will grow worse because of the ideology of tories outside london. It is very revealing that tories inside London are opposed to this idea because they can see first hand what the effect will be on London.

What is needed is some form of rent control , either through statute or through taxation. This will keep rents down and save tax money.

It would mean however that landlords would make less money. Which is the real issue. This policy isnt about saving tax money its about moving money from the poor to the rich.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

The point you are missing and continue to fail to see, is that tenants dont set rent levels. If rents are too high and and are not met by HB the poor and unemployed witll be forced out of the areas they live and more importantly work. If they have to travel a long way to work they will be paying out more on transport and spending more time away from home.

This city is my home town yet the wages are so low here I have to go further afield to earn enough to live here. Why should those receiving HB not have to do the same thing ?

It would mean however that landlords would make less money. Which is the real issue. This policy isnt about saving tax money its about moving money from the poor to the rich.

I've seen a number of people make this statement but I fail to see how landlords will make more money. Most landlords that take HB tenants do so because there aren't enough private renters to fill all the privately rented property. I would suspect there will be a glut of empty properties meaning landlords make less not more.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Most landlords that take HB tenants do so because there aren't enough private renters to fill all the privately rented property. I would suspect there will be a glut of empty properties meaning landlords make less not more.

I do not think it is anything to do with their not being enough private renters. Professional landlords make a choice, either buy cheap poorly maintained property and offer it to HB tenants or buy nice well maintained property and go down a private rental route. In the main, and at the professional level, HB and private rentals are two very distinct markets in London.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

This city is my home town yet the wages are so low here I have to go further afield to earn enough to live here. Why should those receiving HB not have to do the same thing ?

Why not look at it from another angle? Maybe we should do something to enable you, and others, to be able to live AND work here? Then surely everyone is happy?

How far do you have to travel out of interest?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

The point you are missing and continue to fail to see, is that tenants dont set rent levels. If rents are too high and and are not met by HB the poor and unemployed witll be forced out of the areas they live and more importantly work. If they have to travel a long way to work they will be paying out more on transport and spending more time away from home.

I appreciate that tories outside of london dont care about these people, but as someone whos job it is to work with the poor and unemployed I do. I also would like to live in a city that is balanced between rich and poor, rather than having a centre that is a richmans playgound and the outskirts filled with sink estates. This is the mess that is Paris, Londoners dont want that.

I do feel rather exasperated that the quality of life in london will grow worse because of the ideology of tories outside london. It is very revealing that tories inside London are opposed to this idea because they can see first hand what the effect will be on London.

What is needed is some form of rent control , either through statute or through taxation. This will keep rents down and save tax money.

It would mean however that landlords would make less money. Which is the real issue. This policy isnt about saving tax money its about moving money from the poor to the rich.

You make a good point about the tenants not setting the rents. The idea that someone could be forced to loose their home for something which is not their fault is horrible. A possible way around this is to apply the new cap to new HB applicants.

You also make a good point about rent control. If the ultimate aim is to drive down rents then the government should directly control the rents....dont try and do it indirectly via a HB cap. Seems to be an arse-about-face way of going about things. If you want to do something, er, do it. It is done in other countries so there is no reason why it cannot be done here.

 

[beorhthelm]

The point you are missing and continue to fail to see, is that tenants dont set rent levels.

true, but they do usually chose where to live. rent control would be a good idea probably, its a shame the debate hasnt raised alternatives like this rather than just bash the policy. i dont see how its anything to do with protecting landlords income, which do very nicly out of the current arrangement, i dare say many will be out of pocket as they have to spruce up properties to be competitve on the open market.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

true, but they do usually chose where to live. .

Part choice, part circumstances I'd say.

 

[BLOCK F]

How about all the modestly paid staff in shops such as Selfridges,Harrods and Harvey Nicks....bet they don't live near the job and so have to live further out and travel in.
Why should the unemployed and others live, at the tax payers expense, in expensive areas they couldn't normally dream about?

 

[drew]

How about all the modestly paid staff in shops such as Selfridges,Harrods and Harvey Nicks....bet they don't live near the job and so have to live further out and travel in.
Why should the unemployed and others live, at the tax payers expense, in expensive areas they couldn't normally dream about?

So you think that all the people in London on HB live in the posh swanky areas. Perhaps you need to get out more.