Benefit wasters paid to move to expensive areas to lower rents/houseprices

mbga9pgf

No, depends on the culture. But going back to the OP where this started, I would say yes.

Why do you think lefties pander to "minorities" so much? Because someone needs to pay for the second home mortgage, and if yhou aint in power, it doesnt get paid.

ILW

chucky wrote: »

i don't think this is true - if you're non-english speaking you're not going to have a clue who to vote for. you don't read newspapers, you don't understand English speaking TV or the X-Factor style Election debates and you definetly won't be interested in Party Political broadcasts.

I believe many of the non english speaking immigrants will be wives, who in many cultures will just vote for who their husband tells them to.

carolt

I remember a perfectly charming lady from Pakistan I met, spoke v little English. She was under the impression that England and America were the same country. :eek:

I doubt she voted at all, but if she did, someone would definitely have needed to tell her what to do.

Silverbull

So ok what is the real reason they will pay people to move from jobless areas?

They must have a good reason for it?

WHA

Silverbull wrote: »

So ok what is the real reason they will pay people to move from jobless areas?

They must have a good reason for it?

Surely it will help to bring the high cost / low cost areas of the country closer together in the long term.

Just looking at housing, less demand in the expensive areas will result in downward pressure on rents, but increased demand in the cheap areas will result in upward pressure on rents.

Anything that stops the cheap/expensive divide must be a good thing.

The next stage should be regional variations in public sector pay which is an absolute travesty. In London, for example, a teacher would be hard pressed to have any quality of life on a teacher's salary, even with the London weighting, but in a deprived northern town, it's the teachers who'll be living in the big houses on the posh estates (I know that's exactly the case in my home town). Public sector workers in the South East and other expensive enclaves need a substantial increase, but those living in the cheaper areas should have pay frozen for quite some time to create a proper differentiation and bring PS salaries in line with regional salary variations in the private sector.

Silverbull

WHA wrote: »

Surely it will help to bring the high cost / low cost areas of the country closer together in the long term.

Just looking at housing, less demand in the expensive areas will result in downward pressure on rents, but increased demand in the cheap areas will result in upward pressure on rents.

Anything that stops the cheap/expensive divide must be a good thing.

The next stage should be regional variations in public sector pay which is an absolute travesty. In London, for example, a teacher would be hard pressed to have any quality of life on a teacher's salary, even with the London weighting, but in a deprived northern town, it's the teachers who'll be living in the big houses on the posh estates (I know that's exactly the case in my home town). Public sector workers in the South East and other expensive enclaves need a substantial increase, but those living in the cheaper areas should have pay frozen for quite some time to create a proper differentiation and bring PS salaries in line with regional salary variations in the private sector.

I can see why you say there will be downward pressure on rents in expensive areas. But how can there be upward pressure in the cheap areas that people are paid to move out of?

It seems to be downward pressure all round.

carolt

WHA wrote: »

Surely it will help to bring the high cost / low cost areas of the country closer together in the long term.

Just looking at housing, less demand in the expensive areas will result in downward pressure on rents, but increased demand in the cheap areas will result in upward pressure on rents.

Anything that stops the cheap/expensive divide must be a good thing.

The next stage should be regional variations in public sector pay which is an absolute travesty. In London, for example, a teacher would be hard pressed to have any quality of life on a teacher's salary, even with the London weighting, but in a deprived northern town, it's the teachers who'll be living in the big houses on the posh estates (I know that's exactly the case in my home town). Public sector workers in the South East and other expensive enclaves need a substantial increase, but those living in the cheaper areas should have pay frozen for quite some time to create a proper differentiation and bring PS salaries in line with regional salary variations in the private sector.

Totally agree.

Kirri

PasturesNew wrote: »

When I saw it on the telly, they were at Tower Hamlets and you could see the City over the trees. They then said that "these poor people here could move" and said "where there are jobs" and another man said "15-20 miles" and I didn't really understand.

If you're living in Tower Hamlets your immediate area is poor, but if you hop on that tube thing you're in London as soon as you like, with all the potential there. I had a friend who lived out in Herts and would catch the train into London to hand out bags at exhibitions for £10/hour when she was 17. So, there are jobs close by, that aren't minimum wage. So why move them?

Also, surely most people travel 15-20 miles to work.... so why move somebody's entire home just because there's a job 15 miles away? Doesn't compute.

How about this for an idea: PUBLISH THE BL00DY LIST OF WHERE THESE JOBS ARE .... SO THAT PEOPLE ALREADY LIVING IN THE AREA WILL KNOW. I've no idea where there might be jobs in the country, or jobs doing XYZ. I'd love to see such a list, but it doesn't exist.

The bloke on the telly was standing in somewhere that sounded like he said Roedean (?) and said there had been lots of jobs created there. He never said what sort of jobs. Maybe they were (past tense) in construction and now what's there is a bunch of empty offices ..... all fluff and no data.

This'll die a natural death.

They mentioned Roehampton in London on one of the tv reports on this, if that's what you were thinking of? It used to be a nice 'village' many years ago but it's now dominated from the 60's ish by a huge, horrible Council estate, think it was the first big council estate, and there is always trouble there. There is also mega expensive housing right near by, a massive new build going on at the moment too. But as for other jobs, the competition is fierce in London even for supermarket jobs!

carolt

Kirri wrote: »

They mentioned Roehampton in London on one of the tv reports on this, if that's what you were thinking of? It used to be a nice 'village' many years ago but it's now dominated from the 60's ish by a huge, horrible Council estate, think it was the first big council estate, and there is always trouble there. There is also mega expensive housing right near by, a massive new build going on at the moment too. But as for other jobs, the competition is fierce in London even for supermarket jobs!

No, it's not - London is full of jobs - plenty of shops still with notices on the door looking for staff.

If you can't get a job in London, frankly you're just not really trying.

Kirri

carolt wrote: »

No, it's not - London is full of jobs - plenty of shops still with notices on the door looking for staff.

If you can't get a job in London, frankly you're just not really trying.

I said the competition was fierce still, not that there are no jobs, don't misquote me!

Over 1000 people applied for a recent supermarket opening, admin jobs on Reed website for example, I saw one up to over 700 applicants last week although most aren't that high but you can't say there are not a lot of applicants for each job.