"London housing benefit claimant numbers soaring..." - The Guardian

kabayiri

Killmark wrote: »

...
Then again most jobs there are paying NMW but the cheapest rent on a small 2 bed flat you'll find here would cost you around £800-850.

I wonder if this is the future then ?

Low income jobs with the state subsidising the extra living costs ?

I did wonder how low earners could survive in London with the high cost of rent.

Is it better to subsidise via rent, or ship people in from cheaper areas ?

Killmark

kabayiri wrote: »

I wonder if this is the future then ?

Low income jobs with the state subsidising the extra living costs ?

I did wonder how low earners could survive in London with the high cost of rent.

Thats the tendency, have a look at other schemes so as the work programme or previously the future jobs fund.

kabayiri wrote: »

Is it better to subsidise via rent, or ship people in from cheaper areas ?

Neither, let the laws of supply and demand play out and remove subsidies.

Part of the problem is how LHA works, if it was a flat rate across the entirety of London (plus surrounding boroughs) and set to cover "reasonable" living costs then some will move in and some will move out from London and its outer boroughs.

You would probably find that wages would increase for the lowest paid as a result, rents would likely be unchanged but you would find far more economically active people living there as a result which should boost the local economy.

FTBFun

Road_Hog wrote: »

There you go, you can't help yourself can you? You describe people as racist and then get surprised when they call you a Marxist.

You graduated from the Frankfurt School and here are your founding principles.

1. The creation of racism offences.
2. Continual change to create confusion
3. The teaching of sex and homosexuality to children
4. The undermining of schools’ and teachers’ authority
5. Huge immigration to destroy identity.
6. The promotion of excessive drinking
7. Emptying of churches
8. An unreliable legal system with bias against victims of crime
9. Dependency on the state or state benefits
10. Control and dumbing down of media
11. Encouraging the breakdown of the family

What a ridiculous list.

"Emptying of churches" is Marxism. Brilliant.

FTBFun

kabayiri wrote: »

I did wonder how low earners could survive in London with the high cost of rent.

House/flatsharing.

I would not be surprised if there was an increase in the number of HMOs.

StevieJ

Optimist wrote: »

No fan of Nu Labour, actually I am not a big fan of any of them but for the sake of clarity it was the Matrimonial Causes act 1973 section 11d to be precise. Basically it means that if all parties are domiciled outside the UK when said marriages take place then they can be considered to be lawful when those parties come to the UK.
.

Thanks for that, so the culprit was Tory Teddy boy:) a good job the Osmonds didn't get wind of that, you know how they breed :eek:

Road_Hog

Optimist wrote: »

No fan of Nu Labour, actually I am not a big fan of any of them but for the sake of clarity it was the Matrimonial Causes act 1973 section 11d to be precise. Basically it means that if all parties are domiciled outside the UK when said marriages take place then they can be considered to be lawful when those parties come to the UK.

There is actually quite a bit in various legislations about it but that is the main one.

I need to check up on it and will come back to the thread if it is still going, but your point (and a valid one) is about the marriages itself and mine was more about the right to claim benefits for all four wives and offspring. It was also the point that the legislation was specifically for up to *four* wives which is an odd number (as is oddity, not odds and evens), except for the fact that one particular religion allows up to four wives.

Road_Hog

FTBFun wrote: »

What a ridiculous list.

"Emptying of churches" is Marxism. Brilliant.

Not ridiculous at all. Marxism like all far Left ideologies demands obedience to the State first and foremost, it puts the state before the individual.

Therefore anything that binds people together as a group and has them pledging allegiance to anything other than the state must not be tolerated and must be broken.

It's why any country that is run by Marxists or the far Left, has complete state control. Remember NuLabour who made us the country with the most CCTV per head, ID cards (only dropped because of the election), the bin police (they were going to pay people to report on their neighbours) and much more.

That's the way that they work, people united together (by religion or any other means) present opposition, divide and conquer is the way to rule. So yes, having people that go to church and are generally law abiding and share many idealisms are not good, in the opinion of Marxists.

A._Badger

Road_Hog wrote: »

Not ridiculous at all. Marxism like all far Left ideologies demands obedience to the State first and foremost, it puts the state before the individual.

Therefore anything that binds people together as a group and has them pledging allegiance to anything other than the state must not be tolerated and must be broken.

It's why any country that is run by Marxists or the far Left, has complete state control. Remember NuLabour who made us the country with the most CCTV per head, ID cards (only dropped because of the election), the bin police (they were going to pay people to report on their neighbours) and much more.

That's the way that they work, people united together (by religion or any other means) present opposition, divide and conquer is the way to rule. So yes, having people that go to church and are generally law abiding and share many idealisms are not good, in the opinion of Marxists.

Perhaps more to the point is that cries of 'rubbish' could be avoided, and people wouldn't seem quite so ill-informed, if they took the trouble to read the history of 'cultural Marxism' and its spread from the effective expulsion of the Frankfurt school, in 1923, to the USA. They might want to read a little about the huge influence of Gramsci, too.

These are easily researched historical facts, not in dispute (though the interpretation of their significance might be).

Ilya_Ilyich

why are you so defensive of racism seriously

Road_Hog

Ilya_Ilyich wrote: »

why are you so defensive of racism seriously

Why are you waving the racism card? And who has said anything racist on this thread?

Sorry, but I just laugh at people like you who start frothing about racism where none exists.