London council's 'social cleansing' of housing benefit tenants

RenovationMan

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17821018

"A London council has been accused of starting "social cleansing" in the capital by asking a Stoke-on-Trent housing association to take on up to 500 families on housing benefit.

Newham Council says it can no longer afford to house tenants on its waiting list in private accommodation.

The gap between market rents and the housing allowance is too big, it says.

But the association says such a move could mark the start of "thousands of needy people" being dumped elsewhere.

Labour MPs say the decision to seek accommodation outside London is proof that the government's policy of capping housing benefit is already "beginning to unravel". "

If these people are unemployed, then I don't see the point in housing them in an economic hub like London, they might as well sit on their couches and watch Jeremy Kyle in Stoke as in London. This will simply allow us taxpayers to help house more layabouts per tax £.

This is real progress. If these people want to stay in London, then they can get jobs like the rest of us. There are plenty to be had in the Capital.

StevenMarks

I agree.

Where were the complaints when the middle classes were socially cleansed out of areas of London due to prices rising so only the rich or those on HB could afford to live there?

Get the HB claimants out and maybe rents will start to decrease.

Taadaa

I wouldn't use such a loaded term as social cleansing, however this is clearly not going to suit all those affected.

They might well have some sort of part time work. What about families and schools? What about Stoke - maybe they don't want a load of Londoners potentially taking their jobs and houses. Some may want to go - fair enough - but people shouldn't be forced to leave. Especially those who are born and bred Londoners. An inability to get a decent paid job isn't actually that unusual these days, and claiming housing benefit doesn't automatically make you a loafer. Don't quite understand why they have picked Stoke and only Stoke either.

chewmylegoff

Taadaa wrote: »

I wouldn't use such a loaded term as social cleansing, however this is clearly not going to suit all those affected.

They might well have some sort of part time work. What about families and schools? What about Stoke - maybe they don't want a load of Londoners potentially taking their jobs and houses. Some may want to go - fair enough - but people shouldn't be forced to leave. Especially those who are born and bred Londoners. An inability to get a decent paid job isn't actually that unusual these days, and claiming housing benefit doesn't automatically make you a loafer. Don't quite understand why they have picked Stoke and only Stoke either.

All these ifs and buts ignore the fact that there is a huge deficit and a massive housing benefit bill which need to be cut. Yeah it's not particularly nice, but that's just tough.

I expect they picked stoke cos its cheap.

IronWolf

I know a french person that came to London, could barely speak English, and obviously had no entitlements to benefits. She managed to find a job within 2 days.

So I really dont have much sympathy, ship them all out and stop pushing up rents for the rest of us.

Norman_Castle

ship them all out and stop pushing up rents for the rest of us.

Does "us" include the people of Stoke?

Graham_Devon

It's more political warfare than social cleansing.

This sort of thing was happening before the caps on welfare, and it wasn't seen as social cleansing then, it was seen as a housing crisis. Of course, the landscape has now changed, HPI has gone, and the housing crisis has suddenly turned into the only thing keeping values where they are, so now it's social cleansing.

It will be whatever the media / politicians want it to be at the time, depending on what results they wish for.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It's more political warfare than social cleansing.

It's no coincidence that the council involved is 100% labour. It's quite a nice move - send the most 'challenging' families to another council, let them deal with their challenges and blame the government for it. When crime falls in Newham they can then take the credit for that too.

The government must tough this one out. If someone is 100% reliant on the taxpaying public for their living costs it seems that providing free housing in one of the worlds most expensive cities is somewhat illogical.

ILW

Apparently there are around 1000 families on the social housing waiting list in Stoke already. Cannot see them being too pleased.

Loughton_Monkey

So what happened to the bright idea about the 'legacy' of the 2012 Olympics?

After the Games, the Olympic and Paralympic Village will be a lasting legacy of essential new housing for east London. It will be transformed into 2,800 new homes, including 1,379 affordable homes.

Quoted from the official London2012 site.

FTBFun

StevenMarks wrote: »

I agree.

Where were the complaints when the middle classes were socially cleansed out of areas of London due to prices rising so only the rich or those on HB could afford to live there?

Get the HB claimants out and maybe rents will start to decrease.

I've lived in some pretty nice areas of London as a private tenant. Where are these places you are talking about?