London. Housing benefit claimants shifted outside the capital

ruggedtoast

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/nov/04/london-boroughs-housing-families-outside-capital

Local authorities in London are preparing to send thousands of homeless families to live in temporary homes outside the capital, in defiance of ministerial demands that people should continue to be housed locally.

Councils are acquiring properties in Kent, Essex, Hertfordshire, Berkshire, Sussex and further afield to cope with an expected surge in numbers of vulnerable families presenting as homeless as a result of welfare cuts from next April.

No prizes for guessing what The Guardian thinks about this, or their unqualified support of "vulnerable" families; a panoply the Left uses to cover everyone who fills out a benefit form whether they are vulnerable or not.

Hopefully this will free up space for people who really are vulnerable and provide a little desperately needed relief to private tenants who have seen the State drive market rents up to salary consuming proportions.

I have never once seen a convincing argument why the State has to provide a blank cheque to private landlords to house people, when private tenants have to manage from their own, post tax income.

Loughton_Monkey

ruggedtoast wrote: »

.....I have never once seen a convincing argument why the State has to provide a blank cheque to private landlords to house people, when private tenants have to manage from their own, post tax income.

I like this section of the gripe:

Councils expect a wave of legal challenges from homeless residents who will cite government guidance to argue that their offer of accommodation outside the capital is "unsuitable" because of the impact on their health or their children's education, according to a new study published by the charity Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG).

I wonder what long-standing benefits claimants in Kent, Essex, Hertfordshire etc. think about their London colleagues moving in and moaning that it's bad health and bad education around here....

paddyrg

Seeing as half of Farnborough was built as a GLC overflow estate, this is hardly radical

the_flying_pig

paddyrg wrote: »

Seeing as half of Farnborough was built as a GLC overflow estate, this is hardly radical

yep, for people who couldn't afford to live in london/who there wasn't room for.

not unlike this new generation of 'evacuees'.

Rochdale_Pioneers

The entertaining thing about this is the part about councils acting in defiance of government decrees to maintain local housing. The housing minister decreed that landlords would drop their rents so no one would have to be moved away. Because a forced exodus of the poor from London looks bad. And what have we seen? Demand outstrips supply regardless of a small number of DSS families no longer being potential tenants, no drop in rents and so the ministerial fiction is exposed.

The Tories kept spinning this as money paid to tenants when it has always been paid directly to landlords. They also spin the nonsense that benefit claimants push rents upwards - both are demolished here by reality. Supply and demand has pushed rents up as the public sector of the market was drastically reduced and the private sector left to structure itself as it sees fit to extract the most cash from a public sector that can't have homeless kids or key workers like nurses unable to afford rent.

And lets be clear, it won't stop here. Essential but low paid public sector jobs in the NHS and councils across the sarfeast are already having big problems finding places for their workers to live at rents they can afford. If you want to stop soaring rents you either cut demand or increase supply. There was a reason why the mandatory sale of council house stock and the ban on replacing them was a bad idea, and this is it.

MacMickster

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

The entertaining thing about this is the part about councils acting in defiance of government decrees to maintain local housing. The housing minister decreed that landlords would drop their rents so no one would have to be moved away. Because a forced exodus of the poor from London looks bad. And what have we seen? Demand outstrips supply regardless of a small number of DSS families no longer being potential tenants, no drop in rents and so the ministerial fiction is exposed.

It was always clear that a large number of families reliant solely on benefits, were effectively living beyond not only their means, but the means of families where all adults worked.

The true picture of supply and demand (and hence market rents) for rented property in London will not emerge until all of these families are relocated to areas where there is less cost to the public purse.

robin_banks

MacMickster wrote: »

It was always clear that a large number of families reliant solely on benefits, were effectively living beyond not only their means, but the means of families where all adults worked.

The true picture of supply and demand (and hence market rents) for rented property in London will not emerge until all of these families are relocated to areas where there is less cost to the public purse.

These areas also happen to be where there are less jobs. As an increasing number of HB claimants happen to be in work, many could find themselves in the position of having to give up a job......

GeorgeHowell

It's like the two children benefits limit proposal again. Those who want to work have to go where the work is, even if a less desirable and convenient place to live. Those on benefits have a sense of entitlement that they can live wherever they want, on the state.

When we see the BBC and Guardian protesting and publishing hard luck stories about this proposal -- if they haven't already -- we'll know for sure that it's a goodun'.

Conrad

Society is attempting to re-establish strange notions such as self responsibility, living within means and planning for the future.

My family tree is full of examples of folk moving according to work and means. No one died of moving home. I moved many times as a child - how ever did I cope!

zygurat789

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

The Tories kept spinning this as money paid to tenants when it has always been paid directly to landlords. They also spin the nonsense that benefit claimants push rents upwards - both are demolished here by reality. Supply and demand has pushed rents up as the public sector of the market was drastically reduced and the private sector left to structure itself as it sees fit to extract the most cash from a public sector that can't have homeless kids or key workers like nurses unable to afford rent.

And lets be clear, it won't stop here. Essential but low paid public sector jobs in the NHS and councils across the sarfeast are already having big problems finding places for their workers to live at rents they can afford. If you want to stop soaring rents you either cut demand or increase supply. There was a reason why the mandatory sale of council house stock and the ban on replacing them was a bad idea, and this is it.

But these low paid employees can claim housing benefit and the government goes on trying to buck the market.
If these low paid jobs are required in a high cost area then the rate for the job is obviously higher and if that results in higher council tax then those that live there must pay it.
There should be a fair rate for the job and then there would be no need for tax credits or housing benefit with the accompanying reduction in taxation!
So many of the ills in our society yoday have been caused by governments trying to futilely buck the market.

Loughton_Monkey

Conrad wrote: »

Society is attempting to re-establish strange notions such as self responsibility, living within means and planning for the future......

Wish that were true, except there is no such thing as 'Society'. That must be true because Maggie said so (see below).

Sadly, our governments don't seem to be encouraging it. The BBC certainly isn't.

I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand “I have a problem, it is the Government's job to cope with it!” or “I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!” “I am homeless, the Government must house me!” and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbour and life is a reciprocal business and people have got the entitlements too much in mind without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation....