Costs soar as Labour voters told to pay their way

Jennifer_Jane

BobQ wrote: »

I take your point that enforced change is something that happens and its quite possible that its beneficial for children.

When it happens to people in work who have opportunities to move or are required to move, most employers help with the costs and dates can be negotiated to minimise disruption to education.

But is it really something that should be imposed on people on low incomes at times that are disruptive of their education? Sure some may enjoy it and if it helps the parents get a job there are some benefits for the children in the longer term. But in many cases it will just serve to reduce opportunities for the children who become casualties of this process.

I don't believe that children automatically become "casualties" of this process. In fact, as I previously said, children become - in general, as neither of us have any statistics do we - stronger and more flexible. It also helps to create a diverse society, and in a globally-competing society, isn't that what we need?

Of course there will be some children who prefer the lives they left behind, but equally some children may be glad to move.

MacMickster

I am amazed that anyone is suggesting that chilfren are somehow victims of this policy.

Surely, for years, the victims have been the children of those who work in the city, and consequently see little of at least one of their parents due to a long day at work with an hour and a half commute on each end.
Then, should that working parent suddenly find themselves redundant, they find themselves uprooted by the move to somewhere more affordable.

Most families have to cut their cloth according to their means. Why anyone should think that this should not apply to the unemployed is beyond me.

Conrad

I was an army child and moved home about 10 times. Can I get some compo for this trauma?

Conrad

ruggedtoast wrote: »

One of the most strongly held belief of left wing middle class intellectuals is that the working classes require endless dispiriting patronage.

The irony of decades of left wing progressive policy is that huge numbers of children growing up in irresponsible workshy households have effectively had their horizons and latent aspirant nature crushed out of existence by the state.

Progressive my £a.rse.

ruggedtoast

MacMickster wrote: »

I am amazed that anyone is suggesting that chilfren are somehow victims of this policy.

Surely, for years, the victims have been the children of those who work in the city, and consequently see little of at least one of their parents due to a long day at work with an hour and a half commute on each end.
Then, should that working parent suddenly find themselves redundant, they find themselves uprooted by the move to somewhere more affordable.

Most families have to cut their cloth according to their means. Why anyone should think that this should not apply to the unemployed is beyond me.

One of the most repeated complaints in the comments is that many of the benefit cap 'victims' work and therefore should be immune.

The woman in the article for example works, as a cleaner, for four entire hours a day.

Jennifer_Jane

Conrad wrote: »

The irony of decades of left wing progressive policy is that huge numbers of children growing up in irresponsible workshy households have effectively had their horizons and latent aspirant nature crushed out of existence by the state.

Progressive my £a.rse.

And another irony is that the people who are strongest for this policy are often those who ensure their little darlings do their homework, pay out for music lessons, and go off for their holidays to their second homes in the Charente. They intrinsically believe that they have more humanity and are "plus sympathique" than the rest of us who only see the result of decades of the welfare state destroying creativity, innovation, and aspiration.

Edited to say that, of course, I'm glad and grateful we live in a society where there is a welfare state. It's not the welfare state, per se, I'm talking about, it's the "bloat" in the welfare state.

atush

Well, my second house may be in Brittany rather than the warmer Charente, but I am against the 'everyone who wants to can live in London if they don't work ' brigade.

I too believe in the welfare state, and free medical care. But I have seen it become expanded and abused to such a state, even in the 20+ years I have lived here to see it needs changing. And this is one change.

I'd also like to see a limit on the number of children you can have (ie be paid for ). Obv they would have to start it new claimants only, but if you knew you wouldn't get extra for each new one and you couldn't afford it yourself, you would not have them. This is what happened in the USA when Clinton put in such restrictions, the birth rate dropped for welfare claimants. Some researchers/academics say this is being seen in lower crime rates 20 years later?

I found out I was having twins (was my second birth) and I really felt like throwing myself under a bus as I knew it was more than we could afford at the time but I had to make do. Wouldn't have chosen to have 3 children as at the time as I knew I could not afford it. Just like even now I can't afford Westminster even though we can afford a holiday home.

I would not be averse to those who don't show up for GP appointments being charged a fee either.

StevieJ

kabayiri wrote: »

We may be relatively impoverished up here in NW, but we certainly don't all flock to the footballer parts of leafy cheshire demanding to be rehomed at taxpayer expense. It's a challenging notion, but here poor people live in poor areas!

The problem in London is that the poor areas like the east end have been taken over and gentrified, not the same thing as poorer people suddenly upping sticks and moving to Prestbury.

BobQ

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

I don't believe that children automatically become "casualties" of this process. In fact, as I previously said, children become - in general, as neither of us have any statistics do we - stronger and more flexible. It also helps to create a diverse society, and in a globally-competing society, isn't that what we need?

Of course there will be some children who prefer the lives they left behind, but equally some children may be glad to move.

I did not say this, and agree that many will enjoy a change as I said. Yes it will have all sorts of positive benefits that should be welcomed. But the idea that it has no negative impacts on individual children should not be assumed.

MacMickster wrote: »

I am amazed that anyone is suggesting that chilfren are somehow victims of this policy.

Surely, for years, the victims have been the children of those who work in the city, and consequently see little of at least one of their parents due to a long day at work with an hour and a half commute on each end.
Then, should that working parent suddenly find themselves redundant, they find themselves uprooted by the move to somewhere more affordable.

Most families have to cut their cloth according to their means. Why anyone should think that this should not apply to the unemployed is beyond me.

Well if you accept that the children of those who work long hours or who move due to redundancy are casualties then I do not see why the children of benefits claimants forced to move could also become casualties through disrupted education. In my view the are all victims. The only difference is that the examples you give are caused by the impact of global capitalism whereas those arising from benefits policies are caused by actions enacted in the name of taxpayers. I can see the argument that misery should be shared fairly, I am just not as comfortable about it as you and others seem to be.

BobQ

CLAPTON wrote: »

So your solution is for ordinary taxpayers to continue paying rents of up to £100,000pa to unemployed people?

There is a good argument for people who just arrive in expensive areas and expect that lifestyle to be subsidised to be required to live in a less expensive area.

But moving people who have lived in an area for a significant period is a slippery slope that will create areas where only rich people or only poor people live. If this is intended to save money fine but in the long term you will create social problems through better off people living in areas with better schools and hospitals and poorer people stuck in areas that have worse facilities. This may be fair in the short-term but I think we will reap what we are sowing here in the long term.

olly300 wrote: »

You live in a nice bubble.

The multi-nationals I've worked for haven't given a damn about forcing people to move at a moments notice. I ended up taking one of them to an employment tribunal with this point as one of my many complaints.

Talking to other people it's the same - as soon as companies get Americanised they expect you to move locations at the drop of a hat.


In regards to moving countries I've found that it's people in the other country not the British or Americans who are more flexible and reasonable with dates.