Work or be homeless!

SquatNow

http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&forumID=4222&edition=1&ttl=20080206014924

Should unemployed council tenants be made to look for work?

New council tenants should be made to look for work or risk the possibility of being evicted says new housing minister Caroline Flint. Will this proposal work?

Well it's the next step towards the work camps... you can see how public opinion has changed. What was considered a joke when I said it might happen is now being openly proposed by people on BBCs "have your say".

Most Popular Response to the BBC HYS item:

If they don't want to work, let's house them in communal hostels. If the conditions are bad, that's just tough.
If you don't like it, get off your backside and get a job. It's what the rest of us have to do.
Andrew Carter, London, United Kingdom
Recommended by 343 people.

So when people lose their homes due to repossession, putting them in mass accomodation wont be as unpopular as some might imagine.

I'm sure Ms Flint was only making noise to distract from other problems in government, but, lets face it, the response from the public wasn't as negative as you would have expected.

My original story for anyone that cares: http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=608253

MadSebW

I think it's a shame that there are people out there taking for granted what the council will give them. It's a hard one to judge because tbh i don't know anybody in a council home with the exception of one friend and her husband. They live rent/council tax free and receive regular money. Her husband is crippled and they have 2 small children. They privately for 20 years until her husbands disability caused him to no longer work at the same timing as the arrival of their first. The situation for them was awful and devestating and both having worked since forever, the council helped them as they rightly deserved. Every situation is different. More commonly you hear of teenagers and enonormous families taking the mick out of this and gives every tenant a bad name.

I really think the council need to come down hard on who they allow to rent from them. I think a job should be a must and for those who are jobless and homeless, the hostel idea sounds about right. If they really investigated the applications i bet they would find a good load of people who are just unwilling.

Example.. My Mum's friend's Daughter got pregnant at 15 because she wanted something entertaining, which she more or less admits.. She dropped from school, had several bf's, turned 18 and lives at home in her Mum and Dad's small 2 bed house rent free with the worse attitude in the world. She applied for the council and instantly she's put in high band.
My Husband and I have both worked hard since we were young teens, we have 2 small children one a boy of 9 months and a girl of 2 yrs and my Husband is still working his butt off. We tried desperately to rent, but couldnt afford a 3 bed so we live with my Mum, paying our way and practically homeless because this is her home not ours. We have been here for a year and thank god just got offered a shared ownership house.. BUT the council took our application and put us in LOW band.

There really isnt much difference in us and the friend's Daughter other than:
1. we have an income
2. we have TWO children of different sex
3. we don't want it for free!!

Where is the help for us? People willing to help themselves, to pay their way and try to make the best out of a community? We get put in a band that isn't high enough to bid for more than a bedsit.

That is where the system is wrong.

Sorry for the rambling..

Running_Horse

SquatNow wrote: »

Well it's the next step towards the work camps...

No it isn't, there have never been more people claiming benefits despite a booming jobs market. It's the next (failed) step into trying to shift the rump of one million lazy gits who refuse to work, instead of just reducing benefits and making them compete with the million Poles who came to this country and got work the next day.

On our estate they used to hang around outside waiting for the postman to deliver the giro, instead of getting off their backsides and looking for work. Nothing to do with Incpacity Benefit, they were proud of abusing the system.

We have a system of social housing that encourages failure, deceit, and outright lies to get priority. What would be wrong with giving priority to the young engaged low paid couple, who don't get pregnant and pretend to get their parents to throw them out?

Generali

Wilbur Wilberforce worked out it is immoral to live of the work of another. It's what welfare recipients do.

I have no problem working to provide for those unable to work through old age or ill health. The majority on welfare are working and perfectly able to continue doing so and it's a mystery to me why the Govt feels the need to tax them with one hand and subsidise their wages with the other!

slipthru

Generali wrote: »

The majority on welfare are working and perfectly able to continue doing so and it's a mystery to me why the Govt feels the need to tax them with one hand and subsidise their wages with the other!

That's a good point and it leaves the system open for more abuse this way too.

lynzpower

The problem is they CANT put loads of families in hostels, due to thier very own (!!) HMO regs.

As a social worker, I did actually have a quite a few clients that asked me if I could help them find work :T

The only problem were:
They wouldnt earn enough in total to be able to afford the top up in rent ( london rents) after the HB reduction
There was simply no childcare available ( god knows how people cope for it rurally, I waited 5 months for a part time childminder to become available in london)

maninthestreet

The reason why they don't work? Because they are better off on benefits.

happinessfactory

There are few things that upset me as much as council houses lived in by people fully capable of working.

Particularly when those council houses are then bought at knock-down prices by "helpful" family members and sold as soon as the grace period is up.

A stunning Victorian house opposite me is on sale for £1.5m. It's ex-council and was bought by the family who lived there for £316,000 in 2002. The family who live there - Mum, Dad, their daughter and her daughter, as well as her assorted men friends from time to time - don't seem to do a stroke of work, and just sit smoking on their doorstep all day long (I work from home and I can see them all the !!!!in time!!)

The year they bought their house, I bought this flat (effectively one floor of their house) for £200k.

I honestly can't believe this situation? They do nothing and get paid for it, and I work my backside off to pay for my mortgage, pay for my own pension, pay my own health insurance etc etc etc. I've never claimed any state benefit in my life and those lazy !!!!! are now sitting on a million quid net on the back of MY work ethic and integrity?!?!!!

!!!!!!, get rid of right-to-buy; remove unemployment and housing benefit after 6 months, and introduce surveillance for incapacity benefit cheats. The exchequer would soon look a lot healthier:mad:

Sorry, rant over now:rotfl:

emmy05

i dont know about anyone else, but its been common knowledge where i am, that those on benefits get housed first, due to the fact that its guaranteed rent!
im just wondering how that idea is going to work effectively tbh xx

Phirefly

SquatNow wrote: »

Well it's the next step towards the work camps...

How does saying New council tenants should be made to look for work or risk the possibility of being evicted equate to work camps? Just cos Disgruntled from S!!!!horpe has posted a comment suggesting as much? Pfft....


EDIT *LOL!!!! seems Scun thorpe is so offensive it gets automatically censored! Hehehe*

chugalug

Whether you like it or not the law is the law in this country.

You get a 'council house' if you are 'entitled' to it. Criteria varies depending on the area and the pressure on accommodation and the individual circumstances of the applicant.

One of the reasons more and more people in 'council housing' are unemployed is because the criteria for housing has moved higher due to the cost of private housing. You have to be more 'in need' to qualify. Obviously, if you have more needs then you're going to be poorer and more likely to qualify. Which came first??

It would be interesting to see how this could be implemented. Council tenancies are 'secure' and AFAIK being unemployed is not one of the grounds for possession. Does the government plan to change the law? Can they do this retrospectively?

There are already 'introductory tenancies' where you have to be insecure for 12 months ie it's easier to evict for anti social behaviour, rent arrears etc. Once you've gone past the 12 months you are then given a 'secure' tenancy and all the RIGHTS that go with it.

And that's the problem in my opinion - we either have rights set down in law or we don't. Housing is either a right or it isn't. You can't impose conditions on what people do with their lives just because of the type of housing they live in. How they got the housing is irrelevant in my mind.

Also, what about housing association tenants? They already have less secure tenancies because they're 'assured' - is this just another attack on council tenants so they'll allow their housing to be transferred to housing associations?

People appear to be angry because 'all' council tenants are the same and they don't 'deserve' cheaper housing. Think about it? Perhaps its the rest of housing that's too expensive? Perhaps it's not council tenants that are the problem but people who buy to let for profit, or own 2 or 3 homes pushing out the locals, or developers artificially inflating prices so those at the bottom are squeezed out.

Stop pandering to the 'divide and rule' tactics of the authorities and really think about why we're all in this situation, who benefits and who really is getting a raw deal.

Rant over!