Commie Boris defends the poor

[David Johnson]

First Max, this thread is about reductions in housing benefit.

"Why should the State give them all that money?"

Err. no they dont. The money goes to landlords. Councils have statutory duties towards the homeless and they are administering a scheme which was created by the last Tory government in 1992.

Why are the rents so high? ONce upon a time, there was a cap on rents that landlords could charge. In many European countries and in places like New York, these caps still exist. This was removed by Thatcher. Why arent they in council houses? THatcher sold off hundreds of thousands of council house properties at knockdown prices.

Why havent the councils built more council houses? The Tories prevented them doing this as far as they could.

Last week George Osborne, the chancellor, announced that the housing budget for England would be cut from ?8.4bn over the previous three-year period to ?4.4bn over the next four years with any new properties being built by "massively increasing" rent to up to 80% of the market rate.

David Orr, chief executive of the National Housing Federation, said: "Because it is based on near-market rents, the new funding model will trap thousands of tenants in welfare dependency because they will simply not be able to earn enough money to pay for their homes without the support of housing benefit ? which means the benefit bill for new low-cost housing will go through the roof." He warned "the government's strategy will turn the traditional understanding of what constitutes social housing on its head by creating a system based around high rents and short-term tenancies. Ministers need urgently to rethink their plans and give housing associations the flexibility to respond to the growing housing crisis in the most effective manner possible."

The majority of people claiming housing benefit in London actually have a job. The reason they claim housing benefit is because their income is deemed too low. A lot of these people are doing the sort of low paid essential jobs like hospital porters, cleaners that keep our hospitals etc etc going.

If these indviiduals on low wages are forced into the suburbs with their support networks e.g. grannies who babysit etc destroyed, are they going to be able to fund travelling into central London to carry on doing these low paid jobs? I suspect not.

Both Tories and Labour have been piss poor at addressing this problem.
The current plans are not a sensible solution in my view.

Cheers
D

[max_tranmere]

Hi David, I'm aware the money goes to the landlords and not into the back pocket of the tenant but it amounts to the same thing. If I had to pay ?500 for something, but instead of me paying it from my earnings or savings someone else paid it for me, then that it the same as them giving it to me and me paying for that thing with the money - so I have effectively been given ?500.

You mention people being pushed to the suberbs. The suberbs of London are very expensive too - the wealthy commuter areas where the properties cost a fortune. There are a few exceptions, like some of the suberbs of east London going into Essex and one of two to the south-west which border Surrey, but most of the suberbs around the edge of this city are very expensive. More so than a lot of the inner city areas that the 'poor' will be displaced from.

Regarding council properties, I always remember a Tory minister in the 1980s saying it was actually cheaper for councils to GIVE their properties away rather than rent them out - when you consider the repairs that kept having to be done, the admin overseeing those places, etc. So if there were a lot of council places still, they would still cost big money for the taxpayer, it would just be in hidden costs rather than obvious ones. There are a lot of Housing Associations now, and people have often described those places as 'the modern day council house'.

Also, and I dont want to sound horrible, but should other people really even care? I've had a lot of problems at various times in my life and I dont recall them putting my plight on the TV news an asking the nation to stop what it was doing and to feel sorry for me. Nor would I have wanted it on the TV news, but it wasnt whether I would have liked it or not. It's like when students go on about how broke they are and everyone watching is supposed to really take an interest. I've known through out my life that if you have a problem you deal with it on your own because most other people dont give a damn, yet we're all supposed to really care about things like the Housing Benefit cap, the fact students now have less money for alcohol and cannibus than they used to have, and so on.

[David Johnson]

Max
You dont get it do you? The transaction is between the government and the landlord. The flow of money goes from one to the other. The way to solve this problem is not to hit the piggy in the middle who has no control over a. what the government gives b. what the landlord charges. So the way to solve this problem is to examine the nature of that relationship between state and landlord, understand why landlords are able to charge the huge amounts of money the taxpayer ends up giving to them and act accordingly to alleviate the problem that landlords are taking advantage of by a. building social housing in a lot bigger quantities and b. re-introducing rent controls on what landlords charge..

"Also, and I dont want to sound horrible, but should other people really even care? "

Actually, Max, you sound fucking, stupidly horrible since you ask. My most sincere wish for the New Year, Max, is that you have a very lengthy period of unemployment because I suspect that only by being long term unemployed will you pass from the stage of ignorance you are currently in to that of at least a modicum of understanding of your fellow human beings

Good evening
David

[max_tranmere]

David, I have a lot of understanding and care for my fellow human beings but a lot of problems that people have they can deal with on their own. I had to sell a property I owned once because I was broke, not working, and my debts mounted and mounted. I don't recall England grinding to a halt, everyone stopping what they were doing, and feeling sorry for me. Nor would I have wanted them too, but when things like this occur we are all supposed to take an interest in it.

On your point about the large sums of money given by the government to the landlord and why it is so high, it is mainly because these areas are so expensive. A lot of the districts of inner London used to be cheap run down dumps up until sometime during the 1980's. Those areas are now all very expensive, and an individual letting a place is going to want to get what it is worth in rent each week. If you owned a flat in an area where a place like yours would normally go for ?400 a week you would want ?400 a week for it. So would I. Anyone would. I have never heard of anyone letting a place for half what it is worth just because they are 'socially minded'.

London is a very expensive city and I dont know what can be done to rectify that - building lots more social housing will cost mega money to do, at a time of cuts, and most of the people living in those places will be in them for decades and decades - many of the residents will pass them onto their kids - therefore 30 years from now they will have to build vast amounts more.

[David Johnson]

So Max,
We both agree there is a problem. I have made my suggestions as to how I think the problem should be dealt with. Please note that when I talk about council houses I also include the housing association model.

Your thoughts on how to deal with this problem can be summarised as follows:
1. Getting ?500+ a week in housing benefit is too much.
2. The suburbs around central London are very expensive too, in some cases more expensive.
3. It is cheaper to give away social housing to individuals than to rent it.
4. Should people care that others are being forced to give up their homes?
5. Landlords are going to charge what the going rate is.
6. Ive had hard times why shouldnt these people?

Now forgive me, Max but I dont see any of points 1-6 inclusive providing a potential solution to the problem. Do you?

So what do you suggest, given that the majority of people who receive housing benefit in London are actually in work? Employers to give out fresh cardboard boxes every Friday afternoon?

Cheers

D

[max_tranmere]

With regard to solving the problem, I really dont have an answer - other than to spend what will probably be trillions (literally) of pounds over coming decades to just keep building and building more homes around the edge of cities like London, watch green-belts disappear, to keep up with the demand that there is, and will be, for more and more housing. At a time when there are the biggest cuts taking place at the Treasury that have taken place at any time since the 2nd World War, I dont know where the money will come from.

One idea is Compulsory Purchase Orders where the Government buy up whole streets within areas. This is still sometimes done for road widening schemes but was last done, for reasons of trying to create affordable housing, back in the 1970's as far as I am aware. Doing this would involve vast mounts of public money being spent to buy these properties, they would have to buy many thousands, and where that money would come from I don't know but it would at least create a situation of 'affordable housing' when they house lower-income families in these places. It would also of course involve people being up-rooted and moved from their current place into one of these places.

It's very difficult to try to solve this. The value of properties within areas has always been subject to market forces and London has become very expensive during recent decades. Areas like Paddington, Islington, Notting Hill, Maida Vale, Primrose Hill, and many others, were slums as recently as the 1970's. Now they are trendy millionaire districts. Those very same properties have gone from being rack-rented with dirty drapes in the windows and peeling paint on the outside, to being in single occupation and the patch of mud out the front with an old fridge and a mattress dumped on it is now a nice garden and a Range Rover or BMW is parked out on the street in front of the house. The property boom in recent decades, over huge numbers of residential districts, has benefitted a lot of people. Many of them were originally quite poor and are now quite wealthy and I've not heard any of them complain about that.

I was saying earlier that if I have endured difficulty and been forced to sell a property because I was not working, skint, debts up to my eyeballs, etc. That was basically my problem - no one elses - and that seemed to be the right and fair thing. I didn't expect other people to care. Did all the people who I would walk past in the street or who sat sipping Latte's in the local trendy cafe, care about me? No, and nor did I expect them to. Yet I am reading stories during the last week like the guy who lives in Hendon in north London, works but doesn't earn very much, has his rent assisted by the Government, he is so stretched each month that he has to cycle 7 miles to work in central London as he can't afford public transport, etc. They may have to up-root and move because of the cap the Government is proposing regarding Housing Benefit. I am meant to read this and feel for the guy, yet (like I say) equivilant problems I have had never made the newspapers, no one felt sorry for me, I had to deal with on my own - I expected to have to deal with it on my own by the way - and no one was concerned. I can't really see a difference.

[pbphotography]

I think Boris is just trying to prevent Paris or Los Angeles style riots when the poor suddenly have bugger all to lose and then decide to let their frustrations out.

[David Johnson]

"They may have to up-root and move because of the cap the Government is proposing regarding Housing Benefit. I am meant to read this and feel for the guy, yet (like I say) equivilant problems I have had never made the newspapers, no one felt sorry for me, I had to deal with on my own - I expected to have to deal with it on my own by the way - and no one was concerned. I can't really see a difference."

First, Max, I am sorry that you were forced to sell your home. Second, the reason that your personal disaster wasnt in the press and the housing benefit proposed cuts are, is that it is anticipated that it will affect 80-100,000 people.

Now you can take the attitude of why should I care, which obviously you do. You could easily state the same poiint in other scenarios e.g. why should I care if a child is tortured and abused by their parents, my childhood was no bed of roses? or why should I care about my old and frail neighbour, I dont think old age is going to be any better for me? or why should I care if somebody is being attacked in the streets as long as it isnt me? or why should I care about the unemployed being hammered for a crisis they didnt cause? etc etc.

Surely to care about other people and their lot even in a small way is part of being human?

If you cannot see that or understand it, perhaps you could look at it from the point of pure self-interest. Given that the majority of people who receive housing benefit in London are actually working, there is obviously a need to ensure that key workers, cleaners porters etc are still able to work and support themselves in Central London. Perhaps Max, if you required an emergency operation in a central London hospital and that operation could not be performed because the necessary cleaning, sterilising routines had not been performed and as a result the delays getting you to another hospital resulted in permanent disability, then Max you might care a little more about what happens to these workers?

This is my last comment to you on this thread.

Cheers
D