UK migration crackdown: ‘No social housing for newcomers’

reply to post by Theflyingweldsman


Yes it is,ask the american indians and the aborigines. There has not been any racism in this thread. Here we go
.

reply to post by symptomoftheuniverse

So, question, do you support a campaign for the same unlimited bedroom housing benefit rights for private rented tenants as social/council tenants?
It is a campaign I support for the obvious equitable reasons.

How many extra and unused bedrooms do you think are ok though, I'm struggling to reach a final figure...1 for the grandparents? 2 for friends who might want to stay over? What do you think?

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by doobydoll

 

Nobody is being forced to pay anything - this is a reduction in benefits, not a tax on money they already have.

Nice try at spin, but it won't fly.

They're not being forced to pay? What is their alternative?

First off, it should be illegal for gov to reduce basic-need benefits, when it already states that a British citizen who has no income HAS A RIGHT TO BASIC NEEDS, and it set a BARE MINIMUM amount needed for a person to live and for which our benefit system provides - it is what it was designed for, and it is why our once great country stood out far in front of the rest, the envy of the world.

When it was set up it provided for people whom for whatever circumstances, find themselves in a situation where they have no income - It wasn't spent on topping-up tight-arsed corporation wages, or buying unnecessary 2nd homes and fraudulent expenses for corrupt millionaire MP's - these are the REAL frauds and abusers of taxpayer money.

And I am PROUD that our society and system provides basic needs to it's poorest citizens - that's what a civilized, forward nation and society does - not cast them into the gutter for being poor for goodness sake.

They can move into a smaller private rented property? They have no money which is why they're on HB, so how are they going to pay all the letting fees, security bond, and rent in advance? Greedy landlords mean they have no chance, and many refuse to let to benefit recipients unless it's a dosshouse.

So, their alternatives are:
1. Let their spare social housing rooms to strangers, and probably be in trouble with local authorities for breaching their tenancy agreement by sub-letting (as another member posted). If they don't pay it they'll be evicted, if they sub-let and breach their tenancy, they'll be evicted.
2. Move to a smaller, cheaper, private rented house - No money means no chance. (see earlier paragraph).
3. Pay the increase in rent, but reduce their eating/heating consumption - be hungry and/or cold.
4. Live on the street, thereby saving gov a fortune whilst still increasing taxes for the rest of us.
5. They could just be disposed of I suppose, but this will cost taxpayer money too. Maybe we should just force them to kill themselves? That way we don't have to support them, or have to see their evicted, homeless arses roaming our streets.

Yes, they're spoilt for choice with alternatives - all of them crappier than staying put and being forced to pay.

Originally posted by grainofsand
reply to post by symptomoftheuniverse

 

So, question, do you support a campaign for the same unlimited bedroom housing benefit rights for private rented tenants as social/council tenants?
It is a campaign I support for the obvious equitable reasons.

How many extra and unused bedrooms do you think are ok though, I'm struggling to reach a final figure...1 for the grandparents? 2 for friends who might want to stay over? What do you think?

edit on 25-3-2013 by grainofsand because: (no reason given)

i support secured tenacy and against anyone being forced to move. If your family has grown up and moved out you should not be penalised because of that. People tend to downsize anyway but downsizing being forced on you is wrong.

reply to post by grainofsand

I'm out of this thread

Liar liar bums on fire.

Isn't it a rigid, cast-in-iron rule with local authorities that if you give up a home voluntarily, then you have 'made yourself homeless' and cannot qualify for priority social housing, and the authority therefore is not obligated at all to provide you with a home?

Well, aren't these immigrants giving up their homes in their own country by choice? They already have a home, but they up and leave it and come here, to no home, with nothing organised regarding what they'll do or where they'll live when they get here. And now Brits are going to have to share what is their lifelong home with other people, or move out so irresponsible destitute foreigners can move in.

Cameron obviously cheated on his politics degree. Public schools should use him as an example to students of what NOT to do, should they ever get to be Prime Minister.

district-9.com...

reply to post by Freeborn


Do you know the real reason behind "Right to Buy" Freeborn? I say this only because it tells us everything we need to know about this system. Right to buy was introduced because the age of the properties being sold off meant that they were coming in to the territory where the upkeep costs outweighed the benefits of retaining them as social housing - it really was a black and white numbers in the column decision rather than some altruistic caring government decision.

That is not to do it down, it has been hugely important to a very large number of people - but the reason behind it was to pass on the upkeep and maintenance costs (councils simply couldn't afford it).



I am amazed reading through this thread just how many seem to think that social housing is a right. In a perfect world, it would be. The world isn't perfect though - far from it.

reply to post by Flavian


I never for one minute thought that the Right To Buy was an altruistic gesture and what you say may indeed be true for many of the houses that were sold off, but that still doesn't alter the impact that selling them off and not replacing them is still having on today's housing market etc.

And maybe social housing isn't a right but what are the alternatives - return to the workhouses and slums of yesteryear?
Bollocks to that.
Do you honestly believe that as one of the wealthiest nations in the world, which we still are despite all that is going on today, we can not afford or should not provide adequate housing for our citizens?

Yes you are right, it isn't a perfect world - but it both should and could be a damn sight better than it is and the fact that things are actually getting worse for a large section of our society whilst the most wealthy profit even further is a damning indictment of the whole corrupt and amoral system.

Originally posted by Freeborn

Personally other then Student loans I've never had any debts, until buying a home. I was told to not have card, pay for things upfront with cash etc

I can understand though, it was hard to turn down credit offers when they look so tantalising.

My own daughter is a qualified theatre nurse who has a good job.
Unfortunately she had a very bad back complaint that required three quite major operations.
During this time she had to go on sick leave - her sick pay ran out and she went to her bank where they gave her a larger overdraft and was advised to live off her credit cards.
Just after Christmas her bank closed her account and demanded repayment - they had zero compassion and were uninterested when she explained how difficult it was for her and her son.

Fortunately she has now returned to work and is gradually starting turn things around again.
I have told her that her mortgage has to be the priority but when that is paid it leaves very little.

Can she be blamed for getting into debt or would you have blamed her if she had left her job and gone I.V.A. etc and on to benefits?

I have numerous stories I could relate regarding the realities of debt and hardship genuine people are facing at present.

Very unfortunate, i'm sure there are many who have had similar experiences. These are the very type of people we should be helping.

Yes that is annoying... and whats more annoying is we continue to bail them out, fix the banking system & it would go a long way in aiding a vast majority of issues.

The thing is we are forced to bail them out - we have absolutely zero say in what our government chooses to do with our money.
And are those self same bankers who caused this mess and who we bailed out suffering in any way shape or form?
And what of the MP's etc, don't see them suffering any hardships.

So much for us all being in it together.

Yes it's a crap situation many hard working people are finding themselves in, and as I've said that's a national disgrace, but that doesn't excuse pointing one's finger at other's and wanting their situation to be even crapper than one's own - that's looking at things arse about face and upside down.

Yes, this announcement is a step forward - but one step forward after countless steps backwards amounts to little of substance in my book.
But if we are to make real progress we need to stop bickering with each other and start working together - I have very little faith in that ever happening in my lifetime.

edit on 25/3/13 by Freeborn because: Spelling, grammar, clarity etc

I agree and you are right. The problem is, when the economy sorts itself out with the boom and burst cycle all these problems will be forgot and the rinse and repeat process will start again. As you say... never in our life time.

reply to post by Freeborn


Of course we should provide adequate housing for our citizens. However, if they have a room they don't need then why do they have that particular house? And you should damn well pay for it, the same as everyone else has to.

Out of interest, what is your take on those that run up huge arrears on subsidised housing? Do you think they deserve to keep living in those houses? I definitely do not and yes, i would have them out on the streets if necessary - well, the feckless parents at any rate.

I am sick to death of seeing Council Houses with multiple cars in the drive, multiple flat screens, etc and yet still moaning about how unfair things are. It is wrong and entirely selfish. However, that seems to be an extremely prevalent mind set these days.

Whilst i am on rant mode, anyone that trashes their subsidised housing should never be housed again (socially). Fend for yourself and see what a d*^! you subsequently think you were.

ETA:

Reading this back now, it appears rather confrontational with you Freeborn. I most definitely did not intend that and i fully apologise. I put it down to this bloody horrible cold, sore throat and vomiting bug that is making my head spin at the moment!

Originally posted by Flavian
Out of interest, what is your take on those that run up huge arrears on subsidised housing? Do you think they deserve to keep living in those houses? I definitely do not and yes, i would have them out on the streets if necessary - well, the feckless parents at any rate.

I am sick to death of seeing Council Houses with multiple cars in the drive, multiple flat screens, etc and yet still moaning about how unfair things are. It is wrong and entirely selfish. However, that seems to be an extremely prevalent mind set these days.

Whilst i am on rant mode, anyone that trashes their subsidised housing should never be housed again (socially). Fend for yourself and see what a d*^! you subsequently think you were.

Surely that would depend on how they ran up these huge arrears? Besides I would love to look at the actual figures, i'd imagine like most things in this thread we are procrastination talking about minorities.

Obviously tightening on these minorities will aid towards fixing things but again as previously mentioned there are a lot bigger things broken in the system as the route cause of most issues.

Unfortunately those issues will be forgotten about when the economy improves and everyone's doing well again, and when we go bust... rinse and repeat.

In terms of Migration though we should look at Australia's system.

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by Logos23
I have no problem's with reducing benefit for those who genuinely don't need an extra bedroom and are given a viable smaller alternative that they don't take up on...apart from that, it is just another benefit cut on the poorest.

See, I get that this has hit a nerve because it hits the "poorest", but what "the poor" who are up in arms about this now don't realise is that the rest of us have already taken huge cuts and have done for some years.

in 2011, we lost our working tax credits - I earn to much apparently. That was £130 a month gone, or £1560 a year. I've also had my NI increased and, if my missus gets the Customer Service job (which only pays £15k) she is going for, we will also lose a chunk of our Child benefit to the tune of around £60 a month (£720) a year simply because we will then be over the £50k threshold, which no matter what you might think, isn't a great deal of money when we also have to pay £1000 a month in rent (with no help), £130 a month in Council Tax (with no help) and the high taxation I already am subjected to (I lose close to £1000 month in tax).

No one protested on our behalf over those cuts, nor did I feel the need to protest because we have all had to tighten our belts as the country is short on cash. What those at the lower end of the spectrum don't realise is that they have been shielded from the worst of it by us "middle earners" who did so without complaint.

Now it is time to trim the fat down there and, I am sorry, but I find it hard to sympathise with the loss of £14 a week because their house is too big, when I pay £1000 a month for a 3 bed house when I really need a 4 bed, but no one is going to give me money to help pay the £1500 a month rent required for such a house....

Right so let me get this straight, you didn't protest when you lost your rights to working tax credit? people have protested changes, but between media blackout and apathy not enough people spoke out. You lost your benefits so you don't think anyone else should have them? Don't get me wrong, I am saddened that you are taking a considerable hit as you are now deemed to be earning too much, that is a flaw in the system, not the fault of people who are still eligible for benefits.

Also you have to weigh up the percentage of £14 per week in your wage compared to someone in receipt of benefits. A couple with a child receive £111 JSA child tax credit £51. so £14 is 8% of their weekly income of £162. Having no idea what your job is or your pay I can't say what 8% of your income would be, and I wouldn't expect you to tell the internet. The national average wage is something like £509 per week, so the £14 of the weekly wage would be just 2%

Just as i said...human rights, nothing will change

www.thesun.co.uk...

Court threat to migrant clamp Euro judges could scupper PM's curbs

DAVID Cameron’s bid to stop Britain being a “soft touch” for scrounging immigrants faces a clash with EU and human rights lawmakers, experts warn. The PM unveiled a raft of sweeping changes yesterday to ensure benefits, NHS care and council houses only go to foreigners who want to work. He has insisted action is needed immediately to prevent a fresh wave of new arrivals from Bulgaria and Romania at the start of 2014.

But it is feared judges could dismiss his get-tough approach as “discriminatory”.

Ahhhh soft touch britain, ruled by the EU!!!!!

reply to post by tdk84


Undoubtedly, it is a minority in every Local Authority - for example, someone managing over a thousand properties may have 50 tenants in serious arrears (over £1000). And yet when collection of these arrears is attempted they say things like they can't afford it. And then when asked why they didn't respond the previous week say things like "oh, we were in Ibiza". They do not see the problem with such a statement and believe they are entitled. The courts then take the stance that you cannot simply turf people out of their homes - for example i know of a case where someone was thousands in arrears for the 7th time and the Judge simply wouldn't have them evicted. Why not? Such a person is a drain on local services and is doing absolutely nothing to warrant their social housing.

People need to learn that, quite simply, rights and responsibilities go hand in hand. Without responsibilities, your rights are non existent.

You are correct though. This type of thing is commonplace throughout the whole system - it is undoubtedly in need of a reboot.

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by tdk84

 

Undoubtedly, it is a minority in every Local Authority - for example, someone managing over a thousand properties may have 50 tenants in serious arrears (over £1000).

In that case, they should count themselves lucky they have 950 tenants that aren't in serious arrears. Those financial liabilities are called "occupational hazards." Nobody forces these people to become private landlords and take on all the associated pitfalls.

reply to post by IvanAstikov


Count themselves lucky there is a minority of persistent offenders that believe everyone else should pay for them? Do you honestly believe that? That thinking is one of the reasons this country is in such a mess. Quite simply, they should be cut loose and left to fend for themselves - they are detritus to society.

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by IvanAstikov

 

Count themselves lucky there is a minority of persistent offenders that believe everyone else should pay for them? Do you honestly believe that? That thinking is one of the reasons this country is in such a mess. Quite simply, they should be cut loose and left to fend for themselves - they are detritus to society.

I genuinely don't give a flying one for the plight of the poor, put-upon private landlords, or about"the minority of persistent offenders that believe everyone else should pay for them," whoever they might be - they are small potatoes compared to the real thieves of tax payers money.

Maybe it's the fluoride in the water that's making us all so thick?
I'm fed up of hearing people blame the poorest in society for the state of our nation's finances. Fed up of hearing people attribute the huge costs of social programmes to them.
What's paid to Joe Bloggs is a drop in the ocean when compared to all the tax money that's siphoned off to big companies with MPS and their friends and families on the board.

Every few weeks, anyone on job seekers has to go on some workshop at a cost of up to 400 quid. That is the same or even more than what they're paid in benefits. That money goes from the state to private hands.

Housing benefit goes into the hands of private landlords many of whom are connected to those running our country so they maintain the system of unrestricted rents. So it costs us all more. They aren't prepared to be less greedy so they suggest giving less benefit to the people who actually need it but take nothing from those profiting from it.

Every school, health authority and so forth is tied into buying overpriced services from private companies which drives up the cost to such a degree that their only answer is to cut services. So we pay more, get less and see the rich continue to pocket our taxes.

Wake up. Someone on the dole having a roof over their head, food on the table and a telly is not costing us one tenth of what the shady deals between mps and business costs us.

reply to post by IvanAstikov


Then that apathy condemns you as being the same as those bankers and rich businesses. Fault occurs at every level and should all be cleared up.

Fault is fault whether it is at the highest or lowest levels. All should be punished.

I honestly detest the benefits culture endemic in some places. Just as much as i detest Multi Nationals raping the average working man. We either take responsibility for our actions or we don't. If you choose not to, society should cut you adrift - whether you are at the top or at the bottom.