- This topic has 84 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 11 years ago by stumpyjon.
-
Social mobility- Condem style
-
projectFree Member
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21456057
Seems as if your a camden resident,and claiming housing benefit theyre going to export you to cheaper parts of the uk.
You couldnt make it up.
And its not april the first yet
CougarFull MemberSeems sensible, thinking about it. Why would you choose to live in the most expensive place in the country, if you didn’t work there?
Scraping up all the Southern poor people and dumping them in the most deprived areas of the North does seem to be fairly typical of this government though. “I know, they can go and live amongst their own kind. More port, David?”
bikebouyFree MemberThey did a trial two years ago, some went out to Hertfordshire and.. Hated it.
JunkyardFree MemberSeems sensible, thinking about it. Why would you choose to live in the most expensive place in the country, if you didn’t work there?
Perhaps their kids are in the final year of school and the disruption will affect their exam and study?
Perhaos they have lived there all their life and all their family live nearby?
Perhaps they work in media or banking and have only been umemployed for 6 mths and wont get that type of work in Scunthorpe?
There are many reasons to stay in the place you call home I would have thought.The Labour-run authority
– oh nice ninja edit[ wonder what will be there when i post this] there where you asked if other authorities were doing this – what happened did you finish reading the article and notice the answer or did you realise that it was daft to blame a local council for a national govt policy ?
Its not exactly cheaper to wait till they are homless then put them up in a hotel now is it. This policy will cost more money that it saves not to mention being the policy of heartless bastards. This lot are so crap they are both nasty and expensivebig_n_daftFree MemberSeems as if your a camden resident,and claiming housing benefit theyre going to export you to cheaper parts of the uk
Explain the difference to the people who have jobs who don’t qualify for housing benefit who can’t afford to live in Camden either. Have they been “exported”
rudebwoyFree Membereconomic apartheid — another huge backward step in social cohesion, when rioting erupts later this year, don’t expect it to be short lived or unfocused…
JunkyardFree MemberHave they been “exported”
Did they choose to move or did the state relocate them to another area?
nealgloverFree Memberwhen rioting erupts later this year, don’t expect it to be short lived or unfocused…
Was that intended to sound like a threat ? 😕
CougarFull MemberThere are many reasons to stay in the place you call home I would have thought.
I wasn’t being entirely serious, you know (-:
Kryton57Full MemberNot quite the truth is it OP? Fact is, if your clamping maximum benefit for the housing (IIRC, £350) and the housing cost more and you can’t make up the difference, you’d be moved.
However there is some clause that allows you to stay if you work minimum 16 hours a week at minimum wage you can stay – I don’t understand the properly to comment further.
So the line is – if you can’t afford it, your out. And the problem with that reality check is what exactly?
El-bentFree MemberSo the line is – if you can’t afford it, your out. And the problem with that reality check is what exactly?
Social cleansing for a start, but I suspect that doesn’t bother you. Then it’s where you dump them. Cheaper parts of the UK, there’s enough sink estates already. Of course what isn’t explained that a lot of people who have fallen foul of this policy end up in hotel accommodation costing councils more money than keeping them where they are, because there isn’t anywhere for them to go.
Thatcher and her “let’s sell off the council houses” policies eh?
BiscuitPoweredFree MemberThatcher and her “let’s sell off the council houses” policies eh?
Yep. Good job Labour stopped it during their 13 years.
Thankfully Labour were also competent enough custodians of the economy to prevent the biggest housing bubble the country has ever seen otherwise we’d be right in the shit eh?
NorthwindFull MemberKryton57 – Member
So the line is – if you can’t afford it, your out. And the problem with that reality check is what exactly?
Sounds like an equally good argument for stopping all social housing.
BenHouldsworthFree MemberSocial cleansing is a bit harsh, I realise every area needs benefit dependent, long term unemployed people who couldn’t afford to be there without subsidy……..or you could accept its one of the most expensive cities in the world where deadwood has no use
stumpyjonFull Membereconomic apartheid
pretty emotive language there but effectively yes, and your point is?
Social cleansing for a start
pretty emotive language there but effectively yes, and your point is?
I’m not commenting on the policy of relocation as even if there is some kernal of a good idea in there the benefits will be over shadowed by poor implementation but in nutshell how much money you have does have a significant bearing on where you live. It might not be the fairest way of managing a society but I think it’s better than the politicians constant tinkering to win votes and be more superficially popular (or at least less unpopular).
footflapsFull MemberI think the idea is to move all the rioters out of London, then no one important (rich) cares what they do.
bwaarpFree MemberSocial cleansing is a bit harsh, I realise every area needs benefit dependent, long term unemployed people who couldn’t afford to be there without subsidy……..or you could accept its one of the most expensive cities in the world where deadwood has no use
The other term for it is gentrification.
Generally the best city planning technique to reduce crime and increase social mobility is not to hole up all the poor people in single areas and to instead spread the chav load evenly throughout urbanized areas.
Police forces then don’t have to deal with high amounts of concentrated crime in no go areas….if you break them up over larger distances you are reducing their amount of readily available criminal contacts….. and social mobility supposedly increases because people look at others around them doing well and aspire to do better themselves.
Basically scum encourages more scum.
BenHouldsworthFree MemberI’m sure there are plenty of second home/buy to let/Audi/Orange 5 people on here and Thatcher/Council housing issues aside, if market demand was saying you could get £3000 a month for your house you WOULD be taking it. London, as are most capital cities, is such a place.
The economy that allows use to own dandy bikes is the same one that means poor folk can’t live in expensive cities, move along.
bwaarpFree MemberThe economy that allows use to own dandy bikes is the same one that means poor folk can’t live in expensive cities, move along.
Except who will clean your cars, wait on your tables, drive your taxis etc if those people are increasingly being pushed out of reasonable commuting distance to london by ever increasing rent and petrol rates?
As if unfettered market economics have done us sooooo well in the past.
CougarFull MemberBasically scum encourages more scum.
That kinda knackers the prison system, then.
bwaarpFree MemberThat kinda knackers the prison system, then.
Yup….to an extent, that’s a whole other story though.
stumpyjonFull MemberGenerally the best city planning technique to reduce crime and increase social mobility is not to hole up all the poor people in single areas and to instead spread the chav load evenly throughout urbanized areas.
You obviously didn’t read the thread on social housing in new private developments then.
The best way of dealing with crime and increasing social mobility is to remove the scum (don’t know how or where) and not inflict them on the other 99.9% of the population be they waged or unwaged.
footflapsFull MemberThe economy that allows use to own dandy bikes is the same one that means poor folk can’t live in expensive cities, move along.
Nonsense. There is no economic argument for social cleansing, in fact the reverse is true, social cleansing costs more in terms of policing, benefits, loss of productivity and loss of tax revenue.
This is just about an irrational hatred of the poor which is a tenant of Conservative ideology.
bwaarpFree MemberYou obviously didn’t read the thread on social housing in new private developments then.
The best way of dealing with crime and increasing social mobility is to remove the scum (don’t know how or where) and not inflict them on the other 99.9% of the population be they waged or unwaged.
Except it isn’t 99.9 percent of the population is it? I’m not talking about proper hardened criminal offenders, I’m talking about your low level asbo teenagers etc.
Breaking them up makes them a shit load more manageable for the police and the education system – ghettoizing them in black hole sink estates does not.
deadlydarcyFree MemberThe best way of dealing with crime and increasing social mobility is to remove the scum (don’t know how or where) and not inflict them on the other 99.9% of the population be they waged or unwaged.
I kinda see a problem. I think you do too.
footflapsFull MemberThe best way of dealing with crime and increasing social mobility is to remove the scum (don’t know how or where) and not inflict them on the other 99.9% of the population be they waged or unwaged.
Surely not creating them in the first place would be a better solution. Promoting inequality, social exclusion and social immobility, creates the problem. Isolating and concentrating them is only going to magnify the problem, unless the plan is to sterilise them before exporting them from London.
CougarFull MemberThe best way of dealing with crime and increasing social mobility is to remove the scum (don’t know how or where) and not inflict them on the other 99.9% of the population be they waged or unwaged.
Australia, last time we did that.
I’d have loved to have been on the planning board for that one. “We’ve discovered a huge, sunny island paradise on the other side of the world; let’s round up all our criminals and send them over there while we stay here on our grey, damp little island.” Genius.
bwaarpFree MemberAs if exporting a bunch of southern fairies up North to become proper hardened scum bags was a good idea.
CougarFull MemberYou make a good point. If they exported all their unwanted subclasses up here, they’d get such a shoeing that they’d mend their ways.
Maybe.
BenHouldsworthFree MemberBwarp, I struggle with these dilemmas as as someone who grew up pretty skint in a socialist/trade union/pity the worker household and through nothing but hard work/shit jobs and never giving up has a comfortable life I just can’t accept that there is not away out for these folk..
I once lived in London for few years doing the jobs you describe and when the point came when I could no longer afford it I left, for a cheaper area and never looked back.
JunkyardFree MemberI wasn’t being entirely serious, you know (-:
Mod in edinburgh defence SHOCKA 😉
Social cleansing is a bit harsh, I realise every area needs benefit dependent, long term unemployed people who couldn’t afford to be there without subsidy……..or you could accept its one of the most expensive cities in the world where deadwood has no use
Someone did not get enough cuddles as a child
economic apartheid
pretty emotive language there but effectively yes, and your point is?
Its a bad thing that apartheid thing iircSocial cleansing for a start
pretty emotive language there but effectively yes, and your point is?
IIRC that is bad as well, Try it ethnic cleansing, racial cleansing …they sound bad dont they?bwaarpFree MemberI bet they do something really genius like sending them to Millwall, St Annes in Nottingham or the sink estates in Gunchester. Yeah because that will help bring the police budgets down.
BenHouldsworthFree MemberI have to say debating the issues of the less fortunate on an online forum is a 1st world problem
bwaarpFree MemberI have to say debating the issues of the less fortunate on an online forum is a 1st world problem
Believe it or not there are affluent people who do the same in third world countries…
CaptainFlashheartFree MemberI’d have loved to have been on the planning board for that one. “We’ve discovered a huge, sunny island paradise on the other side of the world; let’s round up all our criminals and send them over there while we stay here on our grey, damp little island.” Genius.
Someone needs to read The Fatal Shore
stumpyjonFull MemberBreaking them up makes them a shit load more manageable for the police and the education system – ghettoizing them in black hole sink estates does not.
True, so it makes the problem go away for the authorities but destroys the lives of many, many normal people, I refer you back to people’s experiences on the other thread.
DD, yes I also see a problem, maybe not the same one you do, our politicians don’t have the balls / vision to deal with the backside of our society. I don’t have an answer I’m fully comfortable with, but then I haven’t put myself up for election claiming to be able to sort out societies ills like the politicians do.
Not going to argue anymore, I’ve got to go to bed as I have to go to work in the morning so I’m able to pay for my miserable northern (non London) property which apparently isn’t worthy of the state supported denziens of London.
The topic ‘Social mobility- Condem style’ is closed to new replies.