Couldn't we just let the unemployed man speed cameras, targeting commuters on their way to & from work?

It would be self financing & you could pay them commission on a sliding scale based on the speed/type of car/salary of the criminal
Anyone carrying an iBook & riding a fixie &/or wearing Rapha clothing would incur an automatic fine, just because …..

I'm sure most highly paid [strike]help desk operators[/strike] software analysts wouldn't mind paying the odd quid or two every now & then, just to help out

it could work 🙂

I don't buy the idea that the unemployed aren't going to go to work because they aren't going to get Aston Martins, work in finance and own their own homes any time soon.

Your taking the point to a a ridiculous level, many wont work as they can only get shit jobs which wont improve their quality of life significantly.

Unskilled foreign workers are at a disadvantage compared with unskilled UK workers in my view.

so why do they take many jobs that the UK unemployed wont do, I would think its a quality of life issue a polish worker can work here as a fruit picker for a while and be able to make a signficant difference to his financial position back home when he returns. A UK worker will remain pretty much in the same position following 3 months of fruit picking.

Your taking the point to a a ridiculous level, many wont work as they can only get shit jobs which wont improve their quality of life significantly.

That idea was raised by Elfinsafety!

so why do they take many jobs that the UK unemployed wont do

Because the benefits and housing system don't work particularly well. If you get into a hand to mouth situation with your finances, taking a job does not make sense. You may well be better off by a few pounds a week, but you're taking a big risk, as if you get laid off, your benefits will take a long time to be reinstated. So you'll have 4-6 weeks with no money. And you probably pay for everything, including your utilities, up front.

If you do arrive in that situation, you then become likely to turn to illegal money lenders, and the situation worsens further. Illegal lending is very strongly linked to a lot of crime – rape, prostitution and cannabis farming for a start.

You can see why there are so many factors pushing people away from taking a job. Doing so could literally ruin the life of someone who is on benefits and has no cash put aside for a rainy day.

Of course, the wages are worth more to immigrant workers, in the sense that they can repatriate savings, but you have to remember that they also have to pay their living costs in the UK before they can safe. That suggests to me that there is no problem getting by on the minimum wage. I'm not saying it's easy, but I doubt getting by on £60 a week dole is either.

Of course, the wages are worth more to immigrant workers, in the sense that they can repatriate savings, but you have to remember that they also have to pay their living costs in the UK before they can safe. That suggests to me that there is no problem getting by on the minimum wage. I'm not saying it's easy, but I doubt getting by on £60 a week dole is either.

The conditions they live in a often pretty poor, overcrowded shared houses and dormitory's, the sort of thing that can be put up with on a temporary basis for single people, but is impossible for longer periods or families.

The conditions they live in a often pretty poor, overcrowded shared houses and dormitory's, the sort of thing that can be put up with on a temporary basis for single people, but is impossible for longer periods or families.

Indeed. Which is why we have social housing. Around my way, council rents are around 1/2 to 2/3rds of what you'd pay a private landlord.

thats way higher than the minimum wage! i would go on 'benefit' as well as another job because its not like they could sack you if you were lazy, and my other job i have to work like a trooper so it would be a nice rest!

tron, I guess we kind of agree then but just look at it from a different angle. Social housing is in very short supply though and if you are young and single you wont get it.

Indeed. Which is why we have social housing. Around my way, council rents are around 1/2 to 2/3rds of what you'd pay a private landlord.

Council housing is in very short supply, and frequently in bad condition, housing asociations (ones that aren't just the old council housing department rebranded) tend to be much better quality but also at or around market rates and with high waiting lists.

Social housing is in very short supply though and if you are young and single you wont get it.

It certainly is. I think we're going to have to see a real shake up of how it operates. Some very strange things happen with council houses. Obviously, you get people who once needed social housing, and now don't, but are still enjoying subsidised rents etc. Or who do need it, but don't need a 3 bed house any longer. But beyond that, you get even odder things happening.

It's actually possible for homeowners sign onto the housing list, eventually get a council house, and sell their home, particularly in areas with low demand. End result is that they get cheap rent and the value of their house in their back pocket. It's absolutely perverse, but it's a very rational course of action for them – many people are unlikely to leave much of an inheritance as their house or savings will be used to pay for their care in old age. So why not sell up at 60 and have every holiday and trinket you want?

That becomes even more problematic when you consider that people tend to live into their 70s, and we can't make predictions on that kind of timescale. Low housing demand tends to go hand in hand with a slow local economy. But, in 10-15 years time, the local economy may have picked up, there may well be lots of people working in in the area and unable to get into social housing.

That idea was raised by Elfinsafety!

No, you misunderstand me. My point is that in my local area at least, there is very little motivation amongst the poorest people to work, as the rewards are practically zero. Yet every day they are reminded of their own 'failure' and the futility of their own lives, by the ruddy great multi-billion pound skyscrapers which tower over them. Where they can't get jobs, yet 'outsider's drive into the place, clogging up the roads increasing pollution and congestion while at the same time pushing house prices way, way beyond their reach.

As for 'bettering' themselves, do you think they wouldn't try, if they actually had the opportunity?

Fact is, that in this area, a perfectly viable workforce has been ignored, which has led to the exacerbation of social problems such as crime, drug addiction and mental health issues.

When I talk about education, what I mean is opportunities for local people to gain the skills and qualifications needed to work in the newly developed industries. The birth of Canary Wharf was heralded with promises of such. Instead, the once fantastic Tower Hamlets College has been reduced to little more than a sixth-form college, occupying just one small site rather than the 4 or 5 it used to have. There is virtually no provision for adult education left in this area, as cuts after cuts have seen local adult education virtually destroyed. Illiteracy is on the increase, as are things such as Tuberculosis, a disease linked directly to poverty.

How can people crawl out of the mire? The answer lies in an effective programme of education and training that is accessible to all, including the poorest. To enable them to be able to get jobs in the industries that are on their own doorsteps. At the moment, access to Further and Higher education is being priced out of the poorest people's reach; many simply cannot afford to take on crippling debts, and 50-60 hours in a crap job don't give you much time to study even part time. Full time students at University used to get benefits for housing and something to live on; now, unless mummy and daddy have a bit put by, you're stuffed.

Meanwhile, the huge corporations that occupy Canary Wharf enjoy great transport links into the area (the DLR and road building programmes have cost the taxpayers billions), yet aren't compelled to give anything back to the local communities their activities affect directly. The promises of investment in local education and training evaporated as soon as the first buildings were up. Workers are brought in from all over the Globe. 'Affordable' housing starts at £200,000+ for a shoe-box. Just as an example of the 'priorities'; money will be found to build a DLR station 100 metres from another one, for the 'convenience' of CW workers, yet people in Poplar campaigned for 20 years to have a station built at Langdon Park, which would serve thousands of local residents, many elderly people who rely on public transport.

It's actually possible for homeowners sign onto the housing list, eventually get a council house, and sell their home, particularly in areas with low demand

I have no idea what this means.

Fact is, that in this area, a perfectly viable workforce has been ignored, which has led to the exacerbation of social problems such as crime, drug addiction and mental health issues.

Honestly, considering how difficult it is to get into finance, I think you're barking up the wrong tree. No amount of adult education is going to turn someone into a 20 something with solid A-levels, a degree from Oxbridge or a Russell group uni, along with the willingness and ability to work insane hours.

Realistically, you can try to ensure that everyone has the basics of education covered.

The other option would be to encourage some other form of industry in the area. But the problem there is that most of London's location based advantages apply to big business's head office functions and finance. It would be a very bad place to try and run a factory, distribution centre or almost any business that has a relatively low skill workforce. So the best option you have in that situation is to go to somewhere where there is work.

I have no idea what this means.

What I mean is this:

If you live in an area where there is low demand for council housing, you can put your name on the housing list. Eventually you will be allocated a council house. You can then move into the council house and sell the home you were previously living in. You then have a council house, which you pay relatively little rent on, and load of cash.

No amount of adult education is going to turn someone into a 20 something with solid A-levels, a degree from Oxbridge or a Russell group uni, along with the willingness and ability to work insane hours.

No, but starting with the children, better educational facilities will at least give that generation a fighting chance, and the next one a slightly better start. And so on. Considering the money some of the CW corporations make, forcing them to invest in local education should be mandatory.

As for 'insane hours', ever heard of Nursing?

The other option would be to encourage some other form of industry in the area. But the problem there is that most of London's location based advantages apply to big business's head office functions and finance. It would be a very bad place to try and run a factory, distribution centre or almost any business that has a relatively low skill workforce. So the best option you have in that situation is to go to somewhere where there is work.

So all the poor uneducated locals should move out and look elsewhere for work? Where? And how will they be able to afford that?

Sorry, but your ideas don't really seem to be based much in reality.

So all the poor uneducated locals should move out and look elsewhere for work? Where? And how will they be able to afford that?

Wherever there is work – as I said, prior to the downturn, there seemed to be work for everyone who wanted it. Obviously, now we're suffering cyclical unemployment. But it sounds to me like the area you're talking about has structural unemployment (ie, the industry has gone).

Personally, I'd suggest a law that all companies must pay expenses to interviewees, and shake up housing so that someone moving into an area for work has a right to a home, school place for their kids etc.

You could then stem the ghettoisation of council estates, and free up housing in London, allowing relatively low paid workers to actually have a decent crack at making a living. Which was pretty much the purpose of council housing back in the 1950s.

Around my way, council rents are around 1/2 to 2/3rds of what you'd pay a private landlord.

That's great if you have years to hang around on the waiting list but Thatcher provided for the sale of social housing for buttons. A big giveaway to creditworthy council tenants, a big pile of poo for everyone who needed cheaper housing after them, and a big hugandkiss for private landlords that took the councils' place.

and a big hugandkiss for private landlords that took the councils' place.

Indeed. It's insane that we pay private landlords to provide social housing.

Ultimtely, it comes down to the fact that we don't have enough houses. We won't see supply catch up with demand for a long time, as everyone seems to buy into the insane idea that rising house prices are a good thing for the average joe.

Ultimtely, it comes down to the fact that we don't have enough houses

When will we know when we have "enough houses"?

When will we know when we have "enough houses"?

When the trend is that prices aren't rising compared to inflation, and profits in the housebuilding sector are in line with the rest of the economy.

as everyone seems to buy into the insane idea that rising house prices are a good thing for the average joe.

This drives me to despair, along with long working hours being a good thing.

If you live in an area where there is low demand for council housing, you can put your name on the housing list. Eventually you will be allocated a council house. You can then move into the council house and sell the home you were previously living in. You then have a council house, which you pay relatively little rent on, and load of cash.

I suspect this to be completely wrong. AFAIK, you have to be 'eligible' for Social Housing. Owning your own home might exclude you from that, I'd reckon. The demand for social housing is rocketing. In my borough, waiting lists are incredibly long. Unless you are a family with children, or have a fairly serious health condition, you simply won't get a look in. Many groups such as single healthy adults aren't eligible at all. Meaning young people are forced to stay at home with parents for longer, as they simply cannot afford private rents. You're talking £800 a month or so for a 1-bed flat round here, minimum, and on minimum wage, you'll be lucky to get that as your full wages. So, just not viable. Right To Buy simply meant loads of social housing disappeared into private ownership, without any effective replacement. The cost to the taxpayer to pay private landlords vastly overinflated rents is far more expensive than providing state-owned social housing.

When will we know when we have "enough houses"?

When my dad came out of the army in 1956 [after 20 years service] he was given a house in one of the 'New Towns' that were springing up everywhere.
The conditions for getting the house were that he worked for the builders [the council] for 2 years helping to build more houses in the 'New Town'
He therefore got a job & a home in one go

Not a bad idea IMO but far too left wing for Ant & Dec to consider these days

Right To Buy simply meant loads of social housing disappeared into private ownership, without any effective replacement.

Yes that great social experiment in the 1980's to make people feel middle class, has come back to bite us on the arse.

It rhymes too.

I suspect this to be completely wrong.

One of my Dad's friends has done it. It's apparently fairly common amongst the oldies around here. But as I said, it's an area with fairly low demand for council houses, and we're talking about people with time on their hands.

As I said above, we need more housing in general. You're preaching to the choir with this business about rents and house prices. Right to buy is a complex issue – I've personally no problem with the concept, if housing stock were replaced when it's sold. But it's not, because Mrs T wanted to geld local authorities.

Right to buy is a complex issue – I've personally no problem with the concept, if housing stock were replaced when it's sold.

But you can't replace housing stock with the proceeds of a subsidised sale. And if there's no subsidy, there's no point – the occupant might as well bugger off to the free market and there's no sense in spending council time/money on selling one property just to buy another at the same price.

It rhymes too.

Only if you are a southerner 🙂

your benefits will take a long time to be reinstated. So you'll have 4-6 weeks with no money. And you probably pay for everything, including your utilities, up front.

I give you rapid reclaim..any claim will be dealt iwthin 10 working days anyway according to guidelines.

It's actually possible for homeowners sign onto the housing list, eventually get a council house, and sell their home, particularly in areas with low demand

Eventually you will be allocated a council house.

The list is based on a points system if you own your own house you are not going to be a priority case. therefore ever priority case [homeless , overcrowded, health reasons etc will be ahead of you]. In manchester alone there is 23,000 on the list so how on earth will you get there before them? Can you reference the area that you can do this in? I will go out a limb and suggest you dont work in housing and you have never applied for a council house and you are off Googling now.

prior to the downturn, there seemed to be work for everyone who wanted it.

Are we still discussin the UK ?