MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
how long before condems see this as a good idea?
http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0829/welfare.html
Work for Dole Scheme Announced
The Government has confirmed that it is to introduce new measures which could see some dole claimants work in the community in return for their benefits.
The proposals could be introduced as early as next month, recipients could be denied dole if they refuse to work.
Speaking on RTÉ News the Minister for Social Protection Éamon Ó Cuív said ' we need to make sure we do it on a cost neutral basis.'
Advertisement
The Minister says that any extra cost may be offset by savings resulting from people who are not genuinely unemployed ceasing to claim because of the new requirements.
The participants are expected to work in areas like after school services, childcare, services for older people, environmental projects and in the improvement of sports and tourist facilities.
The proposals would see participants work 19.5 hours a week and receive around €210 in return.
Unlike applicants for job seekers benefit they will not be means tested and they can work part-time outside of the scheme as well.
But if claimants do not turn up for the hours they are expected to work under the scheme, their dole will be stopped.
The changes are being implemented as part of the expansion and development of the Community Services Programme and the Rural Social Scheme.
It is expected that the changes will involve up to 10,000 new participants this year, rising to 40,000 over the course of two years.
The Irish National Organisation for the Unemployed said it would be a mistake to make it mandatory for dole claimants to have to work in order to receive their benefits.
The organisation said that the work that recipients are asked to do must be meaningful, beneficial to the person doing it and improves their prospect of finding a job in the future.
It said the scheme would be much more successful if people were attracted to opt into the scheme.
Meanwhile, an organisation representing a large number of community and voluntary organisations called The Wheel said the proposals would only work if organisations are given funding too.
The Wheel said that on the face of it, the plans look good.
The organisation warned that many organisations are already struggling with state funding cuts and would find it difficult to integrate, train, supervise dole claimants into their organisations and put them to meaningful use without receiving fresh funding.
Would the government not have to pay these people the minimum wage?
Doing what?
Also it means employing people to manage it all.
Plus takes actual jobs out of the system, otherwise the work they are doing is really a 'non-job'...
If you are able to ignore the politics its a really difficult area, and usually ends up costing more than not working.
IMO - to really reduce the costs of welfare, we need to reduce the costs of living in the UK - and that will benefit everyone (except landlords)
Having been on the dole myself in the past (rather unsuccessfully due to the vagaries of the benefits system and the tax year), I can't see any major issue with doing some kind of work in return for your dole payments, or perhaps increased dole payments.
I suspect that if you forced people to work for their benefits, you'd be able to trust them about as far as you could throw them, so you could only provide them with very basic manual tasks, where the stakes in case of a screw up were low. You'd be talking about almost chain gang / community service type stuff. However, that could be done well - painting the interiors of the numerous public owned buildings would be infinitely preferable to litter picking, say.
On the other hand, if it's optional, and it's vaguely relevant, I can see it being a fantastic scheme. I'd certainly have jumped at the chance, and there's work I could have done for councils which would have cost them a lot at commercial rates. Sitting around the house looking for jobs that didn't seem to exist drove me mad.
Such a scheme wouldn't be a cheap thing to administer, but it would be a good way of getting people back into work, and making a period of unemployment far less of a CV bomb.
As for whether it'd be a "make work" scheme or not, I'm not sure. I reckon there's a fair amount of stuff that needs doing and doesn't get done because it isn't a high priority / there isn't the budget to do it. Certainly it would be vital to ensure that the work didn't undercut the remaining employed workers.
I work in this area broiadly - helping people back to work.
it always sound slike a good idea. The unemployed get "skills" and those working get to feel that they are doing something to get their benefits. However it is costly suoervisors, monitoring lagal costs when someone challenges this when/if benefits are stopped because they refuse.
The work would be menial such as litter picking . Employers don't want to give these people a chance via a work scheme/trial [ it also costs the state in having to pay for the H & S cover and to inspect the premises first and monitor the placement] and where they do they tend to use them as free labour, thus increasing unemeployment.
IME it makes grweat paper headlines as the givt looks tough on an easy target and lots of people are happy that it is tougher for those on benefits. however as there is not a surplus of jobs out there clealry this wonderful system requires a number of those of working age to be "happy" /satiaited tolerant on benefits.
Aside from the aspect of using free labour to undermine paid workers, it makes 'helping the unemployed' look very similar to the punishment that element of non-custodial sentences.
Chain gangs are what we need - complete with a tobacco chewing, shotgun toting guard
that'll learn 'em
I wouldn't dismiss the concept out of hand.
The idea should be contingent upon enhanced levels of JSA for those who participate though, possibly on a sliding scale dependent upon how many hours they put in. I think I'd have been quite happy to give this a go when I was unemployed.
Then again, I made the mistake of attending Job Centre Plus clean shaven, wearing a suit and freshly polished shoes with my CV at the ready and a portfolio of job applications that I had submitted along with corresponding covering letters.
The advisors reacted with a blend of bewilderment and borderline panic whilst the leisurewear clad denizens of Bournemouth West gawped open mouthed between foul mouthed tirades at their wives/girlfriends/whatevers and the long suffering receptionist.
They're just not geared up to help people who actually want to work.
I have often thought that community recycling and composting would provide a great use of the benefits claimants' time.
It also costs the state in having to pay for the H & S cover and to inspect the premises first and monitor the placement
Surely the H&S aspect is the responsibility of the employer and the HSE? I can see the argument that the government facilitates the placement, but is that so different from facilitating someone's job advert?
As I said above, I can see how it would be very difficult to force people to do it, but I would have jumped at the chance for a bit of state sponsored part time work.
Them clothes got laundry numbers on them. You remember your number and always wear the ones that has your number. Any man forgets his number spends a night in the box. These here spoons you keep with you. Any man loses his spoon spends a night in the box. There's no playing grab-ass or fighting in the building. You got a grudge against another man, you fight him Saturday afternoon. Any man playing grab-ass or fighting in the building spends a night in the box. First bell's at five minutes of eight when you will get in your bunk. Last bell is at eight. Any man not in his bunk at eight spends the night in the box. There is no smoking in the prone position in bed. To smoke you must have both legs over the side of your bunk. Any man caught smoking in the prone position in bed... spends a night in the box. You get two sheets. Every Saturday, you put the clean sheet on the top... the top sheet on the bottom... and the bottom sheet you turn in to the laundry boy. Any man turns in the wrong sheet spends a night in the box. No one'll sit in the bunks with dirty pants on. Any man with dirty pants on sitting on the bunks spends a night in the box. Any man don't bring back his empty pop bottle spends a night in the box. Any man loud talking spends a night in the box. You got questions, you come to me. I'm Carr, the floor walker. I'm responsible for order in here. Any man don't keep order spends a night in...
ime looking for work, if done properly is a full time job in itself. I can see it being difficult to differentiate between the institutionalised unemployed, and the serious job seeker. In today's economic climate there's bound to be a lot of people looking for work who would be pretty severely disadvantaged in looking for work if they had to work on a scheme similar to this, and jobhunt.
Maybe something like 20 hours a month on a flexitime basis might be workable though.
Then there's all the stuff like holiday pay, annual leave, stakeholder pension schemes etc to consider.
I have often thought that community recycling and composting would provide a great use of the benefits claimants' time.
They already do, every recycling project I know of (furniture, carpets, wood, green waste), as well as the community woodland planting schemes, and quite a prolific amount of path building around here is powered to a great extent by 'trainees' on JSA.
The work would be menial such as litter picking
See, there are already people employed doing such jobs, who would be getting paid a lot more than such a scheme would 'pay' the claimants. Believe me, if you told someone they had to do it, or lose their money, many would tell you to **** off. Then, many would resort to crime. Being forced to do something you really don't want to would seem like a punishment, and stuff like Community Service doesn't really work anyway. You get CS lads down the canal pulling up weeds; they sit around smoking weed mostly, abusing their supervisor.
There is an underclass in Britain, of very poor, unskilled and undereducated people. How has this underclass evolved? Because of lack of investment in areas where industry has closed down, lack of investment in education services, industries moving abroad/no longer requiring traditional skills etc. Where I live, billions has been pumped into the development of a financial centre, yet hardly any of the decently paid jobs are done by 'locals'. Even during the construction phases, workers have been shipped in from abroad. The local people, once employed in the Docks and related industries, have seen jobs disappear. Piss poor educational facilities mean they haven't had the opportunity to learn new skills, or gain qualifications needed to do the new jobs. This pattern I'm sure has been repeated around the UK.
You want to help the unemployed? Give them opportunities to [i]learn[/i]. Provide colleges and training centres. Not half-arsed 'employment' schemes designed to appease the voters.
However, that could be done well - painting the interiors of the numerous public owned buildings would be infinitely preferable to litter picking, say.
Only if you want a really shit painting job done expensively and slowly.
They already do 'voluntary' work for people on the dole (although unpaid). I had a friend who was on the dole a bit back, they said they'd get him some voluntary work relevant to his career sorted out. He's an IT/systems admin person, so exactly the sort of person who could do some useful work for a lot of small charities sorting out their computers or something like that. So next thing is, they call him up, say that he has to turn up the next day and clear weed out of the local canal. What a waste of skills.
You want to help the unemployed? Give them opportunities to learn.
There's more than one kind of unemployed in my experience.
I was unemployed despite being well educated and being good at my job. The economy had taken a nose dive and our customers were a) putting new work on hold and b) going bust. The people on my payscale who made the cut were working on long term contracts, masters level qualified, or about to take a masters. You're basically talking cyclical employment.
Structural unemployment of the type you describe does exist - I've mentioned on other threads how people around here are still eating as if they work in manual jobs. The thing is, the manual jobs left 20 years ago, and most of them are now old men. Retraining someone who never expected to have a desk job in their life is very difficult.
To me, the biggest problem we have at the moment is youth unemployment. If that's a pattern that continues, we're potentially paying for 50-60 years of someone doing nothing, which isn't good for them or us.
They already do 'voluntary' work for people on the dole (although unpaid).
aren't they only allowed to do 16 hours unpaid voluntary work without losing benefits?
on the basis that you can't be looking for a job if you're busy doing other things?
"The proposals would see participants work 19.5 hours a week and receive around €210 in return"
£172? thats better than being on the dole and work experience!
Just would need another part time job or look for full time job!
But it depends what they want people to do-pick up litter or an office job etc.
£172? thats better than being on the dole and work experience!
Bear in mind that this is in Ireland, so we don't know if they would have to find their accommodation costs etc from that amount. Seems a fair rate of pay though. Bit less than £10 an hour.
You want to help the unemployed? Give them opportunities to learn. Provide colleges and training centres.
Not much point if there's no jobs out there for them. If we want to employ more people we need to encourage more businesses to set up and run in the country. We need to encourage industries that require a range of skills across the board and stop bringing in as much outside knowledge, stop selling out to other countries and start focusing more on quality rather than quantity.
Yes, that as well, Coffeeking. But many problems stem from the fact that certain deprived areas have been so neglected, that the static local popultion are generally unskilled and unqualified for any jobs that might be available if any businesses do set up in the local area.
The Canary Wharf development was a classic case of '**** the locals, we'll just buy the land cheap and turn it into something that serves our own interests', by Maggie's mates. All sorts of promises of local investment, training and jobs, that never materialised. Hence, thousands of people living on or below the Poverty line with little or no realistic hope of getting the jobs that pay others silly money, and afford them luxuries the locals can never hope to gain. It's disgusting. The local council gladly spend millions on nice new roads to access the new developments, while there are people literally living in the shadow of the skyscrapers, in disgraceful housing conditions where they are told there 'isn't the money for repairs'. Come, and I'll show you the truth.
No wonder there is little motivation amongst the 'underclass' to work hard; what are the rewards? They still won't be able to afford to buy their own homes, get themselves into a position of increased economic security. Even the clever kids are finding there are fewer and fewer jobs, so what chance do the rest stand?
It must be very galling, sitting in a shabby council flat, on an estate riddled with crime and drugs, watching someone drive past in an Aston Martin while the council make excuse after excuse why they can't come and fix your broken boiler. In the middle of winter.
There is a cycle of despair that exists, that nullifies hope and expectation. I'm fortunate enough to have had a decent education, but there are many many more who've not had my luck. Don't they deserve it?
But many problems stem from the fact that certain deprived areas have been so neglected, that the static local popultion are generally unskilled and unqualified for any jobs that might be available if any businesses do set up in the local area.
A few years ago (ie, before the credit crunch), it seemed to me that anyone who wanted to work, could. Temp agencies would find you work very quickly, and we had several hundred thousand immigrants arrive to fill the jobs.
No problem with immigrants, but there seem to be jobs for everyone in the UK that wants one during the good times.
There are much wider problems with the benefits and housing system that tend to keep people out of work - if you live in a council house, it's very difficult to move, and if you're on benefits, everything happens in slow motion. Which means if you live hand to mouth, taking a week's work can risk having no income for the 6 weeks following.
For once there is a fair bit of sense in amongst the usual tripe. Elfinsafety and CK are saying stuff that I agree with.
In short though - the country is f***ed. Needs some huge changes to take place. If I had all the answers to it I'd be minted, but then I'd be part of the problem too. Too many people out to exploit others...
My first step would be to sack everyone that works for the council.
Elfinsafety and CK are saying stuff that I agree with.
I'm glad I'm not alone. I've been banging on about this sort of stuff for ages. 😉
why should anyone get something for free, think all are benifits are given out to freely and dont get me on the free cars for the mobility. benifits need to be a lot lot lower sit on your ass if you want to but you are not going to get anything and if you are out side of the uk your benifits stop none of this have a baby here then f""k off back to poland or where ever
as bravohotel9er said, I came back from a few years in Saudi and decided to sign of for a couple of weeks while I found something else.
I turned to to Stretford job centre (when it was across from the arndale centre) clad in a nice suit, shoes all spick and span as well as a fully up to date CV and copies of jobs I had written off for and trade magazines and agencies who I was registered with.
After the staff almost fell over that I was not the area manager doing a spot check on them the reaction I got was positive and open in support.
I got the impression that the majority of "clients" did no more than drag themselves out of bed, munch on a couple of tick tacks and pick their nose before turning up.
The is a massive gap between genuine support for anyone out of work, wants to get back as soon as possible and the lot that see it a "right" to to$$ it off for as long as they can.
The second lot should be made to wear bright orange jump suits and sweep the streets.
i've been unemployed once and i never want to go there again.
however, should the need arise, i'd be delighted to have the option of working part-time for my benefits/more benefits.
mopping the floors in hospitals* would be my choice - i love a bit of mopping.
get me out of the house, keep me in a routine, do a bit of mopping, it amazes me that this isn't even an option, i'll even bring my own mop!
(*lots of lovely corridors, and a place where my particular fetish for a REALLY clean floor would be important)
Plus takes actual jobs out of the system, otherwise the work they are doing is really a 'non-job'...
I thought that at first, but really it's not. It's making up the deficit in public services. There aren't enough people picking up litter, for instance.
however as there is not a surplus of jobs out there
There has been. It's why there has been high immigration.
A few years ago (ie, before the credit crunch), it seemed to me that anyone who wanted to work, could. Temp agencies would find you work very quickly, and we had several hundred thousand immigrants arrive to fill the jobs.
Did you read Elfinsafeties post?
I did. He sounded to me like he was describing structural unemployment. The people who live near Canary Wharf and don't have jobs presumably did have jobs at some time, but the industries they worked in have gone.
And I don't think anyone can dispute that there was work for anyone who wanted it until fairly recently. I've certainly had a few unskilled factory jobs and the like.
The issue is that people would have to follow the work. It's not ideal, but it's a fact of life. Most people who have marketable skills and qualifications will find that they have to move to where the work is, or commute long distances.
Why on earth should those who don't have skills and qualifications be any different? We need to sort out social housing and benefits, get both functioning effectively and quickly, so that labour can be mobile, and free to take on any work that's going, even if it is short term. At the moment, the system makes it pretty much impossible.
Reskilling is of value, but if people have all the skills in the world, and they're in an area with bugger all economic activity, those skills will just atrophy.
well you may have read it, but I'm still not sure you understood.
I seem to remember that you're a teacher. Please explain where my comprehension is lacking.
The issue is that people would have to follow the work. It's not ideal, but it's a fact of life. Most people who have marketable skills and qualifications will find that they have to move to where the work is, or commute long distances.
I think you'd also find that those people also tend to have nice cars which they can spend £70 a week filling with petrol to then commute four or five hundred miles to where the job that means so much to them is.
Or else:
They have plenty of income to play the housing ladder game and can afford to pay estate agents, solicitors, and the plethora of other professions squeezing money out of the house move business so that they can move to their dream jobs.
Whereas on the other hand,
those who don't have skills and qualifications
often tend to live in assisted housing, council estates, housing association schemes and accordingly, don't tend to have the ten grand going spare to move to where the next unskilled warehouse picking job, or cleaner's job comes up. Nor do they have a grand a month (or whatever it is these days) to splash out on a train ticket to take them that fifty or sixty miles for that dream warehouse picking job.
It's just not as simple as saying, sorry, we shut your factory down matey, now, on your bike and **** off to where there's a job.
They're just not geared up to help people who actually want to work.
A fair point they are about ensuring you meet the requirements.IIRC they have about 8 mins per person and 35 for a new claimant. I am sure if it was privately run it would be more efficiant
Surely the H&S aspect is the responsibility of the employer and the HSE? I can see the argument that the government facilitates the placement, but is that so different from facilitating someone's job advert?
If you put someone on a placement YOU need to ensure they place meets their H & S responsibilities. If the person is not an employee then they are not covered by the companies insurance hence someone else has to pay to get cover i.e the state.
You want to help the unemployed? Give them opportunities to learn. Provide colleges and training centres.
This makes two false assumptions. Firstly that we have a skills shortage in employment which we do not [ unless of course you want to train them to be heart surgeons or the like]. Secondly it assumes you can train them. Many have no functional literacy or numeracy skills and therefore cannot be trained as they lack they are not able enough to learn.
why should anyone get something for free, think all are benifits are given out to freely and dont get me on the free cars for the mobility. benifits need to be a lot lot lower sit on your ass if you want to but you are not going to get anything and if you are out side of the uk your benifits stop none of this have a baby here then f""k off back to poland or where ever
If we did not pay benefits they would steal/starve and that would be more costly in the long run. There are also compassionate reasons that would presumably be lost on you. The poland example is lost on me as I dont read the mail.
there is a massive gap between genuine support for anyone out of work, wants to get back as soon as possible and the lot that see it a "right" to to$$ it off for as long as they can.
Correct but most of those who want a job dont actually require support. You have a CV, the knowledge of where to look, the ability to fill in an application form etc.
so that labour can be mobile, and free to take on any work that's going, even if it is short term
On yer bike basically.Problem is most people want jobs where they live they dont want to relocate for a short term job.
Again there is no easy solution and without full employment we must accept that a number of people will be unemployed whatever we do. Being punitive towards these people, when not all can have jobs, lacks compassion and humanity IMHO.
There are number of hardcore "scroungers" with multiple kids but if you would you really want to swap places with them?
Unfortunately having a welfare state means that you will always give money to those who don't deserve it alongside those who do.
The alternative is not giving money to those who don't deserve it, and also not giving it to some of those who do.
All you can do is minimise the undeserving money, but who on earth knows what level of waste is feasible?
Bring back the workhouse .Unpaid community work in exchange for bed and board and medical help to clear the homeless off the streets?
I seem to remember that you're a teacher. Please explain where my comprehension is lacking
Elfinsafety was talking about why people do not feel motivated to want to work, you were simply looking at if there were jobs available. The only way to deal with generational unemployment/scrounging is to raise peoples ambition. You talk of getting business going to provide employment opportunities yet as you point out yourself these are often filled by foreign workers, getting to the nub of why this is will not be a matter of telling them to get on their bikes and try harder.
I thought we ditched the "deserving poor" and "undeserving poor" nonsense in the 19th Century?
You talk of getting business going to provide employment opportunities yet as you point out yourself these are often filled by foreign workers, getting to the nub of why this is will not be a matter of telling them to get on their bikes and try harder.
My point of view is this:
The benefits and housing system create a situation where it can be extremely difficult to take / find paid work. It's difficult to move, and taking employment and losing it can be extremely problematic due to the delays involved in setting up a new benefits claim. What I'm saying is, if you pay people their benefits in a timely fashion, and provide them with the freedom to move, they should have a far better chance of finding suitable 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.
Unskilled foreign workers are at a disadvantage compared with unskilled UK workers in my view.
And as for the people who relocate for work having tonnes of cash, not in my world.
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 ?