www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... Trent.html

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... Trent.html

Completely different situation from Dame Shirl's gerrymandering.

Presumably Grant Shapps has contacted every single one of those landlords coming up on his Rightmove search to check that they are happy to accept tenants in receipt of Housing Benefit?

Otherwise it's like telling 1,000 unemployed orthopaedic surgeons that there are 1,000 local job vacancies for dentists. About as pointless as Mr Shapps himself.

It's let's play political football with the poor time. Both the government and the Labour party are disgraceful.

[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/blog/2012/apr/24/why-newham-council-housing-fixSome interesting points here[/url, although I don't entirely agree with the stuff about rent caps – other countries manage it. Indeed, if memory serves, we're the only country in western Europe that doesn't have any rent regulation.

Newham council have written to 1,179 different housing associations (according to the BBC article quoting the leader of the council) so you would have to be a bit mad to do that to make a political point.

I have to say though the fact they wrote to one in Stoke has highlighted the issue so if that is playing politics with this and got this issue to the fore why is that a bad thing?

Or would you rather it be brushed under the carpet and hope it goes away?

There are 88,000 families in London who are on housing benefit that live in properties with rents above the new government guidelines which means they have to move. Where to?

The problem is obvious. A lack of social housing that the less well off can afford to rent (council houses). Without such property being available the Tories beloved market forces come into play and we end up where we are with private rents through the roof and housing benefit going with it which means we the taxpayer are funding private landlords!

The Tory solution? As Boris has said a "Kosovo-style social cleansing of London".

The sensible solution? Tackle high rents realising first you can't let market forces do that for you because it clearly doesn't work.

As to Snapps he would never countenance private landlords being compelled to take housing benefit tenants so his comments are typical Tory spin.

There'll be 2,800 almost-new, vacant homes available in the borough by the end of the year, why would Newham need to ship families out?

Who will own the homes, how much will they cost to rent?

[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/apr/24/tory-westminster-council-tenants-derbyIt's not just Newham[/url.

Dunno but this is from the 2012 website:

[iAfter the Games

After the Games, the Olympic and Paralympic Village will be a lasting legacy of essential new housing for east London. It will be transformed into 2,800 new homes, including 1,379 affordable homes.

The communities that develop in the area after the Games will be supported by new parks, open space, transport links, and community facilities including Chobham Academy – a world-class new education campus with 1,800 places for students aged 3-19.[/i

Quite why all of the 2,800 cannot be "affordable" (whatever that may mean) is beyond me, although a mixed housing development with a majority "affordable" is something of a first in this country. Usually it's the other way round and the "affordable" housing seems to be magically allocated to relatives or friends of councillors and developers.

I'd dearly love to see a London Mayor (or Mayor of any major conurbation) follow an initiative like that set by John Norquist, a previous Mayor of Milwaukee and a strong advocate of [url=http://www.cnu.org/New Urbanism[/url

On the housing:



[url=http://www.stratfordlondon.info/developments/athletes-villageLink[/url

'Affordable' is a joke.

A block of 72 one to three bed flats on our road, which was built where an old warehouse once stood, had to have half of the flats available as 'affordable'.

When they went on sale about five years ago, the cheapest private one was on the market for £250,000. So, since the 'affordable' ones were half that price, an 'affordable' one bed flat would have been £125,000.

So, on the basis of what was considered sensible, you need an income of £41,666 per annum to afford one.

That, according to [url=http://www.payscale.com/research/UK/Country=United_Kingdom/Salarythis[/url, is less than a senior software engineer/developer/programmer earns and just about what a "project manager, information technology (IT)" pulls in.

So the overwhelming majority are utterly screwed – even doing jobs that some on here would consider acceptable (and not the menial ones that people should aspire their way out of, because after all, those jobs don't really need doing).

Housing benefit seems to artificially hold up rents. By reducing it rents ought to fall, but there will be a time lag during which unfortunate souls will be transported to other parts of the country. Indeed, one of the comments on the DM website was from a landlord (up North) saying that he showed his flat to a pair of young doctors who felt it was "a bit dear" for them. He let it to a couple on Housing Benefit. So, HB does seem to distort the market.

The only issue for London could be that the annual intake of young graduates and pent up demand will keep rents up in hitherto deprived boroughs making the whole city a no go area for low paid working class people. That in turn will mean a dearth of available staff for transport, cleaning, care homes, etc, etc, etc. That will result in big problems and costs (no doubt state funded) in remedying the siutation in a few years time when the middle classes and businessses start to moan.

A short-sighted policy. There must be a better solution.

Rents will never fall until huge numbers of houses are released onto the market. All that will happen is the accommodation previously occupied by HB benefit tenants will be taken up by non-HB benefit tenants. Government should grab unoccupied houses and flats, rent them at sensible levels and pass the remaining rent, after expenses, to the original owners. That, couple with an introduction of LVT should soon see enough housing stock released and rents come tumbling down. The downside to all of this is that property values will fall commensurately

Schapps was interviewed on 5 live today and took a call from an unemployed bloke who was on basic dole and had just been told he had to pay £15 towards his rent because the changes in benefit calculations (not just the cap, but the change from 50 to 30 percentile), meant he was having to move. He said to Schapps that he could not afford either the £15 or to move (deposits etc), but the cold ba$tard spouted off about if he couldn't afford where he was he would need to move as he was a drain on the taxpayers of Britain.

Another example of the 'new' caring Conservatives.

Well that kind of destroys Snapp's claim it was politically motivated by Newham council.

And why is that even remotely acceptable?



So based on one comment on the DM web site, HB puts rents up? It is the other way around. HB follows rents! Provide cheaper rentals and HB costs will fall.



The only issue?

Different methods, same results.

Biggest news on the smug tw*ts website: www.shapps.com/2012/04/local-mp- ... -pavement/ So what a useless c**t he must be 'he's been CAMPAIGNING to have the pavement repaired since 2009!' In the Big Society you'd have thought'd he'd have got his tools out and fixed it himself rather than wasting 3 years moaning and presumably expecting the taxpayers / socialist Co-op to pay for it. "Hypocritical bas***d" springs to mind. He is pleased a tree got cut down too - pity it wasn't the Tory (logo) tree!

Biggest news on the smug tw*ts website: www.shapps.com/2012/04/local-mp- ... -pavement/ So what a useless c**t he must be 'he's been CAMPAIGNING to have the pavement repaired since 2009!' In the Big Society you'd have thought'd he'd have got his tools out and fixed it himself rather than wasting 3 years moaning and presumably expecting the taxpayers / socialist Co-op to pay for it. "Hypocritical bas***d" springs to mind. He is pleased a tree got cut down too - pity it wasn't the Tory (logo) tree!

[url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17829163Now it's Ilford to Walsall[/url

If this sin't social engineering or even social cleansing, then I'm at a loss as to what is.

A couple of years ago, I was in the situation of finding my own abode ( got binbagged). I contacted the local council and told them my situation. Then came the questions, in this order.
1/ Have you ever been racially abused?
2/ Have you ever been sexually abused?
3/ What is your NI number?
4/ What is your full name?
5/ Are you in full-time employment or self employed?
Because I answered no to the 1st 2 questions and yes to number 5, I was told that I would be at the bottom of the list for about 2-3 years and then the best I could hope for would be a 1 bed maisonette. Imagine my delight, when renting privately after 6 months, that the new complex behind me was all occupied by foreigners. Now, this ain't a NF rant, but are the 1s who are being asked to relocate, foreigners or British? And who takes precedent on the housing ladder?

Now, we would'nt be in this situation regarding council houses, if that cow Thatcher had'nt come up with the bright idea of letting people buy council houses in the 1st place, especially considering they were originally built for the most needy.

Those in most need at the time.

Not always the case.

Yes it is, your perception of who is most in need or the judging criteria may be different however.