Haringey Cuts

kreuzkav

@Rainbow_carnage.  Were these friends already living in these flats before they claimed benefits?  Seems odd to have such luxury as most places available to benefit claimants are fairly basic.  I agree with you that it is unfair that someone on benefits with a family can have a bigger place than someone who works with a family.  It's a dilemma of the welfare state. I think more social housing and rent controls are needed to calm the market

miss annie

<p>Hardwood floors - overrated. They look pretty but collect dust like nobody's business and you wouldn't want to live under a flat that has them. Also they generally lead to cold flats/houses.</p><p>I also know people who have had lovely flats, and in one case a beautiful house, which they have found and moved into while on benefits. </p><p>@rainbow_carnage<;/p><p>Totally agree on the kids thing. I hate the culture that has grown in this country that you can endlessly have kids whether you can provide them with a decent quality of life or not because someone else will pay. It drastically needs sorting out. My mum was a single parent with me (sad story) in the days of no state benefit for the first child and didn't have my sisters until she was in a secure enough financial position with a roof over her head.</p><p> </p>

rainbow_carnage

@kreuzkav - Two of the three were unemployed (and, presumably, on HB) when they moved into their flats. I'm not sure about the third.<br><br>I agree that there should be some kind of price controls. There are subsidies for key workers, but not for other low-paid people. London needs teachers and nurses that can afford to live in the city where they work. But London also needs cleaners and waiters, artists and shelf-stackers, receptionists and charity workers. Why subsidise one group and not the others?<br><br>@miss annie - Your mum sounds like a sensible woman.<br><br>I've been married for 11 years. For the past six, we've been saying, "Maybe next year." Maybe after the next pay raise, we can have a baby. Maybe after I find a better job... In the meantime, the cost of living (i.e. housing) has skyrocketed. Our salaries haven't kept up.<br><br>I've made my choices, and I have to live with them. And while I regularly bitch about it, I don't expect any of you to have to pay to subsidise my lifestyle.<br>

Ali

I guess on kids that as they  will be forced to move to schools in cheaper areas that will create demand for school places in those areas leading to over demand  while schools in more exspensive areas where  no one can afford to have kids will not have enough  demand ?  This  could also lead to gettoisation and will you still be able to get your local house  cleaner

kreuzkav

Good point.

Ali

<P>I was also wondering why the kids get punished because  of the parents. Surely potentailly damaging the kids life chances could we perpetulate the promlem of benefits?</P> <P> </P>

Ali

<P>seems like the clearances will be starting soon </P> <P><A href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/feb/13/london-council-relocation-benefits-cap">http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/feb/13/london-council-relocation-benefits-cap</A></P>; <P> </P> <P>could be 1000 famlies affected in Haringey</P>

yagamuffin

<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">The whole system needs a complete overhaul. 'Council houses' and housing benefit should be temporary measures to help those in need until such a time as they get themselves back on their feet. When I hear stories of people being given a council house for life it makes me livid! Why? what has that person done to deserve such luxury?</font><div><font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">I'm not convinced by rent control and get so angry when I hear politicians say we need more social housing. We need more housing full stop. It's simple economics, supply and demand. Make more houses available and the prices (both rental and purchase) will fall.</font></div>

Arkady

Notice that it's Labour-run Councils that are threatening to do this, often the same ones (e.g. Haringey) that recently declined additional government funds in order make a political point.  The same Labour Haringey that only managed to get their accounts signed off at the last minute due to massive incompetance.  The same Labour Haringey that recently lost millions and millions over the failed Alexandra Palace project, but where the councillor responsible gets sent on a retraining course for bringing the council into disrepute and deliberately withholding critical information, whereas a fellow Labour councillor who questioned the new CEO's appointment loses the party whip.  <br><br>No-one should have any trust at all that these 'clearances' are actually necessary.  That said, there may well be a small number of families who are receiving OVER FIVE HUNDRED POUNDS A WEEK in benefit (considerably more than many of us earn) who legitimately cannot afford to live where they do and will have to consider facing the same pressures as the rest of us and move further out.<br>

Ali

<P>3,327 in Westminster.  Sounds like you need a better  paid  job </P>

Arkady

Amen to that.<br>

ADGS

Making more houses available will, in the current situation, just make more houses available for better-financed buy-to-let landlords to buy - oh, and destroy lots of open space, obviously. You can chuck all the goods you want into the marketplace but, when it's skewed in favour of certain purchasers, that alone will never lead to redistribution.

Arkady

I thought this was quite inspiring: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/15/tax-rethink-deborah-orr <br>

Ali

I beleive that if a "Mansion" tax is introduced it wilkl include buy to let landlords who have more than £2m is buy to let assetts. I guess they would just off shore it.