Housing Benefit for under 25s

Not quite JessM. I actually meant that we need to reassess our spending on social housing criteria for all in areas where housing is at a premium but jobs are not. We need to ensure we house those who are working first and foremost.

Having done that I would use the savings in the areas where there are many people without jobs but lots of housing and provide as much training, education and encouragement for social entrepreneurs to build companies as possible. We should also encourage other companies to locate outside the overcrowded London and the South East in order to rebalance the country. I was not referring specifically to the under 25s.

We are actually distorting the economy by paying for people to live where they seem unable to make a living at all while those who can cannot find housing. I am not suggesting we abandon them but that we stop trying to act like Canute's courtiers telling all and sundry the tide can be held back.

speye.wordpress.com/2014/09/04/inner-to-outer-london-homeless-diaspora-and-hb-cleansing-is-all-there-in-dwp-figures/

It's happening already, gracesgran. Rachmanism in London, or is it Shirley Porter style gerrymandering.
That's what it was called.

I live in the North East, having moved closer to my sons and their families. We chose to do it. When you move people out of London or the South East because you do not want to pay their rent, you move them away from their support groups, whether family or social, and leave them isolated. It actually costs the community more than the rent in the long run.

Why do people have something against helping those in trouble?

Fliiping eck Gracesgran How would you feel if one of your children ended up unemployed and homeless and was sent off to the back of beyond away from any of their social contacts. IMO that really lacks compassion for the vulnerable.

Durhamjen and JessM have made sound points about the actual social effects of moving people about like pawns on a chessboard.

The awful Shirley Porter gerrymandering was quite a few years ago now.

Am I being obtuse, Gracesgran - by "social housing criteria" do you mean housing benefit payments?

Or do you mean getting a council house (or a housing association house) So only those in work should have access to social housing in the south east?
And where does the "saving" come from?

Boosting the other areas deliberately is of course a great idea but is a long time project and requires a change of mindset from the current London-centric view of politicians.
I think a start could be made by relocating more government offices out of London to create jobs in the regions and investing in inter-regional infrastructure instead of squandering money on HS2.

Excellent idea contained in your last paragraph,, JessM. With computer links there is no reason whatsoever not to do this.
However, we would not want to become too reliant on public sector jobs; businesses need to be encouraged to locate in the regions.

Boosting the other areas deliberately is of course a great idea but is a long time project and requires a change of mindset from the current London-centric view of politicians.

Once again, it is being asked that those who benefit the most from the current system, be prepared to change it and that isn't going to happen. This is why I have sympathy with Scotland and Wales. There is no need for central government to be so involved in other areas of the country where they know little about the local economies and what those areas need to flourish but they still make decisions (often very damaging ones that override the local MPs of those areas) that affect the whole country - except London and the SE.

durham you are wrong about this It's no wonder they have to rent for most of their lives, and pay high rents demanded by people who have had preferential mortgage rates using buy to let. Buy to let mortgages are more expensive than normal ones.

I cannot agree that moving away from your family and friends is always a bad thing because I speak from experience. Our family has learned a lot about different ways of living because we have moved around. Our children gained from moving schools. We have a much broader view of life than people we know who have only ever lived in one place especially our DiL who can't cope outside the M25. We now have friends all over the place too which is another bonus. Please stop perpetuating the idea that moving away is a bad thing for us it has enriched our lives.

I always think we should be careful when making statements such as “How would you feel if one of your children ended up unemployed and homeless and was sent off to the back of beyond away from any of their social contacts”.

However, taking this away from personal comment I would, as the politicians are happy to say, not start from this point. I feel that we should ensure that the “benefits” system returns to what it was - insurance. That means it would be divided into two, contributory (insurance) and none contributory (state charity). I see this as the making the difference between socialism (Russian style) and social democracy (Sweden, etc.). The big difference with social democracy is it takes everyone along by making them feel that it is there for all in difficulty instead of demonising the rich and making them feel they don’t want to contribute.

So, for those who have lost their job I would have a limited time payment (six months?) of two thirds of their previous salary. This would enable them to continue to pay bills without losing their house etc. Currently you get more out of the benefits system, when you loose your job, if you haven’t saved. Those who have worked, paid their taxes and saved get a derisory amount for six months and then it stops. Those who haven’t saved could well get more and certainly will get it for longer.

The system of paying two thirds could also take into account any necessary benefits being paid to make up a full time income. This would ensure that those who have been working, but on very low incomes, are not penalised. It would take large numbers of people out of the "benefits" system. Those changing jobs within a six month period would only have to show they have been made redundant and then register when they are back in work although you would think the tax system could do that automatically.

We then get back to how we allocate social housing. I feel that someone working in an area should be prioritised - at the top of the list. We used to have council estates full of working people and their families and this is what we should be aiming to do again. The shortages of housing are all in areas where lots of workers are needed. We are currently encouraging people to work fewer hours than full time by making it more profitable for them, so ending up trapped on benefits. Indeed we even do benefits checks to tell them this is the case. That is what I call a lack of compassion. We salve our consciences today by wrecking their futures.

them away from their support groups, whether family or social, and leave them isolated.

But doesn't that happen already with people willingly moving from the UK and to the UK?

Sorry my post was so long everyone . I will try and keep them shorter in the future.

Hollydaze I'm afraid you're right. People move to get work. I am sure many on here have had to do it, leaving behind great social networks, etc.

How would you feel if one of your children ended up unemployed and homeless and was sent off to the back of beyond away from any of their social contacts”.

I know this wasn't addressed to me but I will answer it anyway as that is what happened to us although we were not 'sent' we chose to go as that was where the job was and it cost us dear in financial terms including moving costs and a highish mortgage. We did it and it was hard at the time but now we know how much we benefited from it.

If one of ours were unemployed and couldn't get a job where they lived I would encourage them to move to wherever they could get a job but I don't think they would need any encouragement as they have all done it in the past and been enriched by so doing.

Nonnie

If one of ours were unemployed and couldn't get a job where they lived I would encourage them to move to wherever they could get a job but I don't think they would need any encouragement as they have all done it in the past and been enriched by so doing.

How many of us still live in the same area that we grew up in? That would be interesting to see.

My stepfather, who was born in Wales, was encouraged to apply for an apprentice scheme run by Cadbury's which he was given. At the age of 14, on his own, he was encouraged by his family to move to Birmingham in search of work and a better life - he moved into a boarding house and began work (I can't give the position he ended up with as that would probably identify him but he did extremely well for himself). He stated, on many occasions, it was the best gift (the encouragement) his family ever gave him. He loved Bournville (where he lived for the rest of his life - in the same house!) and was fiercely loyal to the area and Cadbury's for the life he ended up having. Moving doesn't always end in disaster and can often provide advantages that staying put doesn't.

If people are still in the UK, it's not as though they can't visit or stay in touch.

When I did my family history Holydaze, I was fascinated that, generations ago, so many young men from my mother's family went abroad. They were a farming family and apparently, rather than divide the land down, younger sons were sent to cousins in Canada, USA, South Africa and Australia. This would often be when they got to be 14 and thought to be useful, the same age as your stepfather. The hope was they could buy land for themselves at a later date. They would almost certainly never see their homes again.

I have some lovely diary entries from one of her forebears, an ironmonger at the time although he became a photographer (? ) who went to Australia in 1841 to join cousins who were already there.

Although he wasn't sent, but chose to go and has subsequently set up his own business with his wife, my son has lived in Australia for the last nine years where he has got married and had his children. We do see my beautiful grandchildren when they come over about once every three years and other members of the family manage to go in between. I have been a couple of times but with caring for my mother it has become more difficult so you can imagine my feeling of "you do what you have to do" are quite strong.

Grace you have reminded me about a friend who looked into DH's family history and discovered he came originally from a farming background but that his ancestors moved to the big city for work, although one of them moved to Barbados, got very rich then returned home penniless. Presumably that is the branch DH is from!

How lovely to learn all of that Gracesgran life was very different then wasn't it, the spirit to get up and go, the sense of adventure. As my family barely moved more than a street away from one another their whole lives, I don't think I'd find anything as remotely interesting as your family!

Presumably that is the branch DH is from!

Awww, it's always the way isn't it - my great-grandmother came from a very wealthy family and 'ran off' with a 'most unsuitable young man' and was instantly disinherited; thanks great-grandmother

Holly in live in hope that somewhere out there is a rellie we have never heard of who is going to send us gold bars!

I agree about moving away from home Nonnie- we had no choice but to move around for OH's job- and I came to London to learn English for 6 months originally. Moving has opened our mind and enriched our lives in so many ways.

BTW I know many unemployed younsters (and older now) who refuse to live anywhere else than London, refuse to go 'back home' or anywhere else- which costs the State vast amounts to support- and for some, to their parents. If they have not found a job in London in the last 5, 10 or 15 years- they are hardly going to do so tomorrow!

HollyDaze. You say you don't understand 'safe place to live' try and imagine being 18 and your drunken father is pointing a gun at you in the street.
Then you would understand what it means to need a 'safe place to live'

They may have worked from dawn to dusk but I don't know of any of my little lot who made a fortune eithe Holldaze and Nonnie . It is funny to hear you say about the gold bars, we often say it would be lovely if someone (someone we have never known of course) left us a fortune but the only person I know to whom that happened was a chap I used to work for - and he was already a millionaire several times over!

Grace I have that dream in the same way others dream of winning the lottery!

Please stop perpetuating the idea that moving away is a bad thing for us it has enriched our lives.
nonnie I would agree with this; we have moved with work commitments over the years. We settled where we are nearly 30 years ago but who knows, we like where we live but .... - enterprising DDs are in Australia.
My GGF moved to help build the railways in the 1850s, some of DH's family went overseas to Canada in the early 1900s, others moved elsewhere, no-one seemed to have stayed in their place of birth on either side of the family. My DM left home at 14 to work and lived in various places including overseas, which opened up her life.
DH does have a very rich distant cousin (we haven't met him unfortunately) but I doubt he has heard of us and we won't be receiving any gold bars.

You all seem to be talking about choosing to move.
Many people are being asked to move away from their support groups without the choice.
My husband and I lived in Hull, Northumberland, Norfolk, Peterborough, Hampshire, back to Hull, then York, then Durham. He also worked in Manchester and London at various times. Most of the time we chose where to move at times of our choosing. Occasionally we moved because people were being made redundant in the companies he was working, and he did not want to be the last out with no jobs to apply for.
This is completely different to the situation now, where people are being moved because councils are being told they can no longer pay the rents for people who have an extra room in their houses.
I cannot understand how you cannot see the difference.

This thread seems to be going round in circles, bogged down in personal experiences that occurred under different economic conditions. Mobility of labour is a complex issue, has many advantages to the economy and a mixture of benefits and harms to individuals and families. There have been winners and losers. To judge the young by shining a light through the lens of our own experiences is not necessarily useful illumination.
Of course council estates were full of working families when they were built in times of high (male) employment. They were built to house working people who previously lived in very poor, crowded housing indeed or were bombed out in the blitz. The whole economy of the country has undergone a vast change since then.
The issue of housing support for poorer, younger people in today's economic conditions is not massively relevant to our own experiences when housing costs were much lower and employment more secure. Someone recently calculated that if the cost of bread had risen as much as the cost of housing since the 1970s, a loaf would currently cost £70.
Housing costs are high because the supply of low cost housing has been limited - there is no massive building of social housing for this generation. Successive governments have felt the votes were in home ownership and they have let the private market rip. Many have gained from this - people of our generation who own several properties for instance. Young people today are the victim of decades of market forces in the housing market.