London and housing benefit: Boris v Dave

Boris has made himself look as rediculous as labour by his choice of words.
Do you really think Cameron will bow to Johnson? I don't think so.

Could we have the full quote please. Did he actually say the housing benefit changes would lead to Kosovo style cleansing, or was he simply trying to reassure those who have claimed this will happen ?

Can anyone justify £2,000 a week being paid in housing benefit to a family where no-one works, enabling them to live in properties that a hard working family could only dream of?

The system has to change, well done the coalition for having the bottle to do this.

I dare say that behind the scenes the two of them have agreed to have a public spat about this. It allows Dave to control the arguments that are put to him so that he can answer in his own way as opposed to how Labour decide to frame it, and Boris looks like the big hero. Or am I cynical?

I'm with Boris on this. If social cleansing is what he doesn't want and Cameron disagrees with him, it does rather suggest that social cleansing is what Cameron is prepared to see happen. Being sniffy about the wording is a dead giveaway. The London boroughs are already booking extra B&B on the south coast for their housing benefit recipients, so perhaps they know something that the government is pretending it doesn't know.

Many years ago entire communities in London were uprooted for the ostensible reason of slum clearance. Others were encouraged to move to Harlow, Milton Keynes, Stevenage and other places as their employer relocated. This was all considered to be A Good Thing.

Now we hear that this is A Bad Thing which ought not to be allowed.

I am sorry but what was sauce for the goose then is sauce for the gander today.

The argument about close-knit communities was not accepted before so why is it now? My own London based family has been scattered to the four winds so why is the political class all hot under the collar now?

Is it because the GBP 20 billion a year subsidy for private landlords which housing benefit largely comprises is sustaining too many fortunes amongst the great and good in the capital? Or is it because they don't want to lose a ready supply of domestic servants? We ought to be told.

Does Boris expect us to subsidise both the banks and the landlords? I would have thought one of these was one too many! It is strange how these free market wallahs always seem to want to keep their hands in the pocket of the taxpayer.

It has taken me a while to engage with Boris but, with some issues he is so there, and this is one of them.
Some people may be trying tosidetrack the issue over his comment about Kosovo... get over yourself, for goodness sake.
This is about the less-well-off in Britain and Boris is soooo right.

Go for it Boris!

We could debate the rights and wrongs of housing benefit at astronomical levels until kingdom come. There are certainly two sides to the story, a story which has become more and more complicated as the UK housing market has distorted beyond any semblance of reason over the last ten years or so.

However, what seems to me to be beyond debate is the moral abhorrence of the simultaneous eviction of tens of thousands of families for no greater a crime than falling foul of a change in the rules. If this change were to be made, it should be brought in at a gradual rate over at least 5 years, to give people time to change and adapt their plans, find work in a new area and so on. Doing it in one fell swoop is simply inhuman, and comparisons to other clearing operations (I would choose Mugabe's slum clearances rather than Kosovo), are not entirely unjustified. The worst of it is that the sums involved are a drop in the ocean compared to the deficit.

Anyone who stands up to "call me Dave" on this issue has my support. I never thought I'd see the day when I sided with Boris Johnson against Nick Clegg, but we are where we are.

I am not really sure it is accurate to summarise this as a clash between Boris "standing up for London" and Dave "standing up for fairness".

I am sure that is how Downing Street would like to present/spin it. But I don't think that amounts to an analysis.

So is Boris advocating a return to the days of Lee Jasper who was renting a four bedroom house in Clapham for £90 a week thanks to the subsidy of the taxpayer?

Strange, I thought he fought an election to get rid of this kind of labour patronage...

Subsidised housing is social engineering. Live within your means. Why should people be given an expensive house when they won't work? Makes no sense whatever and is a positive cause of irritation and disincentive to get out of bed in the morning - and there are enough of them around already.

It's a great time to be a tory...

A couple of points to frame this argument a bit more fairly:
Firstly, there are working people who receive housing benefit. It would perhaps be fairer if their stories were featured amongst the sick or 'lazy' examples that appear in the media, as currently presented the story seems to be about people who don't want to work, which is a grotesque misrepresentation. I know hard-working part-time workers who receive help with their rent. Forcing them out of the area they live in could also mean they lose their job.
Secondly, the '£2000 per week' doesn't go to the family it goes to the landlord. A £2000 property is likely to be no different than a £500 or £250 per week property in a different location, and the benefit to the person living there no greater.
Perhaps a cap on rent would bring down the bill, based on the value of the property and then a percentage (below 100%) of the mortgage that would be required to purchase it. This way it might stop the poor buying extra houses for the rich via public subsidy, which is what is actually happening in the current situation, with potential owner-occupiers being priced out and pushed aside.

#8
Is it being seriously suggested that tens of thousands of landlords are going to let their tenants disappear and the property left open. I expect rents to come down to meet the limit, unless there are tens of thousands of other families waiting to move in at inflated rents.
It's called market forces!

Simple solution: require that all landlords and mortgage lenders accept whatever Housing Benefit is set at... a measure which would put no extra burden on the public purse yet allow those folks requiring state support to keep a roof over their heads. (Consider this: it costs a lot more to rehouse someone made homeless than it does to pay them Housing Benefit when they are without income!)

Landlords and mortgage lenders might whine, but I see no reason why they should not also suffer reduced income in times of austerity. At least they will be getting something for their 'efforts' - more than many do.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

I'm 100% behind Cameron on this one and I've lost a lot of respect for Johnson for wading in here.

Those who don't work for a living and/or those who have their lifestyle subsidised should not be housed in areas where the working population can only dream of living. It's morally indefensible.

Instead of resorting to outrageously offensive hyperbole a la Bryant and Johnson, how about tackling the unfair status quo? Oh, thankfully the government actually is (although it's not going nearly far enough).

The coalition must have courage in this one. I and many others won't accept the merest hint of dilution.

I can see the Govt folding on this one, and making it £600 a week within the London area and £400 anywhee else. I would put money on a London weighting being the end compromise here.

What is Boris about ? How about he go out and live in some foreign country and support them out there, instead of in our capital city, as London is almost occupied by foreigners now.

Boris is massively on the wrong side of this one. You ask anyone who works in central London if they think it's fair that they have to spend hours commuting each week from and to areas where they can afford to rent/buy property, while their taxes are spent on providing expensive city centre housing to the unemployed, and you'll get a very short, direct and unambiguous answer.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

£400 pounds per week looks like an overly generous upper limit, anyone living in accommodation that costs more than this and can't afford to pay the rent should find cheaper housing. I know that some people are genuinely sick, and some people lose jobs and find themselves in financial trouble, but it seems a helluva lot of claimants do not and have never worked. What Boris wants paid out is twice what a lot of people in other parts of the country are earning for a full week's work. Why should the private landlords of London be subsidised by the taxpayer.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

I never thought I would say this but I agree with Boris!
Once the Tory strategists work out that this policy will take Labour voters from safe labour seats, where their removal won't affect the outcome, placing them in the Tory marginals around London turning them into Labour seats something will be done.
I predict that around the next budget there will be the smell of burning rubber as a handbrake U turn is put in place before this measure comes into effect in April. Osbourne will say something along the lines of 'because of our quick action on the deficit and our sucessful strategy for growth I can tell that house that I can help those on low incomes in our cities further....'
Whatever Dave says now he will change this policy or ultimately risk defeat in the HoC. The only variable will be the timing i.e. when he can save face and present the U turn as a positive thing rather than a defeat at the hands of Boris et al.

Probably an unfortunate choice of words by Boris (not for the first time); but such an emotive comparison was ill-judged. Yet the man has a point, and one which should be explored. £20bn pa on housing benefit seems extreme, and there surely must be things to curb be it admin, fraud. But rushing through this particular "cut" definately needs more consideration, especially on social-policy, and the potentially dire consequences for some families. This may be a time of austerity, but I hoped I lived in a country that still looks after its own - particularly those who need and deserve help. Not "scroungers", but the many who deserve help. IMO this cut doesn't discriminate - because it has been rushed and poorly though out. Just my opinion. No political allegiance here.

If David Cameron forces people out of their homes, away from their family, friends and places of work, forcing families into BnB's, it will be a shameful episode in British history.

Cameron is showing how out of touch he is with ordinary people and with ordinary people's needs, supported by Nick Clegg.

If you want nice things you have to work hard for them - is that so hard for people to understand?

For most people, if they can't afford to live somewhere then they don't live there - why should Londoners be treated any differently? There are plenty of places in the UK where you could get a very nice house indeed for £400 a week. If people are that desperate to stay in a big house in London, why don't they get a job and work for that privilege?

So people who have the good luck to be in social housing that the government didn't sell off don't have to take any hit, but if the roll of the dice went the other way and you're getting the same benefit but provided by the private sector, you get kicked out? Crazy. I do find shelling out lots of my tax for benefits a tough pill to swallow, but it's a small price to pay to not live in Apartheid-lite

Evict those plebs! Send 'em to Paris!

So does this make Nick Clegg an opportunist for jumping behind Cameron even though a Tory mayor thinks this move is unfair, or Boris an opportunist for thinking about his votes, when the rest of his party backs this sort of ideology.

I think I'll say both. Nick Clegg aligning himself to the right of Boris Johnson will hopefully wake up any remaining Lib Dems deluded enough to think they're a member of a social democratic party.

4#

I think you might actually be right. This is another Liam Fox style episode with Boris playing to the gallery.

6#

Well said. Thats why I'm more inclined to believe that 4# actually has some substance.

Sorry but did anyone notice that the deregulation of rents by the tories led to a massive rise in private landlordism. Certainly in Belfast this fuelled property speculation with the resultant hugh hikes in rents to cover the ever increaing motgages taken out by frenzied speculators who created a crazy run on properties. I remember looking for my first home and having to join a queue of up to ten speculators who would push me out of the reckoning. Bring back rent control at affordable levels. This will ensure people of all classes can live in all areas, put a stop to property speculators feeding off those not able or do not want to enter the housing rat race. This will create more socially minded landlords - not in it just for the profit.

Bullingdumb wrote: "I know hard-working part-time workers who receive help with their rent. Forcing them out of the area they live in could also mean they lose their job."

What utter and complete twaddle. The vast, vast majority of people who work in London live miles away from where they work. I suggest you tell these people that you know to find somewhere to live outside central London, like the vast majority of us have to, and either learn how to cycle or familiarise themselves with the wonders of modern public transport.

Surely they are both missing the point or maybe not prepared to confront it.
Of course there are those who need rooting out, who are fraudsters,playing the game etc but rents in many Cities are hideous but not the fault of the tenants. Private landlords and Estate Agents have hiked the prices up and up, knowing people cannot afford to buy their own houses, so have to go for the next best thing - renting.
My daughter lives in London in a four bedroom house, not a 'posh area' by any means and these young people, just starting out in life, already ground down with student debts, are having to pay £800.00 a WEEK plus council tax and they were 'lucky' to find this one.
In Mr Cameron's own constituency a small two bed flat on the third floor, no lift, with a kitchen cut out of the corner of the living room costs £700.00 per month plus council and that is cheap apparently.

Once again the Tories and now the LibDems are showing just how out of touch they are with reality. The LibDems should be so ashamed of themselves for not walking away from this or at least offering a credible alternative. Just become YES men all of them.

I totally agree the whole housing system needs radical overhaul, starting with registering of all rented accommodation, as in other Countries. If they were all registered and rents set, then people who need housing benefit could be protected and tax payers would NOT be lining the pockets of landlords and estate agents, which is what happens in reality. People don't receive housing benefit, it goes to the landlord ( some might be in cahoots with their landlord and this also needs dealing with).
Students are ripped off by landlords and they end up in debt, whilst landlords and estate agents reap the rewards.
but
we know they won't tackle the real problem but just go for the weakest who will be least likely to protest effectively. Bully politics.

This is like telling the public they must recycle but don't tackle big business to stop the rubbish in the first place. Cowards and bullies always attack the vulnerable or those least able to defend themselves.

I hope Boris was just being his usual silly self and just trying to wind the rest of us up in the far off land outside London.

The plight of the huge army of cleaners and home helps that Boris and his chums rely on so much could be easily rectified if all those rich folks put their hands in their pockets and paid them enough so they can pay their rents instead of them having to rely on housing benefit.

Talking of having your cake and eating it!

A quick check on "Property Finder" showed nearly 1000 four bedroom properties to rent in London at less than £400 a week. Raising the limit to £450 increased that by nearly 30%. So a relatively small London weighting would allow both gentlemen off the hook; not too difficult.

If someone wants to privately pay lots of money in an area for their home while looking for work, good for them, however, when it's the taxpayer who's paying, I think those looking for work can do so from the comfort of somewhere cheaper than £400+ per week.

The use of the word "cleansing" is unfortunate, but in a way apt. My view is if you can't afford to live in an affluent area, move to one you/the taxpayer can afford. When you get a job/get affluent, you can move back to the affluent area.

I never thought I'd agree with Boris on something but on this point he is bob-on.

But, and this I really never thought, unfortunately "Call Me Dave" is also correct in principle - I don't think anyone can deny that the state should not be paying excessive rent in the form of housing benefit to support living in a property out of reach of the average hard working family. But where do you draw the line? If the family cannot be re-housed in the same borough for less money then they must be an exception and allowed to stay where they are at the current cost until a suitable alternative is available; when it is they must take it or else lose their entitlement to thee benefit. Job-done.

But going back to the Blonde Buffoon, his sentiments are entirely correct - this could be used as a weapon to shift the poor from pillar to post ultimately creating the new social ghettos in the city which will breed crime, disorder and disfunctional youths, much like the 80's did under Thatcher. That must not be allowed to happen - that would be totally and utterly wrong; a kind of Kosovo in one sense, with reminders for me of WWII. My solution above prevents that yet achieves the aim - it would just take longer and cost marginally more, yet not be seen as the full frontal attack on the poorest in this country as it looks like being in its current form.

Boris - You're a Bullingdon Toff but on this point you're right...

Thousands of families thrown out their homes: there is no alternative.

A million people made unemployed: there is no alternative.

Yet MORE billions to the EU: well may be, possibly, I'll ask them nicely.


It's a great time to laugh at the tories.

"Secondly, the '£2000 per week' doesn't go to the family it goes to the landlord."

So what? You'd justify buying them caviar as well on the grounds that th money went to the shop not the family?

The point is that if you were working and not getting benefits, you'd need to earn at least £170,000 a year to pay that sort of rent. And if you WERE earning and paying that rent, the rent would go to the landlord (surprise). The rent is high because (presumably) the house is in a popular area and/or is big and comnfortable, so why should non-working families end up in bigger houses and nicer areas, subsidised by working families living in more cramped houses and not so nice areas?

28. At 1:50pm on 28 Oct 2010, SJyelsnyA wrote:

"So does this make Nick Clegg an opportunist for jumping behind Cameron even though a Tory mayor thinks this move is unfair, or Boris an opportunist for thinking about his votes, when the rest of his party backs this sort of ideology.

I think I'll say both. Nick Clegg aligning himself to the right of Boris Johnson will hopefully wake up any remaining Lib Dems deluded enough to think they're a member of a social democratic party."

I'm a LibDem voter and fully agree that we can't afford nor should not pay for the unemployed to live in places which costs lots of money. There's a basic level of care that's required and that does not include a big house in Chelski.

32. At 1:52pm on 28 Oct 2010, timetoponder wrote:

"I totally agree the whole housing system needs radical overhaul, starting with registering of all rented accommodation, as in other Countries. If they were all registered and rents set, then people who need housing benefit could be protected and tax payers would NOT be lining the pockets of landlords and estate agents, which is what happens in reality. People don't receive housing benefit, it goes to the landlord ( some might be in cahoots with their landlord and this also needs dealing with).
Students are ripped off by landlords and they end up in debt, whilst landlords and estate agents reap the rewards."

I would also like to see a rent register, but that does not mean I don't think it's right for the unemployed to be put up in expensive abodes at the taxpayers expense.

This is quite simply about Class

rich V poor

Local authorities where banned by Thatchers mob in the 80’s from building anymore “council houses”, when all the council houses where being sold off.
The financial system was set up then to encourage private landlords “buy to let” Mortgages”, this is Thatcherism and a result of Thatcherism.

Labour tried to address the issues with more and more benefits to compensate for the higher & higher prices, including benefits to people who work 40 or 50 hours a week just so they can pay their rent, is this wrong?? Probably! But the wheels had been 10 -15 years in motion, it’s like a runaway train, the state has no control and no ability to control the free market, it can’t do things that might affect “competition” because “competition” is better for everyone.

So we (Cameron) blames the people but If we are just going to accept that poor people shouldn’t live in area’s they can’t afford, doesn’t that just give license for the uber rich classes to buy out towns, cities and area’s of the country, to make into their play areas as and when they like, probably gated or surrounded by moats complete with private hospitals, private security, the best services money can buy and out of reach to the underclass’s.
These areas then become surrounded by slums.
Isn’t that some darkage business, hasn’t this country already solved those exact problems once before because it didn’t work then and it won’t work now.
The lack of understanding regarding the issues at stake here is alarming but not surprising in “Modern Britain” tbh, where ignorance seems to be king.

Why should people be given an expensive house when they won't work?
--------------------------------------
You know this how? Some people make me sick. There's plenty of people that worked hard, paid their way but due to circumstances became dependent on the state. Many due to disability!

It's hard being disabled and claiming a benefit because it's now like wearing a badge saying 'scrounger!' Some other people lost low-paid jobs, from which they scrimped and saved to afford rent, honest decent people who are now labeled as scroungers because they live in a house that they may have lived in for years but is now in a desirable area with high rent.

I am a white british citizen that hates living in my own country because of its xenophobic attitudes, and the let's attack anyone that's different from middle England mentality.

Yes the true scroungers should be stopped but labelling everyone that this new law may affect as 'those that won't work' is disgraceful. I wonder what nasty generalisation I could give Middle Englanders!?

Just like the cap on non-EU immigration the policy is poorly thought-out, and simplified to appeal to the widest audience. Just like the immigration cap once its full implications are realised by Dave and his mates they will u-turn faster than a London cabbie in the bus lane! It obviously hasn't occurred to Boris or Dave that Housing Benefit has contributed significantly to the lure of buy-to-let and the consequent insane prices of housing in London?

Perhaps I'm missing something but I am sure I read that these housing benefit people may have to move out as far as Harrow or even Hendon? Dear Boris, that's already the only option for most young Londoners who actually do go out to work everyday. Get a grip.

"but I hoped I lived in a country that still looks after its own - particularly those who need and deserve help."

Not been in the UK for too long then Penguin? :o) Those days disappeared in the 1960s.

"The lack of understanding regarding the issues at stake here is alarming but not surprising in “Modern Britain” tbh, where ignorance seems to be king."

No kidding. Especially in that post.

4. Peter White wrote:

'I dare say that behind the scenes the two of them have agreed to have a public spat about this.'

Does look like a bit of political choreography. They've done it before.

Here's a novel idea, let's set this benefit at the same level as that given to MP's who apparently need a housing allowance as it is expensive to live in London. After all one set of people are portrayed as spongers and the other buy Duck Houses with our money..

Many of those who get the benefit are public sector workers such as nurses or teachers whose wage is not high enough to enable them to live within a reasonable proximity of their workplace. A junior teacher or nurse on say 20K will not be able to work in the city (or afford to commute) without housing aid. Not everyone in London can work in the city on a six figure salary. Someone has to empty the bins, change the atreet lights, teach the kids and tend to the sick.

A cap on rent would help but DC is too scared to actually come up with such legislation and is trying to achieve this through the back door. It has been quite rightly pointed out that this benefit does not line pockets of claimants it lines the pockets of landlords.

Of course another novel idea would be to return to the level of available social housing that Thatcher sold off.......

Is the Tory convicted thief, gerrymanderer and Thatcherite favourite Dame Shirley Porter available to advise on these matters. She robbed the council taxpayers in her area of £40million, I think large scale social cleansing will be right up her street.
It is becoming clear that Boris has realised that we are being governed by a ragbag of novices.

This is what you get when government policy is driven by The Daily Mail and The Sun. No reasonable person would support excessive housing benefit being paid to non-workers. Equally no reasonable person would deny benefit or some support where a working family on a low wage/part time job cannot afford to live in reasonable accommodation. Unless we know that the former example is widespread (I would expect that it is unlikely to be the case, the majority of housing benefit goes to the many householders without jobs in the cheaper rented sectors throughout the country). Unless policy is based on the stats, taking into account circumstances and how many are affected, then you will always get dramas like this as ill thought through policy panders to the lowest common denominator of Bullingdon spite.

Can someone please tell me who these people are that actually claim £2000 a month in housing benefit? My sister lives in a 3 bedroom house with her children and claims housing benefit on the basis that her youngest daugther is severly disabled, and requires 24 x 7 care. She gets less than £130 a week in housing benefit and has pays the remainder of her rent from her carers allowance, and she daughters Disability Living Allowance. It is impossble that a large enough proportion of Housing Benefit claimants, are getting these kind of sums, for the proposed changes to make that much of difference. Surely the governments time would be better spent trying a figure out a way of making the forthcoming child benefit cut for higher rate tax payers actually fair - i.e. taking into account combined household incomes so we aren't in a ridiculous situation where one family have a single income of £50k PA and no child benefit, and next door they have a combined income of £75k PA and still receive it?

"41. At 2:10pm on 28 Oct 2010, chestham wrote:

Local authorities where banned by Thatchers mob in the 80’s from building anymore “council houses”, when all the council houses where being sold off.
The financial system was set up then to encourage private landlords “buy to let” Mortgages”, this is Thatcherism and a result of Thatcherism...."

ZZZZZ zzzzzzz

How long does it take to build a house? I thought Labour got in power in 1997. Surely to god they could have built houses over the next 13 years? Did they?

'Buy-to-let': ARLA (the Associationof Residential Letting Agents) is an organisation formed by the six original 'buy-to-let' mortgage lenders. They began mass-marketing of buy-to-let mortages in 1996. Just one year before Blair & Brown came to power and 5 years after Mrs T left office. Buy-to-let is Labour's housing baby.

The left allows itself to be blinded by WIDBIOT (when in doubt, blame it on Thatcher). Either out of sheer ignorance or simply telling lies.

39. At 2:05pm on 28 Oct 2010, Andy wrote:

28. At 1:50pm on 28 Oct 2010, SJyelsnyA wrote:

"So does this make Nick Clegg an opportunist for jumping behind Cameron even though a Tory mayor thinks this move is unfair, or Boris an opportunist for thinking about his votes, when the rest of his party backs this sort of ideology.

I think I'll say both. Nick Clegg aligning himself to the right of Boris Johnson will hopefully wake up any remaining Lib Dems deluded enough to think they're a member of a social democratic party."

I'm a LibDem voter and fully agree that we can't afford nor should not pay for the unemployed to live in places which costs lots of money. There's a basic level of care that's required and that does not include a big house in Chelski.
-------------------------------------------------------------

If you think we're talking about "big houses in Chelski", then you're sadly mistaken. Are you advocating throwing 82000 out of their homes? These aren't jobless bums living in mansions, as tabloid gutter-trash would have you think. They're ordinary, hard-working families whose rent has unfairly accelerated beyond their earnings. They are still contributing to society, but at this moment in time require some assistance. What sets us apart from the continent is a system of fairness that appreciates situations such as these. This is a system to which David Cameron, with his background, owes nothing, and is subsequently happy enough to dismantle.

As a Lib Dem voter, I'm presuming that you're siding with the old liberal tendencies of your party as opposed to the newer social democratic ones? A brief look at history will reveal that the Liberals only gained any credibility post 1920's when they took on a social democratic mantra. By now ditching this, they're consigning themselves to further decades in the wilderness. I for one am delighted.

Ooh, we've got a few fascists on here, haven't we? Get rid of the lazy, get rid of the foreigners, get rid of everyone who isn't like me.
Shameful.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

18. Fnurgle

Bang on the money. There's plenty of support on the ground for this reform. Simply, people who couldn't in their wildest dreams afford to live in Kensington and Chelsea are being forced, via taxation, to subsidise others to do precisely that.

It's utterly unfair and you're exactly right: ask commuters what they feel about the status quo and you'll get a true reflection of public opinion.

Stick to your guns Cameron and co.

42 Scottishscouser wrote - "It's hard being disabled and claiming a benefit because it's now like wearing a badge saying 'scrounger!'

That is why this country`s discredited benefit system needs correcting. Far too much is going to the undeserving, the fraudsters, the work shy and those making a fast buck out of a system that is wide open to abuse. Everyone agrees it needs fixing, how is a matter of debate; but constantly kicking against reform is not helping one jot.

I have some sympathy for both sides of the argument. On the one hand we can't just throw people out of their homes because of a change in the rules but on the other we can't just keep spending billions of pounds of public money and constantly providing homes for people who choose to have large families, who then need homes... and on and on.

The problem comes down to the fact that there are too many people and not enough homes in Britain. We don't want to smother the land in houses. Perhaps we can build upwards? We need to discourage people from having too many children, particularly when they are unemployed and can therefore not support them.

But change needs to happen slowly to avoid causing extreme hardship. It would be wrong to, for example, say that we won't pay child benefit for more than 2 children when people already have them. Perhaps we could say that a year from now we will introduce such a law.

The government could actually reduce costs, stimulate the economy and allow working families a fairer chance at better homes, by investing in Social Housing. If they built more homes and rented them out relatively cheaply, they could drive down rents for everyone. Not ramping up the rent to compete with greedy private Landlords, but actually spending public money to invest in building homes. Part of the current problem is that the Tories did precisely the opposite under Thatcher. Selling off public housing to tenants, at rock bottom prices, that were then sold to private Landlords for a quick profit, was a disaster.

It is completely wrong to say we are going to reduce the amount we are going to pay in Housing Benefit, without first ensuring there are affordable alternatives for them.

While I do have some sympathy with the government position, they are going about it wrongly and too quickly before the alternatives are available.

55#

Not to mention a few bleeding heart pseudo-socialists as well.

Remember, its only fascism when someone else is doing it. Stalin a fascist was he? Are the Sunnis and Shias of Iraq fascists? The Parisians? The Serbians?

Again, you've put your own spin on the matter, Nick. Both Desperate Dave and Booring Boris have only one thing on their minds: re-election. Dave sees the issue of a housing benefit cap as a vote-winner among the majority - ie. working people. Boris sees it as a winner among his London electorate. Where is your cynicism when it counts, Nick?

"A brief look at history will reveal that the Liberals only gained any credibility post 1920's when they took on a social democratic mantra."

Yeah, the First World War and DLG's cash for peerages. Brought them loads of credibility, that did....

"Can anyone justify £2,000 a week being paid in housing benefit to a family where no-one works, enabling them to live in properties that a hard working family could only dream of?"

^ Andy, your omnipresence on these forums is predictable as ever. I'm honestly starting to wonder whether you actually have a job at all, as you clearly have plenty of free time! Unless, of course, you're being paid to post here? But I digress...

The reality is that only a sparse minority of people are claiming benefits on £2000 a week properties. The majority of inner city housing benefit claimants are living in anything but the lap of luxury you describe.

But as always, Daily Mail readers do love their "undeserving poor" headlines; castigating the majority of benefit recipients on account of a minority who perhaps do receive more than is "fair" (I'm not so naive as to believe that ALL benefit claims are equitable).

Something here about the unfairness of the few casting a shadow over the many, perhaps?

I know you're not so naive either, so please, give us a break.

53. At 2:28pm on 28 Oct 2010, SJyelsnyA wrote:

"39. At 2:05pm on 28 Oct 2010, Andy wrote:

28. At 1:50pm on 28 Oct 2010, SJyelsnyA wrote:

"So does this make Nick Clegg an opportunist for jumping behind Cameron even though a Tory mayor thinks this move is unfair, or Boris an opportunist for thinking about his votes, when the rest of his party backs this sort of ideology.

I think I'll say both. Nick Clegg aligning himself to the right of Boris Johnson will hopefully wake up any remaining Lib Dems deluded enough to think they're a member of a social democratic party."

[Andy wrote] "I'm a LibDem voter and fully agree that we can't afford nor should not pay for the unemployed to live in places which costs lots of money. There's a basic level of care that's required and that does not include a big house in Chelski."

If you think we're talking about "big houses in Chelski", then you're sadly mistaken. Are you advocating throwing 82000 out of their homes? These aren't jobless bums living in mansions, as tabloid gutter-trash would have you think. They're ordinary, hard-working families whose rent has unfairly accelerated beyond their earnings. They are still contributing to society, but at this moment in time require some assistance."

I'm willing to provide some assistance, I can aid them with a removals van. No pushing, shoving, throwing required, I will be extremely careful with their possessions as I aid them moving to a place their means can afford.


"As a Lib Dem voter, I'm presuming that you're siding with the old liberal tendencies of your party as opposed to the newer social democratic ones?"

I agree with more Lib Dem proposals than any of the other parties. I don't agree with all of them but I'm happy giving them my vote for the ones that I do agree with. I'm not sure if that means I side with the old or the new, I think it moot which side I could be be classed as siding with.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Well my cousin and her husband work in London and their 4 bedroom flat costs them £400/week. They both have well-paid jobs. On that comparison I think this sum is not only fair, it's generous.

Yes, if something has happened that has left you unable to get by on that then i'm very sorry but you should move somewhere cheaper - like everyone else. Why should Londoner's get special treatment?

Go Boris!
There is nothing more satisfying that seeing a party tear itself into pieces.
Of course, no one is really addressing the real problem, where somehow people think its reasonable or sensible that anyone should be asking £250 a week for a one bedroom, or £400 a week for a four bedroom property.

The problem isn't the cut being proposed, but the fact that people are charging that much in the first place.

jon112dk

'a million people thrown out of work'

It's not difficult to see how the party formerly known as newlabour lost control of the economy and lost power when they have such a tenuous grip on numbers. Either that or a pathological desire to distort reality.

The coalition expects to lose 490,000 public sector jobs over 4 years.

That's 122,500 job losses a year.

But there are six million public sector workers? And with an average working life of forty years that's 150,000 retiring per year. So 150,000 go through ntaural wastage anyway but they only want to lose 122,500 per year?

So even by the coalition's calculations they will be adding 27,500 public sector workers per year. And it doesn't sound like 'swingeing cuts' to me.

What is your point? And the point of the BBC? And the point of all the other arithmaphobic labour apologists?

It's a great time to be a numerate tory...

You don't have a divine right to get unlimited amounts of other people's money purely so that you can continue to live where you've lived before.

When you don't have enough money to live where you live, then you move, or you earn more money. You DON'T demand the poor guy on minimum wage down the street who's working his guts out on an 80 hour week to subsidise you to live in a house/area that he could only dream of.

Cameron's right.

Boris is wrong.

This is not "cleansing."

This is reality, and this is fairness.

If you can't afford to live in a big penthouse in chelsea, then move somewhere cheaper like everyone else has to, DON'T expect hard-working people to subsidise a lifestyle that you cannot afford and which you are NOT entitled to as a divine right.

You are entitled to shelter and a "reasonable" standard of living. That doesn't include being paid more in housing benefit per month than most hard-working families earn in total before being taxed.

Stick with it, Dave; you're right, he's wrong.

When I read a few months ago that families are often getting more than £2000 PER MONTH of tax payers' money for housing, I was horrified. I live in a fairly nice area down south, and round here it costs about £1000/month to rent a lovely 4 bedroom bungalow with a big garden, maybe stretching to £1500 for a mind-blowingly lovely one with a sea view. £2000/month would get you a huge mansion with over an acre's worth of garden.

Sorry, but around £400/week is easily enough for anyone to be given free rent money. Any more than that and it's absolutely obscene, and completely unfair.

Nick, suggest you very quickly get together around the table with Dave and even more quickly lose the minister or ministers who are behind this insane forced exodus(......sound any better than "cleansing"?).

"So 150,000 go through ntaural wastage anyway but they only want to lose 122,500 per year?

So even by the coalition's calculations they will be adding 27,500 public sector workers per year. And it doesn't sound like 'swingeing cuts' to me."

So you think no one is going to retire over the next 4 years? If you are what counts for a numerate tory, it shows why every time the Tories get in power things get messed up so bad.

chestham wrote: "This is quite simply about Class"

This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with class. This is purely about affordability. We have a massive budget deficit, thanks to Labour's expansion of the welfare state, which expanded the provision of welfare far, far beyond the basic requirements (e.g. shelter, sustenance, healthcare, education) to provide lifestyles of relative comfort and luxury.

Why should taxpayers pay for a long-term unemployed single person with no children to live alone in their own flat, located in an expensive area of London, while others in full-time employment must live in shared accomodation and commute from miles away?

The welfare state should be used to ensure that everyone's basic needs (e.g. shelter, sustenance, healthcare, education) are provided for. Expensive accomodation is not a basic need and, as a taxpayer, I don't see why I should have to pay for it.

People were spoilt by Labour. It's time to wake up to reality.

62 - A long winded way of you saying you can't justify £2,000 a week? Or your usual long winded way of saying nothing at all?

It is a fact that under Labour the limit on housing benfit was set at £2,000. that's an absurd level by anyone's reasonable thinking. If you set a reasonable level of outgoings on rent at 1/3 of income, you'd need to have gross earnings in the region of £500,000 a year to contemplate paying £100,000 a year in rent. That this was even thought reasonable by Labour was crazy.

labour also set housing allowances at the median level for an area, meaning it was built into the system that those not working would be housed at a level that many of the working people in the area could not afford. Where is the justice in that?

And if the £2,000 weekly payment went to only a few, what of the point made elsewhere that 82% of housing benefit claimants in London Borough are receiving in excess of £20k. You'd need to be earning £100k a year to be comfortable paying that. Put another way, I have a £250,000 mortgage and am paying just over £16k a year in mortgage payments, so people out of work are in the position of someone servicing a debt of £312,000 a year! What sort of fairness is that when most working families could never dream of being given such a mortgage?

I don't expect a reasoned answer from you, just dribble on for a bit and mention the Daily Mail (which I don't read) and Mrs Thatcher (who hasn't been PM for 20 years).

This is not about social cleansing.....it is about fairness dare I say. It is not right that a family can receive £2000 in housing benefit. Most hard working families don't receive that in a months pay.

People have to learn to live within their means. This may cause people to readjust their lifestyles that had outgrown their income.

its an adjustment in reality

68#

"This is not "cleansing. This is reality, and this is fairness."

"If you can't afford to live in a big penthouse in chelsea, then move somewhere cheaper like everyone else has to, DON'T expect hard-working people to subsidise a lifestyle that you cannot afford and which you are NOT entitled to as a divine right."


Smelling salts for the socialists please... someone's just slammed on the brakes on the entitlement express...

Boris is no fool, even if his demeanour can sometimes make him appear one.

In a few years we will be in the middle of a series of cuts which, no matter whether you believe they are necessary or not, will be pretty painful for a lot of people and the government is likely to take a hit because of that. He'll be facing an opponent who, judging by the number of votes he got even when he lost, was pretty popular and who will have plenty of anti-government arguments ready to go. Johnson is laying the groundwork to be able to distance himself from all the negatives of the cuts, while still being able to assosciate himself with anything good because he is after all a member of one of the governing parties.

It'll be annoying for Cameron and co just now, as Boris is probably the second highest profile Tory in Britain (I do say 'possibly'- people's favourite/most hated Tory may get in there ahead of him, and Osbourne seems to have lifted his profile for better or worse since the election), but if it secures a Tory another term as London Mayor, I am sure they will regard it as a fair bargain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Boris Johnson used to be worth reading but more as a comedian than much else. He has just made a poltroon of himself--and a disloyal and rather thick one at that--presumably to garner votes from the people who I'm sure love living in Central London paid for by my taxes. We need to move towards the American system--where life started off--which can be summarised in two words, viz User Pays--what could be fairer than that? If you cannot afford something you go without. Life's a bitch. These high rents in Central London, would they not come down if some of this shall we say artificial demand were to be reduced?

But it is social cleansing. And the unwanted will be obliged to move. Just as Cameron's policies in general discriminate against the social class despised by the toffs, the bankers and political class. What we are seeing is a manifestation of a class warfare and whilst these plans do not involve mass murder they are committing a moral crime against large sections of the population. As for deaths - well not the shootings and atrocities usually associated with ethnic cleansing. And not as severe as the murders carried out by Thatcher's pal, General Pinochet, who adopted her policies in Chile which are now favoured by the coalition. But the poor, the elderly and fragile will experiencee accelerated deaths on quite a scale thanks to the squeeze.

So Cable, shut up and accept criticism in the language it is presented.

As for the scare stories of councile 'block booking' bed and breakfast accommodation.

What were they doing spending so much on housing benefit in the first place?

You can only afford waht you can afford. Not what you can strong arm the local diversity officer into giving you.

Why was Lee Jasper living for only £90 a week in a four bedroom house that was worth over £1500 a month? We were paying for a labour placeman and we will go on paying until someone stops this merry go round. 'Equality adviser'? What on earth is that? Why are we paying for it? What exactly are the qualifications needed to be an 'Equality adviser'? Equality GCSE? Equality A Level?

It's a great time to laugh at the praty formerly known as newlabour...

At 2:19pm on 28 Oct 2010, Fubar_Saunders wrote:

You are indeed in need of some help, likening people who actually give a damn about their communities with and the vast array different people that live in them, with extremists of any kind, you foster a belief that all peoples thought processes work as yours does, I have no issues with moving people out of high rent housing and into council run accommodation built for purpose in the areas they live in, but without asking the question how did we get here, but simply reacting to £pound signs£, we are simply storing more and more trouble in the future.

52. At 2:26pm on 28 Oct 2010, AndyC555 wrote:

I think you’ll find I said the “system” we operate in now was set up by Thatcher. (the system that has given us unimaginable debt)
If you don’t want to hear from the Left listen to right, they are the ones who crow about “how she changed the landscape”
The situation we have is she sold the council houses, implemented laws, now private landlords rent them back to the taxpayer for billions of pounds (Cameron’s figures)

It is though a good question (and thanks for pointing it out) as to why labour didn’t build more council houses and reverse Thatcherism, rebuild our industries, when they get back in power, the people can hold this to them and ensure they work for the good of all the people as they are supposed too.
At least this lot has their fingers firmly on the self destruct button, even Ed just lines up the questions and allows Cameron to destroy himself.

71. At 3:11pm on 28 Oct 2010, Fnurgle wrote:

It was always about class, rich & poor, even under labour, that is the “system”, that is Thatcherism, that is Reganism, that is neo-conservatism that is neo-liberalism, the system failed and will fail again, it’s a pack of cards in a wind of change.

You should worry that it’s final hope rests in hands George Osborne, David Cameron & the Tea Party in the states. Ha ha ha!

Let's put all of this in context, shall we? Two oft-quoted examples of the limits are £400 per week for a four-bedroomed house and £290 per week for a two-bedroomed flat.

£400 per week is £20,800 a year. To earn £20,800 a year after tax, you'd need to be on a salary of £27,350, which is more than the average UK full-time salary. And that's before you start spending money on food, clothes, etc.

£290 per week is £15,080 a year. To take that much money home after tax, you'd need a gross salary of over £19,000.

Many, many, many people who work in central London get paid less than £19,000 a year, yet somehow they can afford to find somewhere to live and commute to work. The caps aren't just fair - they're more than fair. If anything, it's unfair that taxpayers should be forced to subsidise such generous blanket levels of benefits.

What a sad nation we have become.I want this.No.Yes.Why not ?
Bring on a double dip recesion i say then see if anybody will give you a loaf till you have scapped up a few bob to give a loaf back.
Me I am on DLA.So sorry.But concrete and a human don't go together very well.It's nice to know you are the unwashed.

67. At 2:50pm on 28 Oct 2010, rockRobin7
=============================================

Earth calling tories...

It's 1/2 million public sector + 1/2 million direct in the private sector (eg. firm loses government contract) + undisclosed number indirect in private sector (eg. policeman doesn't buy car, car salesman loses job)

Your tory friends are not doing a nice kind 5% a year for four years spread out accross the public sector as your naive analysis suggests. If you work in the NHS you have a 100% chance of keeping your job, if you work for the SHA or the YJB etc then the whole organisation goes and you have a 100% chance of losing your job.

I know you boys are busy dreaming up the latest tax avoidance scam or working out how to hire a helicopter to get to daddy's shooting weekend, but please try to show some understanding of the real world inhabited by the underclasses.

Who will do London's real work when London's real workers can no longer afford to live there?

78. At 3:46pm on 28 Oct 2010, Dr Llareggub wrote:

"But it is social cleansing."


Well then, I've been socially cleansed from the beaches of Aruba, The Ivy, eceterar etcetera, basically anywhere that is not affordable to me I have been "socially cleansed" from.

Maybe I should play the race card and state that I have been "ethnically socially cleansed" because that which I wish to suit me does not go with my eye colour/skin type?

77. At 3:40pm on 28 Oct 2010, Leslie Singleton wrote:

The problem with your little system is it fails to take into account the playing fields that we all start off on is decidedly different, if we all started with 0 and were given the same education and opportunities as children and let loose into “adult” world to see who works the best and make the most money, then fine.

But you and me know that’s not how it is, Cameron’s children have a distinct advantage over mine, as he had over me, how is that fair, I didn’t chose not to get born with a silver spoon up my backside.

As for holding the USA as a shining example of how things work well, I take it you’ve never been to states and seen the segregation, poverty, crime, drug abuse, exploitation, slums, and the children who up to recently had to go without medical care.

79. At 3:46pm on 28 Oct 2010, rockRobin7 wrote:

"Why was Lee Jasper living for only £90 a week in a four bedroom house that was worth over £1500 a month? We were paying for a labour placeman and we will go on paying until someone stops this merry go round. 'Equality adviser'? What on earth is that? Why are we paying for it? What exactly are the qualifications needed to be an 'Equality adviser'? Equality GCSE? Equality A Level?"

Do you want me to Google that for you?

I don't give a damn who's fault it is we got into the situation we are in, it's just a diversion and petty politiking and taking focus away from finding a solution(s) to what we now find ourselves in.

80#

You were the one burbling on about how this was all about class, when it is about nothing of the sort... And then you accuse others of ignorance and say I am in need of help?!

Look in the mirror, sunshine.

81. At 3:48pm on 28 Oct 2010, Fnurgle wrote:
“Many, many, many people who work in central London get paid less than £19,000 a year, yet somehow they can afford to find somewhere to live and commute to work”


Families who get paid less than 19000 who live in london will be on tax credits and housing benefit!!

Do you get it yet???

78#

More SWP students... terrific.... just when we thought there was a shortage...

Boris may (or may not) have been wrong in his choice of words, but he is pretty much on the money in terms of the potential consequences of government policy.

Realistically, as the poorer people get increasingly 'squeezed' by reduced benefits, less employment opportunities, less access to decent education, then the most likely 'flash-point' is not going to be the Highlands of Scotland with its 9 people per sq km but the densely populated inner-urban areas typical in London (and other cities) with thousands of people per sq km.

Now if Cameron was saying we'll cap housing benefit but we'll put money into affordable social housing, or allow London Councils to start building new homes for renting, or abolish 'right-to-buy' or some other intitiative that would take the sting out of the effect of this measure, then that would be understandable and more palatable to the masses.

Otherwise there is a real risk that the head-line 'savings' of housing benefit 'cuts' might just get lost in the additional costs of preventing / limiting civil unrest, or restoring order, in the capital and/or elsewhere. (How much did Brixton / Toxteth and the others cost over the years?)

That, of course, would be no saving at all.

Boris is wrong on this one. Very wrong.

My wife and I both work full time to pay our 800/month rent (and support our daughter) for a small 2 bedroom flat. We live in an "okay" area because we can't afford a nicer area or a bigger house.

I don't see why less well paid people should live more centrally or in nicer/bigger houses paid for by our taxes. We live within our means and have long commutes to work as we can't afford a central location. Its life. Get a better job, relocate to a cheaper area like people in work have to do.

"If you work in the NHS you have a 100% chance of keeping your job, if you work for the SHA or the YJB etc then the whole organisation goes and you have a 100% chance of losing your job."

Ignore him Robin, maybe he'll eventually realise that the Westminster village is stuffed full of enough idiots who dont know what they're talking about, without having any more.

Man's an oxygen thief.

Cleansing is not the word that is appropriate. A word is needed to describe the worldwide scheme of bankers that robbed millions of their retirements and investments, bankrupted governments, crashed the world economy and were rewarded in the process. Treason seems more appropriate.

Whomever is responsible for the spinning of this story ought to be ashamed of themselves, it's quite clear that Boris Johnson is attempting to reassure the local populace that as Mayor of London he's on their side and that the housing benefit reforms are not going to be a 'Kosovo style cleansing'. What is this? unbiased journalism or Harry Hills T.V. Burp

Boris is "standing up for London", Dave is "standing up for fairness"

I think Boris (and other Tories with the jitters)are standing up for landlords (public & private) who get a huge public subsidy exorbitant rents and who are the real beneficiaries of a crazy, out-of-control Housing Benefits system. Where on earth would they find tenants who could afford their rents if the system was scrapped altogether? Perhaps that's the answer, or at least the Coalitions's end-game - rents would have to fall and it might bring some sense to house prices as a result (to match the rent 'return' to the capital cost. The existence of the current system forces up rents for everyone, including those who cannot claim benefits and prevents those people saving for their own house purchase.
Ultimately we need to return to genuine social housing where rents are realistic and reflect the cost rather than the 'market rate' - a better way to spend the billions currently spent on Housing Benefit

86#

Now, who'se getting tetchy? The silver spoon might not fit up there, but your head certainly does.

90. At 4:07pm on 28 Oct 2010, chestham wrote:

81. At 3:48pm on 28 Oct 2010, Fnurgle wrote:
“Many, many, many people who work in central London get paid less than £19,000 a year, yet somehow they can afford to find somewhere to live and commute to work”


"Families who get paid less than 19000 who live in london will be on tax credits and housing benefit!! Do you get it yet???"

neither do you.

Look at what he said.

"many people who work in central London"

Got it? WORK in Central London. Bite-sized enough?

Then he said:

"somehow they can afford to find somewhere to live and commute to work"

Operative word here being COMMUTE.

Spotted the difference yet? You're blithering on about those living in Zone 1, he's on about those who have to WORK there and have to commute in because they've been priced out of buying or renting property. And how they're effectively subsidising those who ARE living there through taxation.

Or is that silver spoon you werent born with interfering with your thought processes? God, you werent kidding were you when you said they were all different... Yours most certainly are, arent they?

Post 32 by timetoponder is absolutely spot on.

All those posting about fairness or it being ridiculous people require this much in housing benefit are as out of touch as Cameron. Rents of £800 a week as timetoponder mentions are the GOING RATE in certain areas.

If you want the tax payer to have to pay less to subsidise housing benefit the only sensible way to do it is REDUCE THE RENTS not adopt this banal, out of touch and naive policy of simply cutting the benefit and hoping it will all come out in the wash OK. It won't.

This policy is so typically Tory i.e. deliberately incompetent (and I am sure people will know what I mean by that).

" 3. At 12:49pm on 28 Oct 2010, AndyC555 wrote:
Can anyone justify £2,000 a week being paid in housing benefit to a family where no-one works, enabling them to live in properties that a hard working family could only dream of?

The system has to change, well done the coalition for having the bottle to do this."

Can anyone justify a man on the minimum wage with 3 kids being forced to leave his home and his job and move 60 miles away because he can't afford the extra £20 a week rent he'll have to pay when his housing benefit is capped?