EXCLUSIVE: What about those who aren't pulling a housing benefit scam?

Fergus Pickering

A report paid for by Shelter isn't QUITE what I'd call independent. Independent would mean it was paid for by someone who had no particular axe to grind. But the sound of Charities' axes grinding is quite deafening on this subject. Or don't you think so? Are charities entirely staffed by Saints and Martyrs working for nothing?

Verity

"what happens to the rest" is, they are housed in hostels until they are self-supporting.

To repeat, hostels would have dormitories on each floor, with a Common Room for watching TV, and three or four common bathrooms/loos on each floor.

On the main floor would be the cafeteria, where the unemployed could pay for their food with government tokens. Same with toiletries and hygeine products. Government tokens.

All the unemployed housed in the hostels would be on a rota for cleaning, maintenance of common areas and cafeteria duty.

Anyone who didn't like those arrangements, and who missed cigareetes, beer and lottery tickets would be free to go out and find employment so they could be self-supporting.

Jim

And how many people have to move house for other financial reasons - death, divorce, redundancy, children being born? Does anyone care for their 'feelings'? Or do benefit claimants have the luxury of being able to stay in the same house come what may at (at everyone else's expense)?

This is a one off change - its not going to be an on going event. Any change to system designed to save money is going to create losers, otherwise there wouldn't be any savings.

Woody

Did you write a piece about HB when you saw it in the Labour Manifesto? Or are you just short of something to write about?

Dave

When housing benefit is cut rents will come down accordingly, benefiting all tenants, especially those who have to pay their own rent without the support of housing benefit.

The only ones to 'suffer' will be BTL landlords who have been coining in taxpayers money for far too long.

Oedipus Rex

Ed "Since 1997 private rents have jumped by nearly 60 percent. Labour’s housing policy failures – not enough was built, speculation was encouraged, council housing waiting lists now stretch across decades"

Sorry, mate. That's in fact a very good description of housing in the 80's and 90's. NuLabour just carried on where the Tories left off.
It is only noticed now because a crisis has hit - previously most Tory organs never noticed because too many people (like themselves, probably) were benefiting from the speculation.
It is pitiful to blame this all on Labour

David Ossitt

“In reality, very few benefit recipients live a life of luxury.”

Nor should they!

The bare truth is that a benefit system that started life as a safeguard to protect those unfortunates who for whatever reason are out of work, to help them survive until they are back in paid employment.

And also to provide sufficient income for those few amongst us, whose disabilities are so serious that they can not work.

What we have now is obscene, as well as the two categories above, we pay for the work shy who will not work, those with pretend disabilities who will not work, teenage girls who make benefits a lifestyle choice to bring up their little bastards and who will not work.

Many immigrants come to work and they work hard and are excellent employees but we have whole areas where the immigrant’s one reason for being here is the benefit system.

It is high time to sort out this drain on the tax payer and stop paying the idle, the lazy, the feckless and the foreign scroungers.

Ian Walker

Without a Labout legacy of debt, of course, a fund could be set up to allow local councils to build new homes (which we need, and the construction would craete jobs), which could then be rented on the open market - this would then create a de facto form of rent control.

Of course, since Labour "invested" all our money we'll probably have to bite the bullet and implement more direct rent control measures.

Ed P

If people are forced to move due to cost, where will these "greedy landlords" obtain new tenants willing to pay their high rents? Might the effect of the cuts perhaps instead be to drive rents down to more reasonable and affordable levels? Surely this would benefit (pun intended) both tenants and landlords?

Rosa

Ed, can you explain why people like Patricia are going to be affected ? Surely she hasn't been on over 2 k a month in housing benefit ? Somebody explain it please !

Peter From Maidstone

The fact is that everyone I know who is housing benefit has very few worries compared to me and all those like me who have to work hard just to pay the basic bills. The house next door to me is provided free to a nice woman and her kids. I don't have any problem with her. But she does nothing and gets the same house I have to work long hours to stay in. I do not think she wakes up in the middle of the night at the end of the month wondering where the money to pay for the house is going to come from. She is not unique either. Every person I know on benefits is in the same privileged position.

Pot Head

Interesting fact, A very large proportion of ultra orthodox Jews in Stamford Hill currently claim more than the £400 per week Housing Benefit cap. Will they be forced out of Volvo city?

http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/39158/bene%EF%AC%81t-cuts-could-hit-orthodox-families

"Families in the Orthodox Jewish community typically have more than four children, and many of them rent privately, so the limits on benefits will have a devastating impact."

Mother's Little Helper

Ed - I think you are looking at a rather narrow interpretation of the situation. Could you link to the report please?

I am particularly interested to see whether Alex Fenton has looked at the growth of single person and under-occupied dwellings over the last 20-30 years, as a result of various demographics, policies and subsidies - not just Labour's one on housing.

Perhaps these subsidies could be re-modelled to encourage people to live together again? A couple of examples: I'm not sure if it has changed recently but unmarried couples have been able to claim for primary residence on two properties, wheras married couples cannot take advantage of this legal tax avoidance. Secondly, the removal of single person subsidy for council tax may also encourage more people to co-habit, especially if they have spare rooms.

In former years, several generations used to live together under the same roof; we may have to rediscover valuable lessons from the past (as some communities are already showing us) if we, as a nation, are all going to have to live within our means.

Paddy

I'm afraid there will be winners and losers because Labour failed to reform the benefits system.

They are to blame!

JohnBUK

Oedipus Rex: not forgetting of course Liebor's deliberate unfettered immigration strategy which didn't do too much to help the available property market!

DavidDP

Many of us have to move or downsize and this doesn't result in having to go to temporary accommodation. You've basically assumed that if people are given a smaller amount of money that doesn't cover their current rent, it will be beyond their wits to search out more affordable accommodation and they will simply go to you for help. I think you will be disappointed. And if I were feeling particularly peevish, I would say that you are hoping for this outcome, as it would help justify your job.

TrevorsDen

A shock horror report commissioned by Shelter - big blinking deal.
A post full of a load of preposterous rubbish. It totally totally misses the point.

I am very (very very) sorry for people in the midst of being retrained etc. But it is not the state's duty to keep people in a comfortable existence if they are unemployed.
The state's duty is to alleviate the worst excesses and suffering of people whilst they are unemployed.
I submit that limiting housing benefit to £400 a week is far and away above and beyond what the minimum duty of the state is - not least when it has absolutely NO MONEY to start with.
As I said the other day - just on 1 website I found 7500 houses available at £400pw OR LESS for rent within 5 miles of central London.

Just stop insulting my intelligence Mr Howker - it is absurdly easy for a govt minister to answer any question; he/she says we are limiting housing benefit to £20,800 per annum, which is probably (I'm guessing) equivalent to a pre-tax income of c£30k, and thats just for housing benefit!

Oh and lets not forget shall we ...?
IF the state limits its wasteful spending on housing benefits (which solely actually benefits landlords and props up property prices), THEN it could actually spend more on retraining/education of people and creating some real benefit to workers and the economy.

it makes me smile sometimes (it really does) - after 13 years of Labour their idea of success is to have put millions more onto benefits. Such is the brilliance of socialism. Well socialism has been very good to Fred Goodwin I suppose.

Peter From Maidstone

Shelter is just another Marxist front organisation demanding tax payers money with no need to justify what is done with it. I don't want to see people on the streets unless they refuse to do any work, but this policy of reducing housing benefit will not see a single person on the streets, just moving somewhere that will cost the tax payer less, which is entirely reasonable.

RGtx

What's the odds on the BBC remaking "Cathy Come Home"?

Alex Fenton

@Fergus : All bodies that fund academic research - government bodies, private enterprises or charities - have an "axe to grind". No-one pays the University of Cambridge to investigate a topic about which they're utterly indifferent. Charities, including Shelter in this case, typically give academics freedom to publish their findings in full, whatever they may be. By contrast, contracts with government agencies and businesses frequently prevent independent publication of adverse results.

The report to which Ed refers explains, in tediously complete detail, the sources and methods I used to reach my findings. Contesting these would be a good way of questioning findings you disagree with; slandering the funding source is not.

@Joan : the widely reported "caps" on very high rents in London are a small part of the changes being introduced. The "caps" affect about 15,500 households whereas the measures as a whole affect over 1 million claimants across the whole of GB. The government's summary of changes that might affect Patricia can be found at: http://www.dwp.gov.uk/local-authority-staff/housing-benefit/claims-processing/local-housing-allowance/impact-of-changes.shtml

@DavidDP : The numbers are based on what tenants and landlords actually did in the past when Housing Benefit fell short of rents. They take account of the fact that many will adapt by negotiating a lower rent, or by finding cheaper accommodation and moving in a planned way. However we know from the past that some do not adapt and fall into arrears. This might be because it is 'beyond their wits', or because it is not as easy for some households (e.g. the elderly) to seek suitable new housing and make an orderly adaptation.

Stroller

Are you saying that a pensioner's house in Grimsby is costing above the new cap level and the average national wage? If not why is she so worried? Probably because of all the scares being put about like this one.

Edward McLaughlin

"In reality, very few benefit recipients live a life of luxury."

Well Ed, exactly how many hours was it that you spent out there on assignment in reality?

Those of us who live and work in it full time, do not need your statistics, nor the selective display of examples of extreme despair.

There are the professional exploiters who know the weaknesses of the housing system and drain off obscene amounts of public money. They must be sorted out. At the other end of the scale, there are the genuine people who need assistance and must continue to receive help. But bigger than these, and the real target of welfare reform, is the residual recumbent class, the members of which have been allowed in recent times, to look upon housing as something which someone else will provide, must provide, at a subsidised rate, enabling their other 'lifestyle choices'.

Nick

If you want to increase the supply at the low end, get rid of the one million illegal immigrants.

Playing with the cap is a stupid sop. We need the high earners.

What the program 'border force'

Why are there repeated examples of people who've been applying for asylum for 10 plus years?

Why the softly softly approach for people with families? We're paying for them. Health, schooling, ...

Why aren't all people fingerprinted and passports photocopied upon entry like in the US? Then when the 'papers go missing' and they can't be deported with 'no papers', we just check the fingerprints, get a copy of their papers, and deport them.

Every illegal kicked out is more than likely to make a job free, and free up accommodation.

Olaf Rye

I would love to receive £20,000 for my housing costs ! If this is not sufficient for the poor benefit recipients, then perhaps they should find a less cruel nation that will gladly give them more as some sort of recompense for enduring the evils of a capitalist society. Imagine, only £20,800 ! What barbarity ...

Barry Bilge

A report paid for by Shelter can hardly be called independent.

"We know who did. Since 1997 private rents have jumped by nearly 60 percent. Labour’s housing policy failures – not enough was built, speculation was encouraged, council housing waiting lists now stretch across decades – must bear the underlying responsibility."

FFS use your brain. The waiting lists for SUBSIDISED housing is not an indicator of a housing shortage but a shortage of SUBSIDISED housing. When the cost of housing is high you will always have more people wanting to be subsidised than when housing costs are low. Labour's housing benefit policy pushed up rents and in some areas priced productive taxpayers out in favour of subsidised benefit claimants. Government subsidies do not lower prices but raise them.

Not enough built? Have you looked out of a window in the last decade? There has been a construction boom. Blocks of flats and estates of rabbit hutches have been thrown up all over the place.

Social housing is all well and good but too much of it at too high a price is a drag on taxpayers. It doesn't even matter who gets the money either (in large numbers of cases private landlords). We could have millions of proper council houses but that would be for nought if all the tenants weren't paying their own rent and council tax. What matters is who pays that bill (taxpayers) and is it a fair price (it is not).

TGF UKIP

Pot head, didn't I read recently that the general Israeli population is also getting pretty pissed off paying for their own ultra orthodox burdens' predilection of doing fuck all and living an entirely separate but taxpayer funded existence. Isn't charity a Jewish obligation - so let them turn to Gerald Ronson, Philip Green and the rest.

Mother's Little Helper

Alex Fenton (if it is the real you) -

Thankyou for joining the discussion. I would be grateful if you would also address my comments of 8:02.

mairT

Verity
November 3rd, 2010 6:40pm

Report this comment

"what happens to the rest" is, they are housed in hostels until they are self-supporting.

To repeat, hostels would have dormitories on each floor, with a Common Room for watching TV, and three or four common bathrooms/loos on each floor.

On the main floor would be the cafeteria, where the unemployed could pay for their food with government tokens. Same with toiletries and hygeine products. Government tokens.

All the unemployed housed in the hostels would be on a rota for cleaning, maintenance of common areas and cafeteria duty.

Anyone who didn't like those arrangements, and who missed cigareetes, beer and lottery tickets would be free to go out and find employment so they could be self-supporting.

Verity, your verbal bile has finally made me angry, you jumped up twat. I am disabled, genuinely disabled, no mobility, continous pain and tremors. I have also worked since the age of 16 up until I turned 51. 4 years in University whilst still working.
STOP TREATING EVERYBODY WHO DOES NOT WORK AS A LESSER SPECIES.
I often read you comments and wonder why a woman ( I have my doubts) can be so vitriolic no matter the subject of the blog.

Archibald

Ed, with respect, if you want to have a proper discussion, then give us these facts:
1. What amount of housing benefit were these people on (average/highest/lowest), and what would they be on (average/highest/lowest)?
2. What percentage of people currently on housing benefit do these figures represent?
3. Will the people in your anecdotal evidence be affected in any way at all? They may be worried, but surely we can find out if they will be affected – I'm sure you could have someone work it out.
4. We really also need to get to the bottom of private landlord issues, a proper investigation of what is being paid versus market worth/what properties couldn't be rented privately that landlords get cash for now - if there's a widespread problem of exploitation of people and the system, surely the power is with the authorities, at least where landlords have no hope of renting to the general public.

Point 4 may be a problem, but I'm sure you could answer points 1-3 fairly easily. I'm more than willing to be convinced by facts, which still seem to be sorely lacking in this debate.

I'm not saying you're manipulating the details, neither am I assuming these people aren't affected, but if you want us to ask what happens to the rest, give us some facts so we can answer. No-one wants to put people out on the street.

Braveheart

ED says that "... the sheer number of vulnerable people cast out of their homes is, I suggest, a significant political liability for the Government".

a more compassionat and humane view would be; "...the sheer number of vulnerable people cast out of their homes..." is a bloody disgrace.

And all the more disgraceful for appearing to be a deliberate outccome of the policy which is being eagerly embraced by inner London Tory run authorities.

alastair harris

I wonder if you are able to spot the flaw in your argument? Shouldn't be difficult, as its a big one!

daniel maris

At a guess probably £5billion is going into
London. I think there are plenty of sites in London where we could build some decent housing in very high towers catering for all different family sizes.

The flats could be spacious and sound insulated. At £200,000 per flat the state could build 25,000 per annum for £5billion.
It would then avoid the £5billion payment - although there would be maintenance, probably in the hundreds of millions.

These towers need be nothing like the 60s disasters. They could include within them play areas, leisure areas etc. and be properly portered/policed.

£5billino

Jonathan Woolf

I live in a large terraced house in one of the nicest areas of central London. £400 per week would cover 80% of my (large) mortgage. The cap ought to be far far lower than this and all this bleating is a joke.

The plain facts are that Britain has the one of the highest numbers of economically inactive people and those on supposed "sick" leave per capita in the developed world. The Coalition's marginal attempts to slightly trim benefits go nowhere near far enough to do anything about this. The West is about to get a whole lot less rich as it taxes itself to death to support gargantuan welfare states which subsidize millions to live high on the hog in idle splendour. China, India, Brazil and co. are about to become the new developed world and must be laughing their socks off at us.

And there is a very easy way to make a lot of new affordable housing available - abolish most planning restrictions and let the market steam in to build, redevelop, and sort it out.

Roger Angove

@ Verity

Perhaps we should take your proposals just a little bit further. How about 'tribal homelands' for the unemployed, old and sick? Let's call them Bantustans, eh?

Or better still camps where the feckless can be taught how to work; the entrances to these places could be labelled with some encouraging sign to explain their purpose. How about 'Work Makes You Free' or, for the German speakers, 'Arbeit Macht Frei'

dorothy wilson

Ed: Don't you realise that some people who are hard working and pay their own mortgages also have to move? It is a fact of modern life that some people - and a good many of them - have to follow job opportunities. And that often disrupts the schooling of their children and moves them away from their families and support system.

So why should those on housing benefit be exempt?

Alex Fenton

@Mother's Little Helper : Yes, for many years the number of separate households has grown faster than the population, because more people live alone. This contributes to housing shortages and cost, but all projections expect this trend to continue. You make a good point that taxpayers subsidise all housing in different ways - owning as well as renting - but I don't think many people would say that the trend to solo-living is mainly because of the subsidies, so much as people forming couples and marrying later, divorcing and separating more often, living longer etc. Some tables on living alone and under-occupation here: http://www.communities.gov.uk/housing/housingresearch/housingstatistics/housingstatisticsby/householdcharacteristics/livetables/

Specifically on the Housing Benefit changes, the government will now expect single people under 35 to rent a room in a shared house rather than having their own 1-bed flat - it was people under 25 years before. However, the changes also increase the amount of HB that will be deducted from people who live with related adults - e.g. elderly parents, siblings or grown-up children - like the multi-generational households you mention.

RKing

Can't we set up a reciprocal agreement with Poland, Romania etc for them to house our unemployed on benefits?

I'm sure they would find that the rents and the cost of living are a lot less in these countries.

If they are not happy with it then they should HAVE to take the jobs that these EU immigrants are prepared to do and pay for all their needs their self!!

Alex Fenton

@TrevorsDen : Would be grateful if you could point me to the property website you mention. Bear in mind that £400/week is the absolute limit for a 4-bedroom property - so you are looking for 4-bed houses/flats within 5 miles of Central London. The "caps" for smaller flats are lower, and the maximum rates paid will be less than the "caps" outside the very middle of London.

The number of bedrooms someone can claim for is set: basically one bedroom for an adult single/couple; same-sex children under 16 are expected to share a bedroom; opposite-sex children under 12 are expected to share a bedroom.

Alex Fenton

@Barry Bilge : As I said earlier, all research is paid for, one way or another. You have to judge a study's independence by whether researchers are open about who has paid for it, and whether they're transparent about how they've reached their conclusions. It will take a little effort on your part, but you can make your own judgements: http://www.cchpr.landecon.cam.ac.uk/outputs/detail.asp?OutputID=234

alexsandr

Hmmm

Wasnt Northern Rock crash caused by buy to let mortgages going sour.
So if you decrease rents, you get defaults on many BTL mortgages.
Which breaks the banks again, mebbe?
And what will all those reposessed houses do to the housing market?
and what of those renting a house the landlord has defaulted on who get evicted.

Lets make sure the law of unintended consequences doesn't apply

Alexander Pelling

Roger Angove: What's wrong with Verity's point? Why do Lefties always avoid the issue when dealing with arguments they don't like? If I say "I think that people who don't work should live in hostels" you say, "well you might as well gas them all then." That's a ridiculous thing to say, on a par with La Toynbee's recent comments about social cleansing. Why do you all have to be so stupid and dishonest and hysterical all the time?

DavidDP

"so you are looking for 4-bed houses/flats within 5 miles of Central London. "

Why 5 miles? I live further out than that, because it's all I can afford. I then travel to work in central London.
Are you saying that I have a right to afford a property further in and that the government should make up the difference when I can't afford it?

Please. The rest of us in the real world have to make the best of poor choices all the time.

Stevie Beee

I THINK YOU ARE SCARE MONGERING WITH THIS ARTICLE . ONLY THE NEW TENANTS , WHO ARE OVERPAYING RENT WILL HAVE TO MOVE . MOST OTHER TENANTS ARE ON REGULATED TENANCY'S ARE ARE PAYING LOW PROTECTED RENTS . SO DON'T WORRY , BE HAPPY . STEVIE BEEE

Roger Angove

@ Alexander Pelling

I am not a 'lefie' - far from it.
I was not commenting on the politics of Verity's post - just its sheer vindictive nastiness of the well heeled sneering at the less fortunate.

No matter how you try to spin it there *are* genuinely unemployed people. Anyone over 50 (particularly in the IT industry, for example) will find that once their job has been outsourced to India or they have been replaced by cheap immigrant labour, then their employment prospects are very poor.

It is bad enough to lose your job, worse if any protest about the cause results in the accusation of 'racism'. But being recommended for apartheid in your own country even though the immigrants flood in is taking the piss!

BTW I voted conservative at the last election.

John

£400pw = £20800pa equivalent to payments on a mortgage of about £400000 and for which, or rental payments of £20K an income of £60K to £70K would be required.

If the person in the example lost their job, or had their earnings reduced, or mortgage or rent rates went up, they would have to move.

Why is it "unfair" for this to happen to people who don't actually pay for their accommodation? Why should they live in better, more ecure circumstances than those in work and/or who are wealth creators not wealth destroyers?

It should not have got to this point in the first place, and yes it should be corrected and yes it will be hard for those who have got used to being maintained in their lifestyle at others' expense.

Now they will have to get used to what it is like to have to provide for oneself like all those who have been carrying them for the last decade and more - learn to do without and struggle and work harder!

Archibald

We need more information.

Personally, I think the caps as proposed are too high – £400/week for the largest properties, £290/week for 2 bed flats. These amounts are are real struggle for many hard-working and fairly well paid people who choose to live in the more expensive areas of London.

Aside from the sick/severely disabled (ie unable to work) who society has a duty to look after, benefits are only meant to be a safety net – a temporary helping hand, not a lifestyle choice. This seems to have been completely lost over the years.

For every story of people facing hardship such as above (who I suspect probably aren't affected but I'm sure you'll have the decency to investigate), there's countless similar anecdotal evidence of what you would seem to think are reasonable cases, but I would think utterly unfair. Why should someone struggle to pay for accommodation working a decently paid job, when someone in the same area, even the same building, gets what is an expensive property in a desirable area (that many people with decent jobs couldn't afford) it for next to nothing?

What I think would be interesting is, has anyone done research on social housing inflating rental values in areas, pushing people on actually very decent jobs out of areas because of high private rents? I suspect that this is keeping rental values in many parts of London artificially high. Anecdotally, so many young professionals in London will begin fairly centrally, then as they decide to not share or move in with a partner then move out a bit, and when they decide to buy, if they can afford it, move further out again.

HFC

DavidDP
November 4th, 2010 11:15am

"so you are looking for 4-bed houses/flats within 5 miles of Central London. "

Why 5 miles? I live further out than that, because it's all I can afford. I then travel to work in central London.
Are you saying that I have a right to afford a property further in and that the government should make up the difference when I can't afford it?

Please. The rest of us in the real world have to make the best of poor choices all the time.

#David. Now you've got me started...

When I first started work in London I travelled from North London to Warren Street on the appalling Northern Line. I could not afford to live any closer but it was what hundreds of thousands did.

When later in my working life my employer transferred me to their head office in Victoria, I could not afford to live with my family anywhere half decent in the Greater London area so chose to travel from Redhill on the appalling Southern Region trains. Only two hours of life forfeited each day.

But I did it as did, and still do, several hundred thousand others who cannot afford to live in London (similarly other major city centres worldwide).

So why is it unfair to expect people who can't afford to live in London at your and my expense to travel to work or the benefits office?

There is no answer. They should move - even if they do have to find work (or a benefit office) a few miles away from the high priced areas.

And if anyone does try to answer by saying that friends and schools and so forth are important and should not be interrupted they should just reflect a while on what the majority have to endure in life to keep the minority in clover.

David Ossitt

Stevie Beee

Stevie using all capitals makes it look as though you are shouting.

Victor Southern

I live a half-hour by train from Charing Cross in what is called a dormitory town. At least 60% of the working residents commute to work daily.

There are several other towns close by of the same type. £1100 per month rents you a 4 bedroom house, £800-900 a 3 bedroom one though some are cheaper. There are scads of 2 bed homes at £650 to £750. Those all seem to be well within the DSS housing benefit.

It would seem that those who cannot afford to live in central London [like me] need to move out to the suburbs - that does not only mean Richmond or Kingston.

Those that cannot ever find work can also move as it hardly seems to matter where they do not work.

We should make exceptions for those whose disabilities require them to live in specific accommodation or close to a specific facility.

Those are solutions that do not require Verity's social cleansing measures.

duckface

I think a lot of people on this thread are clearly fortunate enough not to ever have had to claim housing benefit. This £400 cap only applies if a) you're eligible for a four bedroom house and b) you live in a very small area of central London. Housing benefit is already "capped" in every city and town in the country and tenants do not have unlimited spending power. At the moment housing benefit will cover the "average" property in each area (although this itself means claimants outside of central London largely can't live in expensive areas) , the government cuts will reduce this so claimants are limited to the bottom third of the market. I'm not convinced people really understand how grotty that bottom third is. That is why the pensioner in Grimsby is scared. People who have already moved to cheap areas, maybe away from jobs, maybe away from family, are going to find that their benefit is cut just because the government has decided to use vulnerable people to balance the books.

Edward McLaughlin

duckface

So who is to be selected to occupy the 'grotty bottom third'?
Should we leave them empty and all squeeze in the remainder?

TrevorsDen

Dear mr Fenton - why should I do your work for you.

There are 7500 houses within 5 miles of central london available on ONE website. What does it matter about bedrooms? When I was young I had to share my room with my brother. There are 18500 flats. For £400 OR LESS.

There clearly must be many more within 10 or 15 miles of central london. This is a safety net - not a gift. The purpose of benefits is to prevent destitution.

There are plenty of jobs for people if they get off their arses and take them before the Poles do.

TrevorsDen

Dear mr Fenton - why should I do your work for you.

There are 7500 houses within 5 miles of central london available on ONE website. What does it matter about bedrooms? When I was young I had to share my room with my brother. There are 18500 flats. For £400 OR LESS.

There clearly must be many more within 10 or 15 miles of central london.

elizabeth ryan

my36 year old can only get part time work, therefore he cant afford to rent let alone buy. i have given up where i lived to rent a place near to his job. wages are really low so i have to subsidise him. i am 61 years old not wealthy. he cant have a normal life a place to live and enough money to pay rent,and bills. why?