The Student Room Group

BBC: Newham Council accused of 'social cleansing' of tenants.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17821018

Extract:

A London council has been accused of starting "social cleansing" in the capital by asking a Stoke-on-Trent housing association to take on up to 500 families on housing benefit.

Newham Council says it can no longer afford to house tenants on its waiting list in private accommodation.

Of course, if a council cannot afford to do much, it usually means it has made cuts or has complied with the cuts carried out at Westminister. Regardless of the reasons, the actions of the council could be construed as 'social cleansing' because they are moving a section of society (500 doesn't sound a lot though) elsewhere; and they are all in receipt of housing benefit.

But what do you think?

Scroll to see replies

It's really annoying the midlands and probably the north are having to pick up the slack because the conservatives don't want poor people near their pretty little stadiums. We have our own people to house and don't need or want theirs. If Newham really are struggling to house people take it up with the place that kicked those people out.

where's Rob Stark and his wolf when you need them...
(edited 11 years ago)
What's the problem? They want a house, they get a house; beggars can't be choosers. They can't just sit around waiting for a free house in London when people who work for a living can't afford to live there.

I just hope the people of Stoke are given first priority and not shoved to the back of the queue.

Plus there's the political aspect of it; Stoke is a BNP stronghold, it'd go some way to diluting their vote.
If you can't afford to house yourself then you'll have to go where the council can afford to house you. If the rents are too high for the council to pay in a particular area, then you'll have to move somewhere the council can afford it. Money's tight for everyone at the moment including local governments.

I can understand the difficulty in being moved miles away from where you've lived for a while, but if the choice is that or be homeless I think I know which one I'd pick...

So no, I don't think it's "social cleansing" :curious: I think it's more the council trying to make sure it can house as many people as possible!

Edit: Also from the article it sounds as though there simply isn't enough room! How can you house families in an area where there's nowhere for them to live??
(edited 11 years ago)
Good. The ridiculously generous housing benefit system we had before massively distorted the rental market in London, increased demand and forced up prices. Hopefully now we will see prices return to a more reasonable rate.
God forbid anyone gets sent to Stoke.
Reply 6
Avatar for meenu89
meenu89
19
Original post by A Mysterious Lord
What's the problem? They want a house, they get a house; beggars can't be choosers. They can't just sit around waiting for a free house in London when people who work for a living can't afford to live there.

I just hope the people of Stoke are given first priority and not shoved to the back of the queue.

Plus there's the political aspect of it; Stoke is a BNP stronghold, it'd go some way to diluting their vote.



Original post by Lil Piranha
If you can't afford to house yourself then you'll have to go where the council can afford to house you. If the rents are too high for the council to pay in a particular area, then you'll have to move somewhere the council can afford it. Money's tight for everyone at the moment including local governments.

I can understand the difficulty in being moved miles away from where you've lived for a while, but if the choice is that or be homeless I think I know which one I'd pick...

So no, I don't think it's "social cleansing" :curious: I think it's more the council trying to make sure it can house as many people as possible!

Edit: Also from the article it sounds as though there simply isn't enough room! How can you house families in an area where there's nowhere for them to live??


I agree with both of these.
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 7
Avatar for moonkatt
moonkatt
19
What about people that are working in that area? Because, and this may be shocking for you all on here, people in receipt of housing benefits aren't all unemployed.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by meenu89
I agree with both these.


Well, you are Tory.
Reply 9
Avatar for meenu89
meenu89
19
Original post by RamocitoMorales
Well, you are Tory.


Think I'm more of a UKIP girl these days to be honest...
Reform of welfare is well overdue I'm afraid.
(edited 11 years ago)
I'm familiar with Newham. For the most part this is doing it a favour.
Reply 11
Avatar for moonkatt
moonkatt
19
The Daily Mash's take on it all

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/olympics-doing-exactly-what-they-were-supposed-to-201204245154/
Also, people who pay the tax and bills but are disabled and can't work should not live in London. London is only for the rich? Idiocy. I know who won't have a second term as PM.
If it saves money, I'm all for it.

The phrase 'beggars can't be choosers' springs to mind.
Original post by moonkatt


Meanwhile, the first consignment of untermenschen stumbled from their bus, blinking and confused, to be faced with the harsh reality of Stoke-on-Trent.

I laughed seriously hard at that.
Original post by HarryPotterFanx
Also, people who pay the tax and bills but are disabled and can't work should not live in London. London is only for the rich? Idiocy. I know who won't have a second term as PM.


I could not bear the thought of London becoming like Geneva. Part of what makes London so brilliant is its diversity (which is not limited to race and culture). I dare not imagine a London without the Victorian East End, or more contemporary to our time, Southwark, Lambeth,...,Newham.
Original post by HarryPotterFanx
Also, people who pay the tax and bills but are disabled and can't work should not live in London. London is only for the rich? Idiocy. I know who won't have a second term as PM.


How much tax are they paying exactly if they can't work?

:rolleyes:
Original post by RamocitoMorales
I could not bear the thought of London becoming like Geneva. Part of what makes London so brilliant is its diversity (which is not limited to race and culture). I dare not imagine a London without the Victorian East End, or more contemporary to our time, Southwark, Lambeth,...,Newham.


What's so bad about Geneva?

Seems pretty nice to me

Original post by Aspiringlawstudent
If it saves money, I'm all for it.

The phrase 'beggars can't be choosers' springs to mind.


People who work receive benefits so yeah ain't beggars.
Original post by Darth Stewie
the conservatives don't want poor people near their pretty little stadiums.


There are 60 seats on Newham council, ALL 60 are held by Labour councillors. So nothing to do with the Tories. Stadiums? WTF are you on about?
Have you ever been to Newham? It's hardly the borough of choice for London's wealthiest, in fact it's one of the most deprived boroughs in London. As shown by the fact that all of their councillors are Labour.

This "social cleansing" rubbish is nonsense, the housing benefit cap has not been introduced because the Tories hate the poor or whatever nonsense the militant leftists are coming out with now, it has been introduced because there is still a DEFICIT and WE NEED TO REDUCE PUBLIC SPENDING. Rents in London are extortionately high and whilst I don't like the idea of uprooting people from their homes, it's not fair that the taxpayer should pay to fill up the pockets of landlords. On that topic, whoever is elected Mayor really needs to introduce a rent cap in London to prevent rent costs becoming so extortionate.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you