PokerTime

Fair enough admin :) Thank you for your support Sophron. Feel free to pm if you want to reply to my last post.

Did you really need to delete my post Admin before posting that request? If you are deleting that one then you should delete all the posts that are relevant to that discussion.

But experience Sophron is only ever from a small pool of people you diresctly come into contact with. The long term unemployed in London have exactly the same problems as they do elsewhere, as do the youngest and those over 45. Like you I know personally many examples of this. On inward Migration. People don't move to take min wage jobs. Why would anyone move to London to do that? Where rent is more expensive than most parts of the country? And if all the unemployed of Liverpool, Newcastle, Sheffield etc moved to London, there would be huge problems. The answer is not in inward migration. We've had that for the last 40 years. There needs to be incentivised regeneration of those areas, and that requires meaningful investment by the government. Somehow, we need to get businesses locating up there. Easier to do in a city, but not so easy to do in the mining areas, those towns that were built on single industries. Or do we resign all of those places to becoming ghost towns? My experience with the poor is this. When people try and try and try to find work, and get nowhere, it damages them, their self confidence, and can lead to illness. There isn't enough proactive support from jobcentres and those places have had huge cuts made too. For example the phones that used to be free for the unemployed to use, have been removed. Just something as simple as a free phone to use, for sorting benefit problems or calling employers, or chasing up jobs, can make a huge difference. But the government has taken that away. On the room front, most of the second rooms + in council flats were designed for children, and are barely large enough to house a single bed and wardrobe. If a person rents a room, they have to declare that income to the DWP. Their benefits are then reduced accordingly, so whilst it could be a solution, it isn't for those on benefits. Failure to notify the DWP would be fraud and a criminal offence. I did hear an MP mention this in a debate, and he made the point that there are unused rooms all over London that could be rented if the rules were changed. The disabled are exempt but it depends on the disability. Someone needing a carer, or needing space to store medical equipment seems to get an exemption (after a bit of a battle), but someone suffering from a mental health condition doesn't. Again, another example of how poorly thought out this policy was. All LAs have the same problems regarding availability of smaller properties. So there isn't scope to move people to other areas to solve the problem. Rent goes to the Housing Revenue Account which is then used for Housing services, like maintenance etc. So if the HRA suffers a shortfall, it impacts back on council tenants. So what is the solution? My view is that bedroom tax needs to go, asap, for all the reasons stated and more. It was an ideological welfare reform, based on assumptions and no real research. That would at least help the HRA account and reduce the arrears by 40%. Councils would continue to deal with other arrears as they always have done, using eviction as the last resort (and councils do evict people for rent arrears - make no mistake on that). Then the law can be changed, allowing councils to force tenants to downsize as property becomes available. There are other problems though. There's is always a demand outstripping supply for social housing, which in turn impacts on the flexibility of movement within the system. There are people in two bed flats needing three bed ones, one bed flats needing two bed ones. All of these changes in need often revolve around children coming and going. But it never balances out. The bottom line is that we need more council housing. Had we not sold millions of, never to be replaced, homes through right to buy, we wouldn't be in this situation today. Worse than that, we are selling off council homes and land for demolishion to private companies, under the pretence of replacing those social homes. The Heygate is a perfect example, where 3000 council homes will be replaced with just 79 social homes for rent. The council has made a loss on the deal whilst the developer stands to make ?194million. There are similar examples of this in Hackney and other places. It's called regeneration, but is really just social cleansing of the poorest people from the centre.

I too agree with Otta. Party politics don't factor as much in local elections. Many people know their councillors personally. If they do a good job, they get re-elected. Ed Miliband however, will be getting my vote, simply because I don't want to see another Conservative coalition in government. The mantra of 'we're all in it together' has proved to be complete BS. The sell off of the NHS (I think most people have issues with that) is wrong. Private interests will make a fortune from that sell off at the expense of service to us.

Where do you base your evidence on? JSA, and income support both require claimants to show evidence of having looked for work. I agree regarding inward migration, but again, it is the sign of a poorly balanced economy when huge numbers of the population have to move to one corner of it to find work. Yes education has a role to play but it doesn't matter how effective an education system a country has if there isn't the industry and other business sectors to employ people. We are not alone in this conundrum. Technology and the shift of manufacturing to the Far East, has made huge numbers of previously employable people redundant. Successive governments have had no answers to that. Those who find themselves on a lifetime of welfare are more often than not the same people who followed their parents into jobs for life in factories, mines, dockyards. The areas of the country that have lost those core industries are the ones where you'll find those dependent on benefits for a lifetime. I get really frustrated at these debates about deserving poor vs underserving poor. We have to get away from this idea that the individual is always responsible for their lot. It's not an equal playing field. The vast majority of unemployed are so because of reasons beyond their control. The long term unemployed have particular difficulty. Successive governments throw money at agencies to help them, but the success rate is always low. Employers don't employ LTUs because there's always a ready supply of labour. THAT's the problem for specific groups of unemployed in London. They just can't compete with the temporarily unemployed. And nothing the government or they try to do, changes employers minds on that. Shortages of homes has nothing to do with employment though. So let me ask you this question. Do you accept that it's unfair to penalise a housing benefit recipient in social housing when there is no smaller property available to move them into? After all, the HB reform doesn't distinguish between deserving poor and underserving poor.

There many parts of the country where the unemployment rate outstrips the no of available jobs by 10-1 or more. The young, over 45's and long term unemployed are particulalrly disadvantaged, that's before we even get onto the disabled. You are just not living in the real world if you think there are jobs out there for all of the unemployed. One million people in full time work receive housing benefit because they don't earn enough to pay their rent. The majority of people in social housing in Southwark who work earn leass that ?20k per year with ?9k being the average median. We subsidise employers in all kinds of ways, from child tax credits to childcare provision. The biggest spend of the welfare bill, more than half of it goes on the over 65's though. It is so easy to bash the unemployed, but the truth is that there are fundamental flaws in our economy, with not enough jobs, and of the jobs that do exist, not enough being secure or paying a living wage. Recipients of JSA are required to look for work and are sanctioned if they don't. Penalising through HB reforms that they can't do anything about is wrong. And many of those affected by bedroom tax are ill, in receipt of ESA or other illness related welfare. So they can't actually work. There are complexities to this issue, highlighted perfectly by the various reports published by HAs and LAs assessing the impact of bedroom tax. None of those expert organisations believe that Bedroom Tax should remain in it's current form.

A recipient of ?71 per week is expected to find ?14 out of that to pay bedroom tax (per room). Have you tried living on ?56 a week lately? That's just one straightforward example. Many of those affected are affected by the children sharing rules, the one for example that requires 16 years olds and under of the same gender to be sharing a room. I'd like to see anyone put two 16 year olds in bunk beds in a room not big enough to accomodate anything else. There are lots of problems with this legislation. And unless you have to live on that income for a period of time, you really have no idea how impossible it is. Even the most organised of people are getting into trouble. Southwark doesn't have anything like the level of high value stock to needed to work by your solution. Many LAs in other parts of the country don't have high value stock at all! The solutions are needed now, not in ten years time. That's why Labour have pledged to abolish the Tax. It's the only sensible option at this point. There are others ways to facilitate downsizing, that don't fine those, who through no fault of their own, can't be downsized. As for the general election, I don't think you'll see any difference. Southwark is a combination of safe seats and strongholds. Simon Hughes may be at risk and I know that Labour will he heavily targetting this seat. We need a government with a fair housing policy. The coalition are not interested in delivering that.

Sophron, there's another thread on these arrears and as I pointed out there, 60% of those arrears are due to Bedroom Tax hitting extremely poor and low waged tenants. Some other arrears are down to unforgiveable delays in payments by the DWP. The only people responsible for that are the current coalition government. Every LA accross the country has been hit by the impact of this. LAs just don't have the required number of smaller properties to move people into. But if you have any solutions, I for one would really like to hear them. Personally happy to see Labour retain southwark, but agree that some good councillors have lost seats due to national effect.

That's a pretty good analysis Loz. Makes a lot of sense to me.

First of all, magistrates only evict people as a last resort. In most cases, the magistrate issues a suspended possession order with a fixed repayment plan. That repayment plan will always take into account a person means, so yes, someone on a low income would be given a longer term to clear the arrears. I don't know what you want to see happen Uncleglen. Given that most tenants are in arrears through no real fault of their own, and that in most cases the arrears can be sorted out over time, making people homeless doesn't seem to be the answer (which is why magistrates only do it as a last resort).

Also, turnout seems to be around the 38% mark. So some 60% chose not to vote (for whatever reason). That I think says more about how little support all the parties really have.

East Dulwich had a turnout of 43.4 %

How is people discussing political parties in a public forum on an election day doing that to you Parkdrive?

Some time this afternoon. Follow this link for the ward results as they come in.... http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/1000/5_previous_election_results/3486/2014_council_elections

I'm as confused as you rahrah.

I totally agree grabot.

No problem rahrah :) Parkdrive, all the parties base their campaigns on telling us who to vote for (ie them) don't they?

I agree with that, but people aren't looking at the real implications of a UKIP government when they decide to vote for them.

From the results in so far, all the main parties have a real problem. It's easy to brand UKIP voters as simpletons and nationalists, but there's something else going on imo. UKIP are doing really well in the Midlands and the North, and parts of the South coast, Kent etc. We have an economy and policies that have shut down upward social mobility and ordinary working families in ordinary areas are feeling it. They are working harder with less to show for it and their children are really struggling to find jobs. When you have a political elite, who are disconnected from that, and the wake of a financial distaster like the banking crisis, where the culprits haven't suffered and it seems like business as usual to many, defection to parties like UKIP is what happens. Farage is as elitist as the rest of them, but he does a better job of playing the common man than Cameron, Clegg and Miliband.

More UKIP chuckles.... http://www.buzzfeed.com/alanwhite/21-reasons-people-on-twitter-say-theyre-voting-ukip?bffb

Exactly SJ. Many of those affected by Bedroom Tax have never been in arrears before. It's been a huge problem for Local Authorities everywhere.

Have you read any of the posts above roundabout? Firstly, money is not used from the Housing Revenue Account to pay for public services. Funding for those comes from Council Tax and central government. So rent arrears are completely irrelevant in respect to those things. 60% of those in arrears are in arrears because of Bedroom Tax - a welfare reform that Labour have pedged to abolish because of the harm it has done. The council have no smaller properties to move those people into. What would be your solution then? And btw there are only 40,000 households (the rest being leaseholders) and those arrears apply to 24,000 of them.

From southwarks own figures, there are 55,000 social properties in Southwark. Of those properties, approx 40,000 are tenanted and the rest leasehold. Here is a very good document that highlights the demography of Southwarks Housing Stock. The report was chaired by the very capable Gavin Edwards, with cross party support. http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s32592/Appendix%201%20Investing%20in%20Council%20Housing.pdf It states that; Two-thirds of current tenants are not economically active. Many are pensioners and carers. and that.... The incomes of council tenants are low, with 70% on incomes below ?20,000. The median income is ?9,100, far below the borough average and five times less than that of home owners. It's not hard to see why, with welfare reforms, some 40% of tenants have encountered difficulty. Who in their right mind, would point to this, and claim that council incompetance is to blame? People have to be housed somewhere - including the low paid and unemployed. Most of them arrive at social housing (for many credible reasons). But of course, we've been fed a media onslaught of capable scroungers and employed people taking advantage of cheap housing. You know what? Thanks to the internet, it takes minutes to find the truth behind the soundbites. The internet is full of easily accessible (and highly credible) sources of data and figures. I just wish people would find the time to find out for themselves before posting the nonsense the OP has.

It's not but there has to be some understanding of why that is. 40% of council tenants in properties affected by bedroom tax. What is a local authority to do if they don't have smaller proporties to move them into? This is the major flaw of bedroom tax! Sure you can move them into smaller but private rented sector properties, but do you have any idea of the additional cost to the HB bill? And add to that, that because of HB reform the number of private rented sector landlords prepared to rent to HB claimants has shrunk remarkably. It's not the impact the government expected. I can't think of a more ill thought out policy by central government. Here's a stark example of what I'm talking about. In my documentary I compare a local authority called Sefton to London. It would take Sefton council 15 years to rehouse all the single people in two bedroom properties (on HB ) according to the number of one bedroomed properties that become available every year. What is an LA like that supposed to do? This is a sanction that took into no account, underoccupancy vs available social housing stock. It doesn't matter what side of the fence you sit politically, from a fiscal viewpoint, the lack of research and shaping of policy as a result, makes no sense, unless you apply an idealogy (of bashing the poorest). Edited to add; Loz I think you are an intelligent poster. I am more than happy to explain to you the impact of bedroom tax (or HB reform). You can't punish people at the bottom of the ladder with no equally affordable alternative to escape to. Bedroom tax ONLY affects people in social housing. There are many recorded cases of people who should be exempt (like the disabled and those in low paid jobs) being affected. The DWP is currently in a mess...and it can take more than year for the poor claimant trying to sort it out to get anywhere.

Roudabout...I'de love to have a discussion with you on this....especially on the eve of a local election.....