Jump to content

Recommended Posts

An example of what is happening in East London came my way recently. An East European and his wife and baby got a 2 -bedroomed council flat. The husband went off to live with his builder mates and the wife then claimed benefits. She let the other bedroom to a working couple and she divided the sitting room with a curtain and let that to two working people. Meanwhile the husband visits regularly for conjugal reasons.....how long before she gets pregnant again and gets a 3 bedroomed council flat or house....we are being taken for a ride people and since there is not enough property to go round, the local councils will turn a blind eye like they did in the 1970s after we had an influx of refugees. Those refugees were living many to a house in poor areas, they more or less set up a parallel society and collected money together and bought property which they are now renting out room by room in our big cities- many to Europeans. I have personally seen examples of this in east London, and in Nottingham.

In Nottingham friend joked that when the night shift got home, they got into the bed of the day shift....

Rather than editing my post above yet again, and having now read the summary of the JRF report cited, it also acknowledges that their results show the opposite trend to other measures of relative poverty, based on %ages of median income. The authors' explanation is that those measures don't capture the true picture. Natch.

unclegen, what has "East European" got to do with your post?


You do not provide any evidence that people from Eastern Europe are a net cost to the economy. I suggest that is because they are not.


Try this report: http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/brexit05.pdf from the LSE (hardly a hotbed of left-wing thought these days).


To quote from the summary:


"The big increase in EU immigration occurred after the ?A8? East European countries joined in 2004. In 2015 29% of EU immigrants were Polish. EU immigrants are more educated, younger, more likely to be in work and less likely to claim benefits than the UK-born. About 44% have some form of higher education compared with only 23% of the UK-born. About a third of EU immigrants live in London, compared with only 11% of the UK-born."


But you have chosen instead to mention "Eastern Europeans" in your post as naming a cost to us all. I think this is appalling.

DaveR Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> For example, the MIS for a lone parent with a baby, a toddler and a primary age

> child is apparently ?73,000/year, which seems a lot. It may be explained by the 'outgoings'

> including ?440/week for childcare.


That's pretty absurd. Curiously, throw a second adult into that household and they need less money to live on (?67,594) but they still need to spend ?440 a week on childcare.


Mind you, I stuck my details in (two person household, no kids, not pensioners) and the calculator seems to think we can survive on ?23,405 a year (after tax) between us. Whether or not that is reasonable depends on a whole host of factors, mainly around housing costs.


So, I think the figures are, at best, an interesting basis for a pub chat.

the reports pretty clear about what it's measuring and provides a fair bit of narrative around it. The measure they're using for those 'at high risk of overty' is 75% if MIS (which of course one might still legitimately question). What's perhaps most interesting is their analysis for what is likely to happen to the incomes of those being described in the report over the next few years (a further, significant drop). Anyway, read the report, it's pretty nuanced https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/households-below-minimum-income-standard-200809-201415

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, AFAICS, the "civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300" were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...