Why should the long term unemployed be entitled to social housing?

[rov1200]

With millions of long term unemployed taking social housing in prime areas are they not denying those able to work from living accommodation close to their work? If you are unemployed and unlokely to find work does it matter where you live? According to todays paper there will be another 500,000 on the homes waiting list.

Nobody is suggesting the existing tenants are thrown out onto the streets but with a reduction in the armed forces and many barracks lying empty they could be rehoused in them. Also nobody is suggesting the long term unemployed happens because of the will to find a job.

But instances like nurses not being able to find accommodation close to where they work are widespread. It applies to many other occupations.

[Zeuhl]

This is a very good question though there are some issues.

Whose 'backyard' would welcome a New Town of long-term unemployed?

Also, the social engineering of the post war New Towns led to long-term social issues - and those communities at least started with a high proportion of waged families.
.

[rov1200]

Most Army barracks are situated in remote areas although even if this were not the case who could possibly object.

[jb190281]

Many housing associations, or the few local authorities with housing stock remaining, have sections in their allocations policy giving preference to applicants with a local connection.

According to homelessness legislation, a local connection could be where the applicant is already resident in that area, has family in the area, or having employment in the area.

Many, if not most, associations/authorities are now implementing Choice Based Lettings, where it is the applicants responsibilty to express their interest on properties. So if they want to live in a particular area, they can express the wish to do so.

On the note of armed forces, anyone leaving the armed forces should be given increased priority in the allocations policy. I know our local authority certainly does this.

[rojash]

I agree. If someone loses their job because of the financial climate and they are unable to find another (maybe because they are too old, or trained in an industry that's waning) we should treat them like social pariahs and do our best to punish them for it. One way would be to put them in the workhouse and ensure that workhouses are located in places where there is even less chance of them ever getting a job.

[Greedyfly]

Lol Rojash

[LoftyLottie]

LOL Rojash. A Ghetto would be just the place for the long term unemployed, especially in a nice rural ex RAF houses where they have no access to any shops, schools, services etc, and are away from their friends and families. Fantastic idea.

[ummmm]

I think Northampton is separating the two. Have been for years.

[New Judge]

As with all issues such as this, discrimination needs to be applied to treat those who are genuinely in need through no fault of their own preferentially over those who expect to be nurtured and provided for from cradle to grave and who have absolutely no intention of doing anything to help themselves.

At present discrimination is applied, but the feckless are treated like royalty whilst those who have hit hard times but try to help themselves are treated like pariahs.

Social Housing is allocated on the basis of those in the most need. Those in the most need are usually those who have just arrived on these shores or those that have lived here all their lives but who have never lifted a finger to help themselves. They should have no say over where they live and the most desirable “social” accommodation should be reserved for those in low paid but vital occupations who need to be near to their work.

The idea that ex-forces housing stock be turned over to social housing is a non-starter. Much of this stock is in a dilapidated condition and whilst it is perfectly adequate for members of the forces and their families its condition makes it totally unsuitable for “affordable housing” needed for the idle poor.

[Kathyan]

There was a story a while ago about someone wanting to use an old army barracks for housing, but the barracks were deemed 'unfit for human habitation'. Funny how they were OK for the soldiers eh?

[naomi24]

We are talking about the 'long-term unemployed' here rather than those who perhaps lose their jobs, or cannot work because of illness, and if that's the case, it's a terrible idea. It's tantamount to saying 'OK. we know you have no intention of ever working, and we accept that, so we're shoving you out into a No Man's Land, but we'll still pay your benefits and allow you to continue to refuse to work and to sponge off the taxpayer'. Far better to leave them in the homes they currently occupy and give them jobs in the community in exchange for their dole money. No work, no pay!

[Zeuhl]

///Most Army barracks are situated in remote areas although even if this were not the case who could possibly object///

Well, their neighbours obviously!

Everywhere in these crowdwd islands of ours is near to somebody.

Thinking of the fuss everytime wind turbines, prisons, incinerators or landfills are proposed 'in remote areas' these waste dumps for human beings are not going to be popular with anyone within miles - even if you put barbed wire and storm-troopers around them.

You do realise that when you watch 'Escape from New York', you're supposed to recognise that the underlying concept is a 'bad idea'? You do, don't you?
.

[LoftyLottie]

Kathyan, most of these old barracks have been empty for decades and decades. That is why they are unfit now. They were fit when they were being used. Any house left for decades would become unfit.

[Zeuhl]

In reality, the MoD sites would need to be cleared, new houses erected and then people shipped into them.

Would we have special trains for this purpose? cattle trucks perhaps?

Could the Daily Mail run a readers' competition to name the new communities?

Dole-ite-on-Sea? Chav-ville? Scrounger Dale?

Perhaps we just need additional affordable properties in popular areas reserved for people with good employment records but low pay. I believe this was the premise for council housing in the first place, or at least in its heyday of the 20s and 30s.
I seem to recall my grandparents saying one couldn't get on the waiting list unless one had a long term job.
.
.

[modeller]

There are thousands of jobs that nobody wants or are willing to do . An example of that is fruit growers who have to bring in thousands of immigrant workers. There are derelict sites all over the country that need clearing up . At the same time we have over a million long term unemployed so why can't we have Workunits where these workshy lot would be offered work in exchange for their benefits. The Trade Unions couldn't complain because no one would be losing their job . However I have little doubt they will.

[rov1200]

Of course there would be many spin-offs:

1. A fair rent could be paid rather than being subsidised by housing benefit
2. They could be near the place of work so less travel involved
3. It would be an added incentive for the long term unemployed to find work even if it is below their station.
4. It would send out the message that 'work pays'.
5. Sink estates would gradually disappear.
6. The country could benefit enormously.

There are many more but only the woolly liberals would not agree!

[Zeuhl]

Wouldn't it just transfer and concentrate the sink estates into specific 'Gulags'?

Who would enforce this mass deportation of people who presumably wouldn't be cooperative?

If you want to turn parts of North Yorkshire into a Gulag should you bring in Experts who are ex-Soviet Communist Party, ex-KGB or ex-Khmer Rouge to advise and help you?
.

[micmak]

rov1200. It is hoped that your luck does not change. A friend of mine lost his job, because of this he lost his house. His wife and kids had to go live in a hostel. He sleeps on the floor of whoever will have him. Have a nice evening.

[rojash]

"only the woolly liberals would not agree"
Only an arrogant Snag would make a statement like that

[rojash]

s=t
n=w
a=a
g=t

[HARPY]

Modeller ( thousands of jobs that nobody wants or are willing to do . An example of that is fruit growers )
Which fruit grows all the year round, the jobs on farms are seasonal ?

Zehul (Could the Daily Mail run a readers' competition to name the new communities )
Like a few of the other numpties on here this person has a thing with the Daily Mail, has the Daily Mail done a report on this subject ?


I must agree with rojash this site has plenty of snags, hope the snags on here keep their jobs.