Threat of losing house for council tenants who don't look for work

[AB Asks]

Caroline Flint, the new housing minister, will propose today that those who live in social housing should hunt work as a condition of them remaining in their houses. It could mean that job centres appear on housing estates themselves where 'skills audits' would take place to help tenants find suitable jobs. The new scheme would be run in a bid to reduce the number of people who live in social housing and don't work. What do you think? Could this work or does it sound like a waste of money?

[lynbrown]

Unfortunately, all the media has picked up on the threat of losing their homes if they dont work. What do you do with the family then? Children into care - expensive. Re-house couples in B&B - expensive. Store their furniture and personal effects - expensive. In fact, you cannot make people homeless, the council is forced to house them somewhere! Stop making it easy for people to get more money and benefits by not working, and that is the first step.

[4GS]

55% of social housing is occupied by people receiving benefits, that's a lot of people so where are all these jobs going to come from?

[amsterdammer]

A good idea in principal, but it wont work in practise.
This is just another gimmick by a government who are quick to come up with ideas but never seem to be able to carry them through.
The answer seems to be to reduce benefits to below the level of the minimum wage, thereby giving the workshy an incentive to get off their backsides & make them less dependant on the state.

[sp1214]

As the majority are under 25 shouldn't we re-introduce the call up? The army is crying out for recruits. Maybe we should give them the option of doing a community service if Iraq does not appeal to them.

[Ice.Maiden]

And who's going to pay for the childcare for all the children? Are disabled folk supposed to find work, or lose their homes? It's another stupid idea, because the government just can't work out how to help people properly - or to give them an incentive to look for work themselves. After that, what about the workshy who live in houses owned by their parents - or just folk who own their own homes but manage to claim sickness benefits? Are they to lose the roof over their heads as well? What's good for one should be good for another. All these stupid ideas just fuel depression amongst folk - and the crime rate'd soar.

[naomi24]

Yet another ill thought-through plan from this ridiculous government. Homeless families mean temporary accommodation, and children in care, which means more expenditure. Telling the work-shy to 'hunt' work is futile. All they'll do is fill in a form once a week, or call in at the job centre to show that they're 'hunting work', but will continue to deem everything they're offered unsuitable. And that means more administration and even more money down the drain.

The only way to deal with the problem is to make those who refuse to get a job, work in the community - cleaning hospitals, cleaning graffiti, picking up litter, etc - on a regular nine to five basis - in return for their benefits - and it should happen from day one. No work, no benefits - and money deducted pro rata for time off without a doctor's certificate. And for single parents, hours could be adjusted to fit in with school times. No one should get a free ride unless they are genuinely unable to work. Perhaps people would then seek proper employment that pays more.

The idea of punishing people by taking away their homes, with no thought of the outcome, is simply ludicrous. Scary to think that people with this level of intelligence are running the country!

[Avatar]

Well said Naomi.

[bundleone]

If you are out of work and can't pay your mortgage, your house will be re-possessed, therefore people with mortgages strive to keep in work, if they lose their job they do their best to find another,

Everybody should at least try to pay for the roof over their head, but it is made too easy to skive and still get everything paid for you.

[Ice.Maiden]

Lol. Is Caroline Flint REAL?!!
Many disadvantaged people live in social housing - but not all. This type of rented property was originally built to house those who couldn't afford to buy. Picking on them won't help matters. I totally agree with only handing benefits over to those who really need them, but this is another debate in itself, because what with the new ruling about being able to have multiple wives....the entire government seems to be made up of clever people who have no common sense or foresight. Sack the lot of them!

[stevie1time]

The Empire at one point amassed nearly a third of the world...Look at Great Britain now? We've lost our identity through political correctness..Stop immigration,stop asylum seekers,foreigners to our homeland...No. the government will pick on the folks who are at probably their lowest point allready,kick em while they'r down,so to speak...we lost the 'Great' in britain along time ago

[naomi24]

Ice Maiden, I'm not sure the government is necessarily made up of clever people - can't help remembering John Prescott. But you're right - none of them seem to have one iota of commonsense. They stumble from one disastrous 'initiative' to the next.

stevie, the problem isn't confined to immigrants. Lazy scroungers are lazy scroungers, wherever they come from, and many of those who have been milking society for years are indigenous. They're not at their 'lowest point' either. This idiotic idea is aimed at people who will not work - the Mrs Bucket's 'Onslows' of this world - and there are plenty of them - and they come in all shapes, sizes, colours and creeds.

[naomi24]

Stevie, this potty plan clearly isn't intended for genuinely disadvantaged people, or the sick, or the elderly. It's aimed at the bone idle. No one else.