And this is bad because?

All but four of the 33 London local authorities responded to the Guardian survey. Seventeen said they were already placing homeless families outside the capital, or had secured or were considering temporary accommodation outside London for future use. These included Kensington and Chelsea, which has moved a minority of homeless families to Manchester and Slough; Waltham Forest, which has acquired housing in Luton, Margate and Harlow; Brent, which has relocated some households to Hastings; and Tower Hamlets, which has relocated a handful of families to Northampton.

A roof over your head, yes, I\’ll accept that as part of the civil bargain. My pocket gets picked so as to ensure that there always is one. For the same system protects me, insures me, in the same manner.

A three or four bedroomed place in Westminster? Not so much I\’m afraid.

15 thoughts on “And this is bad because?”

  1. “legal challenges …. accommodation outside the capital is unsuitable because of the impact on their health”

    I’d be curious to know what is the health impact of living in Hastings or Stoke. The satanic mills have long closed; a dose of country air might actually do them some good!

  2. …..accommodation outside the capital is “unsuitable” because of the impact on their health or their children’s education,…..

    Hands up who would rather their children go to an inner city knife fighting training establishment than a school somewhere leafy outside the Capital.

    I thought not. I am sure that there are schools in towns and cities across the country that would be happy to have a new source of pupils.

  3. “I’d be curious to know what is the health impact of living in Hastings …”
    Try living in Hastings. Acute depression, mainly.

  4. Those towns that accepted London or Glasgow overspill a couple of generations ago didn’t always feel that they’d done well out of it.

  5. This is great. I have often thought of moving outside London because it is expensive here. Of course if I didn’t spend so much money giving other people a home here I might have enough money.

  6. According to the Guardian it’s terribly important that we put up Somalis and the like in multimillion pound houses in London. It just is.

  7. It almost makes sense, except for the quite important point of democratic accountability (and opportunities for gerrymandering).

    If you’re being housed by Kensington & Chelsea council, then – whether they’ve sent you somewhere unspeakable or not – you should retain the right to vote in Kensington & Chelsea.

  8. john b – If you’re relying on taxpayers – i.e. other people – to put a roof over your head, I’m not so sure you should get to vote on how to spend their money at all. No representation without taxation.

  9. “It almost makes sense, except for the quite important point of democratic accountability (and opportunities for gerrymandering).

    If you’re being housed by Kensington & Chelsea council, then – whether they’ve sent you somewhere unspeakable or not – you should retain the right to vote in Kensington & Chelsea.”

    Nope. This just shows that housing should not be a local authority issue? How does that work? If you don’t have a house, then you can’t be a resident in a borough. So why should any particular borough have a responsibility to house you? If I live in Manchester, become homeless, and turn up in Westminster asking for a council house, why should Westminster have a duty to house me?

    Housing the poor should be done entirely through central government, and not by providing the houses but just by giving them cash.

  10. Let’s see if I can get my head around JohnB’s idea. You get to move to Margate where you pay your council taxes to Thanet council & use Thanet services but you don’t have a vote in Thanet because you vote in K&C which you have no connection with.
    And this is an alternative to gerrymandering?

  11. No hang on, I think I’ve got it. When you get about halfway up Northcliffe Road, where the record shop is, the lamposts change from grey to those black one’s with the gold on & you start having to text to park the car. Long schlep to the library in Pembridge Gardens though And where does the 28 bus stop & can I use my Oyster Card?

  12. Don’t know about other towns but I’d bet our local social housing organisations would put people in areas they can’t get the locals to take. We don’t have any council houses (sold off for £1400 each a few years back) but a number of registered social landlords. If we get Londoners they may find the accent odd but sure they will fit right in soon enough. If they survive where they are placed.

  13. “…..accommodation outside the capital is “unsuitable” because of the impact on their health or their children’s education,…..”

    Serf @2, I’m having trouble linking, but the weird fact appears to be that London schools with their high percentage of pupils speaking English as a second language and other problems are actually pretty good. No idea why. Doesn’t negate the point of the original post (or your answer).

  14. Hang on, council A in London is buying houses (or leasing) houses in council B’s area so that they can house people from A.

    Why? Why not just transfer the requirement to home them to council B who can then house them in the spare homes they already have. No need for councils to buy extra houses. And spare housing can get used up without having pockets of high demand in one area and pockets of high supply in another.

    Well why not? Because rules, regulations, and guidelines from central government mean councils can’t work together to spread the issue around.

  15. BiS: you don’t understand what this proposal involves. This involves you living in a house owned by K&C council, rented to you by K&C council, and with K&C council retaining ongoing responsibility for your situation.

    Luke: absolutely correct. The reason is almost certainly the one identified by Orwell, in terms of English working-class attitudes to education. A school full of kids with Asian and Polish parents who’ll be angry if they don’t learn is going to be far superior to one whose parents think education is a total waste of time, even if the former lot don’t speak English at home.

    SBML: not because rules “don’t allow them”, because rules don’t compel them. There is absolutely no incentive for councils to do it that way, so they don’t.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *