Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Housing Benefit Cap Impact on Haringey
This article is a few months old, but still relevant considering the benefit cap is yet to be implemented. It is a bit concerning given the article suggests around 1,200 families are estimated to be displaced from Haringey... (to where?). (Click here for inside housing article)
There is also discussions right now that housing benefits for under 25s will be scrapped (this is just an idea at present) (Click here for Guardian article)
In addition the rate for under 35s as of Jan 2012 will be a 'shared accomodation rate' (Click here for Shelter article) Shared accomodation could grow the number of HMOs we have in the borough.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
I would quite like some good honest Socialist to help me out with this problem I have. When I cycle into the city I can pass by some quite nice estates, well, they look nice but I'm sure they all have issues. So picture yourself as David Cameron in his constituency office trying to be a politician, he's not yet head of the Conservative party, and he is speaking to a young couple with a baby at his monthly surgery. They are bitter that they pay rent, both work, grandma looks after the baby during the day, and they are "surrounded" by non-working families that seem to run around having fun swearing and drinking all day, supported by the state.
I, as a foreigner here on a residency permit, am not entitled to any benefits and actually I cannot imagine them covering the costs of just existing in Harringay. It's hard for me not to cycle past these estates, and like I said I know they just "look" nice, and not be envious. A private home in close to town is unaffordable, even if you earn quite a lot.
My aspirational envy is being used as a stick by the government to beat these people. Apart from "actually, those estates are awful places to live", does anyone have any rational arguments as to why my taxes should support people living in areas I cannot afford to live myself? Especially people I regard as just as foreign as I am. I'm after an argument, not to be called a racist tory or anything like that.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
There are two separate issues I think. The social rented sector and the private rented sector. Tenants of social housing, by and large, pay a reasonable rent because their landlords don't aim to make a profit and any surplus goes back into the management and maintenance of the buildings. The private rented sector is profit driven and they charge what they think the market will bear in order to return a profit for the owner.
With the abolision of rent control and the dismantling of rent tribunals in the early eighties, the option of a reasonable rent disappeared in the private sector and the pressure on social housing providers increased as more and more of the housing stock you and I paid for through the tax system was no longer available to rent through the introduction of huge Right to Buy discounts.
So we ended up where we are now. Many thousands on the waiting list for social housing and many thousands in the private sector having to claim housing benefit in order to afford rents.
I suppose it all comes down to whether you believe that cities should be places where people of any income band can live or if they are open only to those who have large salaries. As a press officer for Westminster City Council said in February this year, "To live in Westminster is a privilege, not a right, because so many people want to live here"
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
Hark, hark, the dogs do bark,
The beggars are coming to town.
Some in rags and some in tags
and some in velvet gowns.
Some gave them white bread,
And some gave them brown.
And some gave them a good horsewhip,
And sent them out of town.
You could, John, start with an "honest socialist" and reread Friedrich Engels on the The Housing Question. Or glance again at your copy of News from Nowhere by William Morris. If you want a more contemporary take, read (or watch) David Harvey, Anna Minton, or Tony Judt.
Or you might start by consulting some historians, scientists and anthropologists who have no overt political stance, but bring ideas and evidence about the way things came to be; not just how they now are. Jared Diamond is an obvious choice. (Though a few of his case studies have been successfully challenged.)
I'd also suggest a rather different "source" which you may have already seen. Barbara Windsor took part in the TV programme Who do you think you are". Which in many ways poses questions not just of where we, our families, friends and neighbours come from, but why we are living where we do now.
Barbara Windsor is probably seen as an typical 'cockney sparrer'. If you haven't seen it I won't spoil the surprises. Buy it from the BBC. Or you can watch a low-res version on YouTube in two parts. http://bit.ly/NdPYoF http://bit.ly/OgX49r
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
I was never comfortable with the Conservative's policy Right to Buy (council houses). It seems to me that it is the duty of the State to maintain a stock of affordable rent housing to house those who deserve it. As this is a continuing need, it shouldn't mean significantly reducing that stock - and less, reducing it for perceived political advantage. It was a populist policy partly intended to create Conservative-voting homeowners - but at a long term cost to society.
It was perhaps an easier option than maintaining and increasing the social housing stock for those who need and deserve it.
The harder option, is not to continue guaranteeing a house for life to all, and which has the effect of keeping out those who need help. There are some in social housing who can afford to move out and buy a place of their own and allow someone more in need to move in. But because their current rent is below market levels, they are quids-in by staying where they are. This amounts to an unfair subsidy to the well-off at the expense of the poorest.
The case of Frank Dobson MP has been mentioned as an example of someone on an above average income who could afford to move out (I think its a council flat in Covent Garden) and buy, but who chooses to stay put. I know at least one professional person in West London who could easily afford to move on and out, but who choses to remain where they are. Their child will inherit the tenancy, perpetuating the unfairness - to those waiting for housing.
The failure to address this chronic problem impacts on the weakest and most vulnerable on the council house waiting lists, but I can't imagine any political party being brave enough to grasp this nettle any time soon.
-
-
Imagine if it was a condition of MPs or peers taking their seats at Westminster, that they each had to live for at least six months in some of the worst housing in London. And actually I'd rather like to see more police officers living in the communities they police.
The real "chronic problem" is the under-supply of housing. (Though not of course if you can afford a flat at the top of the Shard which - so I read - even has a sea view.)
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation report Housing options and solutions for young people in 2020 suggests that by then:
"... an extra 1.5 million 18 to 30-year-olds will be forced into private renting".
"... many young people's dreams of owning a home will never come true, while many more will have a much longer wait before they own their own properties."
"An extra half a million young people will be forced to stay with their parents well into their 30s, taking the total number of young people living with mum and dad to 3.7 million by 2020."
"The number of homeless young people under 25 is predicted to rise to 81,000, with further increases expected."
"The influx of young people chasing accommodation in the private rented sector (PRS) means that young families, poorer and vulnerable people will find it hardest to compete for tenancies ...
"The report warns of a 'three-tier' system ... with those at the top who can afford to pay, a 'squeezed middle' group who might struggle to pay and a bottom rung of 400,000 who risk being excluded completely."
-
-
The real "chronic problem" is the under-supply of housing. -
Yes Alan but fully rectifying this is not quick, cheap or easy or possibly not even likely. It's always nice to have more of something good, but if it isn't practical in the short run, a start can be made by making better use of what you've already got, no?
Alternatively, Voltaire's the best is the enemy of the good.
-
Permalink Reply by John D on
-
It's not a new problem, of course, Clive. In the 60s there was a 10-year waiting list for council houses in Glasgow and basically, if you didn't have six kids you had no chance of ever rising to the top of the housing list. The creation under the Conservative administration of new overspill towns ( Cumbernauld, East Kilbride ) and the big slum clearance estates ( Castlemilk, Drumchapel ) alleviated the problem but there was little chance of someone finding affordable accommodation in the equivalent of Westminster.
Part of the problem today must be the requirement on councils speedily to house those who are homeless for reasons other than inability to pay a market rent.
-
Permalink Reply by StephenBln on
-
The other part of the problem is the class system, which stigmatises tenants of social housing, while at the same time pushing up the cost of private accomodation.
-
-
It's interesting how the drive to make everyone aspire to property ownership is a peculiarly British thing compared to a lot of other European countries.
-
-
Sure! Somebody commented on my photo of 25 years old social housing.. Fabulous design - mean-minded Britain says social housing must be meagre and boring!"
-
-
In my experience the stigmatising of so-called "social housing" is relatively recent.
With the Conservative victory in 1951 [Harold] Macmillan became Minister of Housing under Churchill, who entrusted Macmillan with fulfilling the latter's conference promise to build 300,000 houses per year. 'It is a gamble—it will make or mar your political career,' Churchill said, 'but every humble home will bless your name if you succeed.' Macmillan achieved the target a year ahead of schedule. (Source: Wikipedia)
During my secondary school years I lived with my family on a council estate. My partner Zena grew up on a Hackney council estate. It was, well, just normal. GLC Estates like Ferry Lane always had "mixed" tenure, with leaseholders, owner occupiers, and council tenants.
As I recall, that was still substantially the case when I began to work as a social worker in Brent in the 1970s. But I got a strong and worrying foretaste of the future in 1979 when I visited friends in New York and Chicago and saw some of the "projects".
Blaming the "Class System" ignores the fact that there were explicit policy decisions made by both the 1979 Tory Government and its Blairite successors. It need not have been this way.
-
Permalink Reply by Seema Chandwani on
-
Whoooop! What a great debate :)))
I think, even though I'm a "loony lefty" I have really mixed views on this.
1. I don't think the method being deployed by the Government is addressing the problem, as Michael Anderson said (above) the removal of controls has led to a market force situation where private landlords have distorted the rental prices and this has led to an extra demand on either social housing or subsidising via Housing Benefit. In response to some of your statement John McMullan, a majority of people on housing benefit are hard working people who do not earn enough to live in even the most poorest areas of London, like Tottenham. It is not them who are aquiring your taxes it is rich landlords. If we adapt our mindset to this being a benefit for rich landlords then we can have a shared frustration.
2. I dont actually believe we should build more, I think this is a piecemeal solution that is leading to wider problems for infrastructure and well being in the people who are living in 'over built' areas. There are some parts of North London who are now converting cellars as living spaces, this is beyond stupid. What needs to be tackled, holistically nation wide is the distribution of opportunity. London has become the economic hub for all major industries, including the public sector jobs. There is no real need for this, especially given the technology we have. If the financial sector relocated to Wales, many people would follow and relocate there easing the strain and demand on property.
3. I am against what some councils are doing with 'social cleansing', moving people of low or no income to areas with low opportunity of social mobility is no solution for the country. It is also very dangerous to move low income households, many of whom maintain our infrastructure (nurses; police; refuse collectors; bus drivers; porters etc) to enable our areas to have the foundations to be so profitable in the first place.
I really am worried with how the Government are dealing with the issue of Housing Benefit, it will destroy peoples lives either if they are forced out to areas with no opportunity to progress or because they will be desperate enough to use a variety of methods to stay. Either way, for those of us who are "hard working tax payers", this hasnt saved us money, that is an illusion and a false economy. We will still be paying for unemployed people in other parts of the country, probably for longer as the chances of them getting a job in those areas will extend the period of their inactivity. We would pay for the growth in services required to meet the rise in social issues that will derive from people desperate to find money elsewhere.
Another short term, knee jerk, tabloid headline grabbing policy from the Tories that amounts to nothing but short sighted elitism. #Sigh!
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
