This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/feb/14/poor-paying-high-price-camden
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| The poor are paying a high price in Camden | The poor are paying a high price in Camden |
| (about 20 hours later) | |
| Camden announces it will have to move 750 poor families out of London and the coalition attempts to claim the moral high ground with "it is not right that benefit claimants can receive higher incomes than families in work" (Report, 14 February). But the monstrous injustice being done to thousands of families in London started with the 1979 government deregulating lending, abolishing rent controls and allowing the free flow of private money in and out of the UK. Money poured into a chaotic housing market in short supply, forcing up prices. | |
| Minsters include housing benefit in the total incomes they call morally unjustified. But for 30 years governments allowed rising rents to increase the housing benefit paid to landlords. That was not the fault of the poorest tenants. The monstrous injustice is that capping housing benefit forces tenants to pay rent out of the meagre benefit or employment income needed for food, fuel and other necessities. Some are forced to leave employment in London. These unfair caps on housing benefit apply throughout the UK, one imposed in October 2010 and, from April, a 15% or 25% cut for having one or two spare bedrooms and an overall benefit cap of £500, which will hit large families in high-rent areas very hard indeed. | Minsters include housing benefit in the total incomes they call morally unjustified. But for 30 years governments allowed rising rents to increase the housing benefit paid to landlords. That was not the fault of the poorest tenants. The monstrous injustice is that capping housing benefit forces tenants to pay rent out of the meagre benefit or employment income needed for food, fuel and other necessities. Some are forced to leave employment in London. These unfair caps on housing benefit apply throughout the UK, one imposed in October 2010 and, from April, a 15% or 25% cut for having one or two spare bedrooms and an overall benefit cap of £500, which will hit large families in high-rent areas very hard indeed. |
| Camden cannot claim the high moral ground either. From April, they start charging their poorest residents 8.5% of their council tax. Rev Paul Nicolson Taxpayers Against Poverty | Camden cannot claim the high moral ground either. From April, they start charging their poorest residents 8.5% of their council tax. Rev Paul Nicolson Taxpayers Against Poverty |
| • Camden council is not planning to move 750 families out of London – we are looking at how we can support the 761 families who will be affected by the government's benefit cap. Government cuts are forcing the hands of local authorities such as Camden, and we are rightly talking to our residents about the impacts that these changes will have. Not all of those affected will be priced out of Camden, because we have policies to provide support and assistance. | • Camden council is not planning to move 750 families out of London – we are looking at how we can support the 761 families who will be affected by the government's benefit cap. Government cuts are forcing the hands of local authorities such as Camden, and we are rightly talking to our residents about the impacts that these changes will have. Not all of those affected will be priced out of Camden, because we have policies to provide support and assistance. |
| We are successful in working with people, helping them into employment, negotiating rents with landlords or finding cheaper local accommodation – steps that allow them to either stay in their homes or stay locally. Sadly, the scale of the cuts and the lack of provision by this government for high living costs in the capital mean that some will have to look outside London. The average private rent for a two-bedroom property in Camden is £445 a week. If benefits are capped at £500, it will be impossible for families to continue to live in their current accommodation. | We are successful in working with people, helping them into employment, negotiating rents with landlords or finding cheaper local accommodation – steps that allow them to either stay in their homes or stay locally. Sadly, the scale of the cuts and the lack of provision by this government for high living costs in the capital mean that some will have to look outside London. The average private rent for a two-bedroom property in Camden is £445 a week. If benefits are capped at £500, it will be impossible for families to continue to live in their current accommodation. |
| The blanket cap from government is ill-conceived and will have a once-in-a-generation impact on the lives of many. Camden is setting aside £1.1m to deal with the expected increase in homeless applications over the next financial year. This is coming from budgets that have been slashed by government already, but we are committed to trying to keep as many people as possible in Camden, and in the places where they are settled and happy. Councillor Sarah Hayward Leader, Camden council | The blanket cap from government is ill-conceived and will have a once-in-a-generation impact on the lives of many. Camden is setting aside £1.1m to deal with the expected increase in homeless applications over the next financial year. This is coming from budgets that have been slashed by government already, but we are committed to trying to keep as many people as possible in Camden, and in the places where they are settled and happy. Councillor Sarah Hayward Leader, Camden council |
| • How can any decent person, regardless of political affiliation, defend a policy which results in hundreds of families being evicted from their homes and sent hundreds of miles away? When is someone going to say that the "fairness" argument, comparing benefits with wages, is completely specious? They are two separate issues. Rents are too high and wages too low. Both need tackling, but benefits must always be based on the needs of the recipients, not on any arbitrary formula. Frank Jackson Harlow Labour party | • How can any decent person, regardless of political affiliation, defend a policy which results in hundreds of families being evicted from their homes and sent hundreds of miles away? When is someone going to say that the "fairness" argument, comparing benefits with wages, is completely specious? They are two separate issues. Rents are too high and wages too low. Both need tackling, but benefits must always be based on the needs of the recipients, not on any arbitrary formula. Frank Jackson Harlow Labour party |
| • The depressing revelations about Camden council's plans to re-house poor families outside London are shocking, but not surprising. Despite the wealth of warnings to the likely effects about the benefit reforms, this government remains determined to push through changes that will break down the support networks of some of the country's most disadvantaged families. | • The depressing revelations about Camden council's plans to re-house poor families outside London are shocking, but not surprising. Despite the wealth of warnings to the likely effects about the benefit reforms, this government remains determined to push through changes that will break down the support networks of some of the country's most disadvantaged families. |
| Worryingly, the changes not only appear to directly attack the poor, but are likely to disproportionately affect those from black and minority ethnic communities – 66% of the population of Camden described their ethnicity as something other than white British in the 2011 census. Indeed, in a 2011 paper the Race Equality Foundation warned that the concentration of minority ethnic families in urban centres would combine with factors including higher child poverty rates, larger family size and higher rates of disability and unemployment, in turn increasing the likelihood that these communities would experience the full brunt of the reforms. | Worryingly, the changes not only appear to directly attack the poor, but are likely to disproportionately affect those from black and minority ethnic communities – 66% of the population of Camden described their ethnicity as something other than white British in the 2011 census. Indeed, in a 2011 paper the Race Equality Foundation warned that the concentration of minority ethnic families in urban centres would combine with factors including higher child poverty rates, larger family size and higher rates of disability and unemployment, in turn increasing the likelihood that these communities would experience the full brunt of the reforms. |
| The leader of Camden council, Sarah Hayward, praises the diverse mix of communities in Camden, but unless something is done to protect vulnerable families, this diversity will be attacked. Jabeer Butt Deputy chief executive, Race Equality Foundation | The leader of Camden council, Sarah Hayward, praises the diverse mix of communities in Camden, but unless something is done to protect vulnerable families, this diversity will be attacked. Jabeer Butt Deputy chief executive, Race Equality Foundation |
| • "It's not right that benefit claimants can receive higher incomes than families in work," says a spokesperson from the DWP. But families with five or six children need more money than families with two or three. Families who live in London need more money than families who live in places where accommodation is cheaper. Many benefit claimants do in fact work; they just don't earn enough to support their families. Other claimants would work if affordable childcare were available. These are facts, not opinions. If a student of mine made this kind of unsupported assertion in an essay, I would fail it. Professor Rosemary Auchmuty School of law, University of Reading | • "It's not right that benefit claimants can receive higher incomes than families in work," says a spokesperson from the DWP. But families with five or six children need more money than families with two or three. Families who live in London need more money than families who live in places where accommodation is cheaper. Many benefit claimants do in fact work; they just don't earn enough to support their families. Other claimants would work if affordable childcare were available. These are facts, not opinions. If a student of mine made this kind of unsupported assertion in an essay, I would fail it. Professor Rosemary Auchmuty School of law, University of Reading |
| • Government policy seems geared to ensure the south-east stays wealthy at the expense of other regions, but to export the poor so that wealthier people can buy their houses lacks subtlety even for them. Roy Grimwood Market Drayton, Shropshire | • Government policy seems geared to ensure the south-east stays wealthy at the expense of other regions, but to export the poor so that wealthier people can buy their houses lacks subtlety even for them. Roy Grimwood Market Drayton, Shropshire |
| • The letter from Rev Paul Nicolson was amended on 15 February 2013 because the original said "deregulating incomes" when "deregulating lending" was meant. |