Results for ED Ward are in!

[PokerTime]

Sophron, there's another thread on these arrears and as I pointed out there, 60% of those arrears are due to Bedroom Tax hitting extremely poor and low waged tenants. Some other arrears are down to unforgiveable delays in payments by the DWP. The only people responsible for that are the current coalition government. Every LA accross the country has been hit by the impact of this. LAs just don't have the required number of smaller properties to move people into.

But if you have any solutions, I for one would really like to hear them.

Personally happy to see Labour retain southwark, but agree that some good councillors have lost seats due to national effect.

[Sophron]

I know Poker Time but we won't agree, my own view is that HA's should be selling off high value stock that they own in areas that have seen double digit capital growth to fund scocial housing building projects(including one bedroom flats).

Neither do I accept that "extremely poor and low waged tenants" are all incapable of meeting rent, coucil tax arrears to the tune of ?14.4 million. I do know that in my own dealings with Southwark Council the bureaucracy is astounding so I'm not suprised at the level of arrears.

In any event we are off topic and wont agree - I do look forward to the general election though when I believe the results will be very different, even here in London.

[PokerTime]

A recipient of ?71 per week is expected to find ?14 out of that to pay bedroom tax (per room). Have you tried living on ?56 a week lately? That's just one straightforward example. Many of those affected are affected by the children sharing rules, the one for example that requires 16 years olds and under of the same gender to be sharing a room. I'd like to see anyone put two 16 year olds in bunk beds in a room not big enough to accomodate anything else. There are lots of problems with this legislation. And unless you have to live on that income for a period of time, you really have no idea how impossible it is. Even the most organised of people are getting into trouble.

Southwark doesn't have anything like the level of high value stock to needed to work by your solution. Many LAs in other parts of the country don't have high value stock at all! The solutions are needed now, not in ten years time. That's why Labour have pledged to abolish the Tax. It's the only sensible option at this point. There are others ways to facilitate downsizing, that don't fine those, who through no fault of their own, can't be downsized.

As for the general election, I don't think you'll see any difference. Southwark is a combination of safe seats and strongholds. Simon Hughes may be at risk and I know that Labour will he heavily targetting this seat. We need a government with a fair housing policy. The coalition are not interested in delivering that.

[Sophron]

Pokertime, we are not going to agree, your first sentence doesn't include what I believe is the priority option:

"A recipient of ?71 per week is expected to find ?14 out of that to pay bedroom tax (per room)"

Or get a job. ?80 per day labouring is what I was earning only six months ago when I was doing that work because business was quiet and my Polish colleague said to me "you are tripping over work in London when you leave your front door"

Fundementally I dont agree with the government, locally or nationally, subsidising those who can work but won't.

I believe there are a significant minority of those in the position that you describe who could find work, I know that there will still be a housing shortage but it would be easier if people were paying their own rent and making a contribution to the system that funds welfare....

On this I fear we will never agree.

[PokerTime]

There many parts of the country where the unemployment rate outstrips the no of available jobs by 10-1 or more. The young, over 45's and long term unemployed are particulalrly disadvantaged, that's before we even get onto the disabled. You are just not living in the real world if you think there are jobs out there for all of the unemployed.

One million people in full time work receive housing benefit because they don't earn enough to pay their rent. The majority of people in social housing in Southwark who work earn leass that ?20k per year with ?9k being the average median. We subsidise employers in all kinds of ways, from child tax credits to childcare provision. The biggest spend of the welfare bill, more than half of it goes on the over 65's though.

It is so easy to bash the unemployed, but the truth is that there are fundamental flaws in our economy, with not enough jobs, and of the jobs that do exist, not enough being secure or paying a living wage. Recipients of JSA are required to look for work and are sanctioned if they don't. Penalising through HB reforms that they can't do anything about is wrong. And many of those affected by bedroom tax are ill, in receipt of ESA or other illness related welfare. So they can't actually work.

There are complexities to this issue, highlighted perfectly by the various reports published by HAs and LAs assessing the impact of bedroom tax. None of those expert organisations believe that Bedroom Tax should remain in it's current form.

[Dulwich Born And Bred]

PokerTime, ditto to everything you said . You should run for MP since you live in the real world.

[Sophron]

Pokertime I didn't say there are jobs out there for all of the unemployed, what I said in my post was that there are a significant minority who could work but won't. This is not a myth, you just have to look. With regard to other parts of the country I'd rather see UK citizens migrating to London for work (or work migrating to the rest of the country rather than overseas) from these areas than people from other countrys(regardless of race, creed, colour, gender, orientation or age). I'd really like our education to be more affective in preparing people for the real world as well, I know it's tough but lives are being ruined by the system letting them down.

And where we can agree is that big business must do more to meet basic earning needs, I support an increase to the minimum wage, I'd be much tougher on corporations paying their tax domesticaly rather than off shore, I would legislate for better skills development within employment to increase life chances for people who enter employment. It's a disgrace that we subsidise big business (Sainsburys etc.) when they trouser such vast profits.

I'm not bashing the unemployed on mass, I've been one, but I am critical of the acceptance of welfare as a way of life - it's unnacceptable and we need to do more to change the situation. I dont see HA's or LA's (the so called experts) doing enough, the system is not joined up and the waste is shocking(the beuracracy that started our mini debate). I dont pretend there is an easy solution for all of the unemployed but I do contend that those who can work (especially here in London) should work - to help themselves, their fellow citizens and support those who really can't work to make progress.

[PokerTime]

Where do you base your evidence on? JSA, and income support both require claimants to show evidence of having looked for work.

I agree regarding inward migration, but again, it is the sign of a poorly balanced economy when huge numbers of the population have to move to one corner of it to find work. Yes education has a role to play but it doesn't matter how effective an education system a country has if there isn't the industry and other business sectors to employ people. We are not alone in this conundrum. Technology and the shift of manufacturing to the Far East, has made huge numbers of previously employable people redundant. Successive governments have had no answers to that.

Those who find themselves on a lifetime of welfare are more often than not the same people who followed their parents into jobs for life in factories, mines, dockyards. The areas of the country that have lost those core industries are the ones where you'll find those dependent on benefits for a lifetime.

I get really frustrated at these debates about deserving poor vs underserving poor. We have to get away from this idea that the individual is always responsible for their lot. It's not an equal playing field. The vast majority of unemployed are so because of reasons beyond their control. The long term unemployed have particular difficulty. Successive governments throw money at agencies to help them, but the success rate is always low. Employers don't employ LTUs because there's always a ready supply of labour. THAT's the problem for specific groups of unemployed in London. They just can't compete with the temporarily unemployed. And nothing the government or they try to do, changes employers minds on that.

Shortages of homes has nothing to do with employment though. So let me ask you this question. Do you accept that it's unfair to penalise a housing benefit recipient in social housing when there is no smaller property available to move them into? After all, the HB reform doesn't distinguish between deserving poor and underserving poor.

[Bic Basher]

Staggering results from our neighbours in Lewisham. 53/54 seats are Labour with the Green Party being the official opposition.

[Sophron]

Pokertime my observations are based on my own exerience both as an unemployed person and as an employer. My own experience is that there is work for those who want it in London and there are many who sadly don't. JSA and income support requiring proof of effort to get work have, until comparitivly recently, been fairly lax.

I'm please we both agree re inward Migration. It's not great for people to have to move to secure employment but I'd rather British citizens gained emloyment by relocating than staying in perpetual economic stagnation while economic migrants from other countrys take the work, often at less than the jobs value and leave their own country in a worse position.

I share your frustration with these issues but feel strongly that we must be proactive, I don't believe anyone deserves to be poor and I get vexed by the thought of children growing up poor, with substandard education, without any emloyment prospects. Not as nurses, Doctors, builders - any vocation/trade/occupation where work is being taken by those who are trained and prepared to travel 1000's of miles to secure employment at the expence of people who should be supported and protected by our own government.

Frankly there is work in London, not the work that people might ideally wish to do, perhaps not where they live but there are opportunities available - not for all but certainly for many. As I've said I dont believe anyone one deserves to be poor - but if you are then you have a duty to yourself and family to try.

I do though accept that the LA/HA have a responsibiity to offer a smaller property as an alternative to withdrawing benefit the alternative doesn't nessecarily have to be in the same area - I woud also add that I believe it is an option to rent additional room to create further income, if the person wishes to stay in that property. I also think that there should be exclusions for disabled, sick or special circumstances.

As you say, these are complex problems without easy solutions where many differnt factors converge - but leaving things as thay are would be even more tragic.

[monica]

I echo other posts re good councillors losing out, real shame about Robin Crookshankhilton. Great councillor, who supported and helped a lot of the community projects.

Happy to see we still have James Barber, congratulations James

[PokerTime]

But experience Sophron is only ever from a small pool of people you diresctly come into contact with. The long term unemployed in London have exactly the same problems as they do elsewhere, as do the youngest and those over 45. Like you I know personally many examples of this.

On inward Migration. People don't move to take min wage jobs. Why would anyone move to London to do that? Where rent is more expensive than most parts of the country? And if all the unemployed of Liverpool, Newcastle, Sheffield etc moved to London, there would be huge problems. The answer is not in inward migration. We've had that for the last 40 years. There needs to be incentivised regeneration of those areas, and that requires meaningful investment by the government. Somehow, we need to get businesses locating up there. Easier to do in a city, but not so easy to do in the mining areas, those towns that were built on single industries. Or do we resign all of those places to becoming ghost towns?

My experience with the poor is this. When people try and try and try to find work, and get nowhere, it damages them, their self confidence, and can lead to illness. There isn't enough proactive support from jobcentres and those places have had huge cuts made too. For example the phones that used to be free for the unemployed to use, have been removed. Just something as simple as a free phone to use, for sorting benefit problems or calling employers, or chasing up jobs, can make a huge difference. But the government has taken that away.

On the room front, most of the second rooms + in council flats were designed for children, and are barely large enough to house a single bed and wardrobe. If a person rents a room, they have to declare that income to the DWP. Their benefits are then reduced accordingly, so whilst it could be a solution, it isn't for those on benefits. Failure to notify the DWP would be fraud and a criminal offence. I did hear an MP mention this in a debate, and he made the point that there are unused rooms all over London that could be rented if the rules were changed. The disabled are exempt but it depends on the disability. Someone needing a carer, or needing space to store medical equipment seems to get an exemption (after a bit of a battle), but someone suffering from a mental health condition doesn't. Again, another example of how poorly thought out this policy was.

All LAs have the same problems regarding availability of smaller properties. So there isn't scope to move people to other areas to solve the problem. Rent goes to the Housing Revenue Account which is then used for Housing services, like maintenance etc. So if the HRA suffers a shortfall, it impacts back on council tenants.

So what is the solution? My view is that bedroom tax needs to go, asap, for all the reasons stated and more. It was an ideological welfare reform, based on assumptions and no real research. That would at least help the HRA account and reduce the arrears by 40%. Councils would continue to deal with other arrears as they always have done, using eviction as the last resort (and councils do evict people for rent arrears - make no mistake on that). Then the law can be changed, allowing councils to force tenants to downsize as property becomes available.

There are other problems though. There's is always a demand outstripping supply for social housing, which in turn impacts on the flexibility of movement within the system. There are people in two bed flats needing three bed ones, one bed flats needing two bed ones. All of these changes in need often revolve around children coming and going. But it never balances out. The bottom line is that we need more council housing. Had we not sold millions of, never to be replaced, homes through right to buy, we wouldn't be in this situation today.

Worse than that, we are selling off council homes and land for demolishion to private companies, under the pretence of replacing those social homes. The Heygate is a perfect example, where 3000 council homes will be replaced with just 79 social homes for rent. The council has made a loss on the deal whilst the developer stands to make ?194million. There are similar examples of this in Hackney and other places. It's called regeneration, but is really just social cleansing of the poorest people from the centre.

[Administrator]

Keep it East Dulwich.

Talk politics in the Lounge.

[PokerTime]

Did you really need to delete my post Admin before posting that request? If you are deleting that one then you should delete all the posts that are relevant to that discussion.

[Administrator]

Yes, you posted a political posts on another thread which I followed up with a "please keep politics out if it" message and I'm not going to bother telling you again. I appreciate it's hard because it's about election results but please try.

[Sophron]

Hey PT, PM your response, I'd be interested to read it, you clearly care about the issues.

Hi Admin, seems a little draconian to delete PT's post, this is a thread about politics after all, I know it's your train set but it takes those like PT to keep it valuable and interesting - just sayin.

[Administrator]

I'm not sayin don't talk about it on the the forum, there's the Lounge for that. I'm just sayin keep it relevant to East Dulwich and that post wasn't. I've put the post back up but no more please.

Anyway back to the ED Ward results are in.

[PokerTime]

Fair enough admin :)

Thank you for your support Sophron. Feel free to pm if you want to reply to my last post.

[Townleygreen]

Very glad to see James Barber and Renata got re elected. Well deserved in both cases.

[Sophron]

Thanks Admin - that was decent of you, will follow guidance in future.

[holloway]

good on james barber, he seems a decent chap and always glad to see him engaging on this forum despite the vitriol that follows...