"Incentivised" relocation.

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... l?ITO=1490

(Just so you know this is on most major news sites, I'm not a mail-frother, I just grabbed at random.)

The bright new idea from the DWP is that people who live in estates where there are no jobs should be "incentivised" to relocate to areas where there ARE, by being moved to the top of the council lists in those areas.

Can't help but notice that combined with the sudden uptake of social housing when the government cut Local housing allowance by a third, isn't this going to create large areas of empty houses that "the poor" can't afford to live in, but everyone else is too well off to need to rent, whilst shoehorning the local poor into inadequate numbers of council houses in areas with more employment, and leaving council estates with low employment empty wastelands? Are the locals in east london going to be particularly welcoming when half of west london falls in their laps, "coming here to take our jobs"? Will moving these people GET them a job, or simply allow them to look in a different jobcentre?

Another unanswered question: how are the poor expected to pay for moving? Its not exactly free to do so. There ARE costs. Also, will this not end in the segregation and seperation of families? When the working age ones are forced to move into a council flat a borough away or more (and no distance limit is suggested) the elderly are going to be left behind and pressured into accepting smaller accomodation. What about the children forced to relocate into schools that may not be available, or may be overcrowded or just rubbish? Will provision be made to shoehorn them into schools? Will they be any more acceptable to the locals than the adults?

Many of the most famous unemployed sink estates have a substantial gang problem, often in areas as small as a few streets across. What happens when the council shunt half of them into an estate in a neighbouring city, borough, county even?

How will this account for all the other people who sit at the head of waiting lists? Families, the homeless?

How will this affect the disabled, with the variable nature of services in different areas? Will they be put further up the waiting lists for treatments/groups etc? Or will they get dropped to the bottom? How will it affect young working-age disabled who rely on relatives close by for support? Send them off to a different city? How is that going to scan with an autistic person who took ten years to remember where the corner shop is, and had a panic attack when the shopkeeper changed?

The worst-case-scenario extension of this is that local councils will be forced to construct substantial amounts of cheap, small social housing to accommodate the new influx...and a similar reaction by locals to the one they had about the influx of immigrants from abroad, who also took priority with housing. Council estates in places that have more jobs will bulge at the seams, but with no guarantee that anyone in them is more employable, whilst the poor will be forced into the indentured labour provided by employment agencies like A4E. Meanwhile places with low employment will wither and die completely because there will be no creation of new jobs. The new unemployed created by this will have to be shipped off to places with high employment... and what are the "incentives"? ConDem incentives so far have ALL been drastic cuts of the "work or die" nature.

Helping people be more mobile, to broaden their access to employment is a laudable idea. This implementation of it is yet another ill-thought out problem-causer that will disadvantage the poor and disabled.

Hi Macbeth,
I don't believe that the Daily mail, here or more generally, is a reliable source of facts. I am sorry if it's your preferred read however.

That said, forcing people to move away from their old homes, friends , family, etc sounds callous. It reminds me of the hunger marches and mass emigration of the past. If there is genuine choice in the matter and if it were to be fully funded by the UK Government that would possibly be acceptable. But it would seem that the Gov. wish to do this as part of their budget saving measures.

With some experience (professional) of DWP, I believe their ethos to be based on the notion that social security claimants are fundamentally dishonest and that can result in the targeting of the weak and vulnerable. I have no doubt that they'd be disinclined to accept that autism or mental health problem is ever disabling and for all these reasons, I share your concerns.

Ah, the joys of the welfare state.

ruveyn

Just for a change, all the major media outlets are carrying the same story almost word for word, probably because its a foolish idea which will disadvantage everyone.

Let's say a young person lives in a rural area where there are few jobs.
At least they can live at home with their parents.

What if you make them move to a city where their welfare check isn't enough to rent a room?

Or what if the unemployed person is older and already has a house that they are paying off.

Will you tell a family to leave their own home and move to another area where they might or might not get a job?

Exactly. This isn't a matter of "move to a job", it's simply "move to an area with more jobs". It would make more sense if the government were prepared to help people to a) find a job in an area then b) help them move to that job. But this is simply shunting the unemployed from one area to the next. It will not increase employment opportunities. Combined with other new initiatives, what the government are basically saying is that if you are unemployed, you are theirs to do with as they please. People used to complain that the unemployed shouldn't have "luxury items" like TVs and DVD players and so on. Now it seems that having a home, dignity or stability, or being near to family are all "luxuries" as well, that the unemployed do not deserve.

I can't help but notice that private companies paying substantially more in wages do not have the same level of control over their employees, nor the same control of their rights.

I will tell you my story.

I live in Melbourne, Australia. I am 62 years old.

For most of my life I have been employed or self-employed in well paying jobs.

A year ago I had a heart attack and I am in poor health with angina and high blood pressure..

They just put the retirement age up from 65 to 67.

They keep pressuring me to get a job. I must apply for many jobs a week.

But guess what? For every job there are 250 people applying, and none of them seem to want a fat 62 year old in poor health.

So I drink a lot.

Wombat:
I guess you're a victim of a system that forgets that behind the targets and statistic there are real people - each an individual, each different. A better, happier world is one in which we trust and value each other. Most people are mostly honest and trustworthy, but all that is forgotten once you become unemployed.

I hope you can at least enjoy that drink without being made to feel guilty !

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdZp5iw-UEo[/youtube]