Apparently, one needs about £54K in London before its worth coming off benefits, due to massive rents. Whilst I can see that Condemn policies may not make claimed savings as markets adjust to screw what they can of what is on offer, why do we have such daft economics on rent? I understand the economics of scarcity and how this is achieved. What I want to know is why we are so daft as to keep falling for it.
We used to move to urban squalor because the work was there. What excuse now if there is no work and such massive costs? The answer surely must be to move the work or generate it where people can afford to live. There are lots of deep questions here as we maintain we need to import workers with the right skills, not least how we have managed to land ourselves with so many without them, housing and feeding some at the cost of 3 or 4 times the suggested new pension for a couple. A better way to thin London out would be to radically regionalise and use IT effectively. There is no longer any justification for our Parliament to be so centralised, or much else.
The chances of my partner and I getting onto this bandwagon of free housing in London, should we want to retire there to spend our last days in our resplendent capital are presumably zilch. We would want it that way, but still want to know why non-working immigrant families get precedence, how much of our own social housing stock got filled up and with whom and so on.
Most of the jobs I see being done could be done by a tamed polar bear with a Biro, so I’m not sure what all the ‘need for super talent’ is. London is a much more foreign place in feel to me than Amsterdam, Lille or Oslo.
- Letters: Our fears over the housing benefit cuts (guardian.co.uk)