Express Mortgages Express Loans Bingo Lose Weight Franchising Dating Shopping Book Shop Find Spare Parts Cut Your Bills Wine Shop Legal Store FlatShare Cruises

HAVE YOUR SAY

SHOULD SCROUNGERS LOSE THEIR COUNCIL HOUSES?

Caroline Flint walked straight into a row yesterday

Wednesday February 6,2008

By Gabriel Milland Political Correspondent

Comment Speech Bubble Have your say(33)

LABOUR’S new housing minister walked straight into a spin row last night.

In her first speech in the job, Caroline Flint raised the idea of forcing unemployed people applying for council homes to sign a contract first, promising that they are actively looking for jobs.

At first, she said, the contract could be given to new tenants. But there was no reason why it couldn’t be extended to existing tenants, too.

Last night several critics said the plan evoked images of Victorian workhouses.

But even before the minister stood up to give her speech, the policy was exposed as “classic Labour spin” by her Conservative shadow minister Grant Shapps.

“This is the Government trying to grab the headlines with spin that they cannot legally enforce,” he said. “It sounds tough – but it is meaningless.

“Ministers and local councils have a statutory duty to house homeless families with children. We can’t boot them out of their houses without providing alternative accommodation.”

Do YOU think scroungers should lose their council houses? Should the unemployed sign a contract promising they will look for jobs before they apply for a council house?

Have YOUR say...

SCROUNGERS

23.02.08, 8:53pm

Yes. If they are capable of Working. then they should be expected to pay their way,
Those cought draining the system and driving their 4x4s.Should have EVERYTHING confiscated. their families are well aware of whats going on so their just as guilty
I know of couples who are not supposed to be living under the same roof. Yet can afford TWO holidays a year. Wish I could afford even one!!!
That goes for the immigrants as well They should not be given council properties as soon as they set foot hear,Its comon knowledge they get pregnant as soon as they set foot on British soil Just to get property,

• Posted by: Redlady • Report Comment

IT'S NOT THE UNEMPLOYED AT FAULT!!!!

18.02.08, 2:31am

Perhaps you haven't noticed, but the number of foreigners who come into this country and take jobs from the people who actually belong to this country are directly related to the poor performances of their own countries. We are solving other countries social problems at our expense. These people will take any job anywhere and for the paltry wages each employer offers them. The resentment toward these incredibly huge numbers of foreigners taking their jobs by the working population of this country is unbelievably strong. It is a powder keg. The working population is now having to take pay cuts and lose employment because Gordon Brown and the employers want this to happen. It keeps the cost of employment down. Don’t you understand that? The Government knows it, and so do the employers - and so the vitriol aimed at the indigenous UK unemployed is a smokescreen. It is used to help hide this very fact.

The Jobseeker centres are useless, offering token help to the unemployed and do not work with the employers. The vast majority of unemployed wish only to work in jobs with good pay. They are offered either job-lists by the jobcentres on low pay, or jobs with unrealistic job specifications, which prove that the Jobcentres don’t work with employers. You are not told: you can have this job. You are told: apply for this job and you might get lucky.

The huge numbers of people working in Jobcentres are not necessary. They do not help people gain employment. How much do they cost the taxpayer? They record details that they already have again and again every time an unemployed person attends for their check-in appointment. If they were employed instead to find jobs, and work with employers, not simply record already-known information, and that someone is still unemployed, the unemployment lists would disappear within months.

If you are fortunate enough to have a job with good pay, you would not contemplate sweeping the streets, cleaning toilets, or stacking shelves. People use these kinds of jobs as examples to hit the unemployed with because of the low value placed on them by the world. Otherwise they wouldn’t be quoting these jobs as examples. If you became unemployed because of the inadequacies of your employer, or any reason that was not your fault, you would not contemplate doing them, and would resist any attempt at getting you to do them. The vast majority of the unemployed are viewed as criminals, when, in reality, being unemployed is viewed as a punishment by the vast majority of the unemployed.

And if you dared to go to a further education college in the meantime to improve your prospects, or worked for longer than 15 hours in a week, Gordon Brown would not help you and would also immediately take your unemployment benefit away from you. You wouldn't be able to live if you tried to better yourself while you were unemployed.

Yes, sort out the unemployed, but sort out Gordon Brown and his get the rich richer and the poor humiliated scheme for the future, first. Don’t just criticise the unemployed. Have a good long look at the employers and the Government – they want the foreigners, not uk citizens, and this is proved by the low wage job-offers.
Create better conditions for workers, cut out low pay, and the situation would hardly exist.

• Posted by: petenorthern • Report Comment

YET ANOTHER NEW LABOUR MORON

17.02.08, 11:35am

Of course they are not scroungers....stupid woman.....and no one should loose thier house due to unemployment...
You really just have to look at the face of this woman to know that she is not playing with a full deck of cards.
This news paper should publish more about her back ground...she just has to be from a wealthy
family to have come away with a stupid idea like that...Of course i would have expected an idea like that during the Thatcher years...Moron!!!!

• Posted by: AllanCMc • Report Comment

YES MINISTER "I AGREE BUT HOW DO YOU ENFORCE?"

15.02.08, 3:55pm

There was a speeh given in the Political Satire ofthe early 80's "Yes Minister", in which Sir Humphrey suggested cutting dole to those who refused 3 or more jobs, ironically this will come into effect at some stage. Britain has slipped into the complacent state where in some families, parents have never worked and yet have had a very good standard of living from the welfare state. Children of these families have seen the benefits of not working or even attemprting to work, by virtue that they would lose their benefits. Its a sorry state of affairs when a Government minister speaks thier mind only to be hushed by senior spin doctors who can see a negative spin occuring. Where will it all end? Will we get to a pont where schools teach about the evils of work, for as Noel Coward fanmously stated - Work is the curse of the drinking classes! The real question should be is who made them scroungers the governement of society as a whole?

• Posted by: Canterbury_Ghost_Tour • Report Comment

FAMILYVALUES

15.02.08, 9:05am

There are tax evaders and tax avoiders but there are no tax evoiders. ???????

• Posted by: thewarlord • Report Comment

SHOULD SCROUNGERS LOOSE THIER COUCIL HOUSES

12.02.08, 1:47pm

Yes, also yobs drugies,nieghbours from hell, "I suppose they fall into yob catogory." That includes irresponsable dog owners that make neighbours life unbearable. House these people with bad attitude in "nissen" huts far from decent folk When thir attitude changes .........?

• Posted by: juan01 • Report Comment