Young mothers evicted from London hostel may be rehoused 200 miles away

[Yata]

Hastings is frankly a bit of a shithole.
The hong kong thing might be defendable uk gov probably got a good deal and if your trying to persuade the chinese to invest in the uk you cant really do that from a shoddy building.
Newham council wtf its a fucking london borough council wtf were they thinking?

so that makes it ok? ironically wasnt even that long ago china were being criticised for sprucing up some areas for the olympics and brushing the poor off to the side. i suppose sending them up north is better than hiding them behind walls? or can london not afford to wall off the poor (yet?)

 

[coley]

The Focus E15 hostel is a foyer, which means it specialises in providing tailored help as well as shelter to its homeless young residents. Foyers are a French idea developed in the UK in the 1990s by the housing charity Shelter and drinks giant Diageo. They aim to break the link between youthhomelessness and unemployment. Focus E15's £125-a-week, one-bedroom apartments occupied by the women are paid for through housing benefit. A condition of staying at the foyer, they sign up to a programme of support for literacy, parenting, and life and work skills.
This the bit that puzzles me, how can the council arbitrarily remove HB? Hope there's room left on the lampposts for these 'labour' councillors, bastards.

 

[Enviro]

Because there's no political will to undertake a massive set of construction projects (despite there being plenty of rather desperate need among the electorate), and given the predicates of the neoliberal economics that all of our major political parties are tied to, there's no will to do anything to "expand the state", only to further shrink it.
There's also the issue that the Treasury will shy away from funding any project that will impact on the price bubble in housing, because that bubble is part of what's making the economy appear to be growing. Any significant upsurge in building, social or private, will see housing prices either plateau or fall eventually, and that can't be allowed.

Exactly - the needy/ vulnerable/ young/ and people who don't have rich parents can't have the homes they need because of political reasons I'm not in the same dire position as these poor young mothers but am a victim of the same problems.

 

[Ms Ordinary]

The Focus E15 hostel is a foyer, which means it specialises in providing tailored help as well as shelter to its homeless young residents. Foyers are a French idea developed in the UK in the 1990s by the housing charity Shelter and drinks giant Diageo. They aim to break the link between youthhomelessness and unemployment. Focus E15's £125-a-week, one-bedroom apartments occupied by the women are paid for through housing benefit. A condition of staying at the foyer, they sign up to a programme of support for literacy, parenting, and life and work skills.
This the bit that puzzles me, how can the council arbitrarily remove HB? Hope there's room left on the lampposts for these 'labour' councillors, bastards.

I don't think it's the HB that's being removed, but the funding for the Foyer (hostel) itself. Which in turn means the hostel will close & the women have no accommodation.

Sounds like the council will still pay HB if the women involved can find themselves private accommodation - but as described, many private landlords refuse DSS tenants and / or ask for huge deposits. So finding themselves private accommodation is not really an option, and the only housing that the council is offering them, is miles away.

The whole thing stinks, not least because the whole concept of the Foyer is that you sign up to acquire skills, with the plan of moving into education or employment, and this will be ripped away from them if they are sent miles away to a town with no support & miles away from family.

Also people have (a bit sneeringly in the Guardian comments) asked, as they always do, where the fathers are. If there was any hope they'd play a positive part in their children's lives, that's unlikely to happen if their children are 200 miles away.

 

[coley]

I don't think it's the HB that's being removed, but the funding for the Foyer (hostel) itself. Which in turn means the hostel will close & the women have no accommodation.

Sounds like the council will still pay HB if the women involved can find themselves private accommodation - but as described, many private landlords refuse DSS tenants and / or ask for huge deposits. So finding themselves private accommodation is not really an option, and the only housing that the council is offering them, is miles away.

The whole thing stinks, not least because the whole concept of the Foyer is that you sign up to acquire skills, with the plan of moving into education or employment, and this will be ripped away from them if they are sent miles away to a town with no support & miles away from family.

Also people have (a bit sneeringly in the Guardian comments) asked, as they always do, where the fathers are. If there was any hope they'd play a positive part in their children's lives, that's unlikely to happen if their children are 200 miles away.

But at the end of the day it's going to cost the taxpayer much more than the measly £41 k they are supposedly saving,at least this place is giving people a chance.

 

[farmerbarleymow]

The Focus E15 hostel is a foyer, which means it specialises in providing tailored help as well as shelter to its homeless young residents. Foyers are a French idea developed in the UK in the 1990s by the housing charity Shelter and drinks giant Diageo. They aim to break the link between youthhomelessness and unemployment. Focus E15's £125-a-week, one-bedroom apartments occupied by the women are paid for through housing benefit. A condition of staying at the foyer, they sign up to a programme of support for literacy, parenting, and life and work skills.
This the bit that puzzles me, how can the council arbitrarily remove HB? Hope there's room left on the lampposts for these 'labour' councillors, bastards.

It is these sort of things that sound like a great idea to support people in difficult circumstances, and £41k is nothing in overall budgets. Utter stupidity just forcing it to close, and then shipping the poor young women potentially hundreds of miles away to cities where they know no-one. I despair at the sheer short-sightedness of these idiots, who see the balance sheet but not the long term consequences of the decisions for both the affected individuals and wider society.

 

[Ms Ordinary]

But at the end of the day it's going to cost the taxpayer much more than the measly £41 k they are supposedly saving,at least this place is giving people a chance.

I don't think 'cost to the taxpayer' is remotely as important as 'destroying people's lives' is, to the Tories .
If the 'costs' of their other 'cuts' are anything to go by.

( I know this is a Labour council, but Labour councils do seem to be bearing the brunt of the Tory cuts)

 

[SikhWarrioR]

Because there's no political will to undertake a massive set of construction projects (despite there being plenty of rather desperate need among the electorate), and given the predicates of the neoliberal economics that all of our major political parties are tied to, there's no will to do anything to "expand the state", only to further shrink it.
There's also the issue that the Treasury will shy away from funding any project that will impact on the price bubble in housing, because that bubble is part of what's making the economy appear to be growing. Any significant upsurge in building, social or private, will see housing prices either plateau or fall eventually, and that can't be allowed.

Hundreds of thousands lack decent homes but we can find £25 billion for the purchase of the pointless trident penis extention replacement and another £100 billion for trident's lifetime costs {In the unlikely chance the arms makers deleiver it on time/spec/budget} and we can let the banksters and fatcats avoid paying their correct taxes

 

[farmerbarleymow]

<snip>
( I know this is a Labour council, but Labour councils do seem to be bearing the brunt of the Tory cuts)

There was some research a couple of years back about the cuts to local government funding by the House of Commons Library, and it showed that labour authorities suffered the harshest cuts on average*, lib dem middling, and tory the least. Not got a link I'm afraid, but it was reported at the time - probably in the Guardian.

* I think this was partly due to them typically having higher levels of deprivation so needing additional top-up funding from central government to deal with this, which presumably was withdrawn.

 

[8115]

* I think this was partly due to them typically having higher levels of deprivation so needing additional top-up funding from central government to deal with this, which presumably was withdrawn.

Yeah, that luxury spending which obviously needs to be cut first

 

[dylanredefined]

There was some research a couple of years back about the cuts to local government funding by the House of Commons Library, and it showed that labour authorities suffered the harshest cuts on average*, lib dem middling, and tory the least. Not got a link I'm afraid, but it was reported at the time - probably in the Guardian.

* I think this was partly due to them typically having higher levels of deprivation so needing additional top-up funding from central government to deal with this, which presumably was withdrawn.

Sounds reasonable if you don't need local government help you probably vote tory.

 

[RedDragon]

But at the end of the day it's going to cost the taxpayer much more than the measly £41 k they are supposedly saving,at least this place is giving people a chance.

This is what i don't understand for the sake of £41k both the Council and the managing HA ought to feel fucking ashamed of themselves

roughly works out at £27 a week per tenant.

 

[farmerbarleymow]

This is what i don't understand for the sake of £41k both the Council and the managing HA ought to feel fucking ashamed of themselves

roughly works out at £27 a week per tenant.

I know - £41k is a figure that would be lost in the rounding in council budgets. But from what I understand, LAs are cutting back discretionary spending as much as possible, to focus resources on things that they are required to deliver by law. So I presume funding for support services like this Foyer thing is discretionary so can be cut.

 

[coley]

Hundreds of thousands lack decent homes but we can find £25 billion for the purchase of the pointless trident penis extention replacement and another £100 billion for lifetime costs {In the unlikely chance the arms makers deleiver it on time/spec/budget} and we can let the banksters and fatcats avoid paying their correct taxes

Don't forget HS2 and those two white elephant aircraft carriers! Strange set of priorities this lot have, unless direct transfers of wealth from the poorest to the richest is your priority then nowt strange at all.

 

[coley]

I know - £41k is a figure that would be lost in the rounding in council budgets. But from what I understand, LAs are cutting back discretionary spending as much as possible, to focus resources on things that they are required to deliver by law. So I presume funding for support services like this Foyer thing is discretionary so can be cut.

Dispense with the services of the top flight of bureaucracy in the council and they wouldn't need these cuts.

 

[farmerbarleymow]

Dispense with the services of the top flight of bureaucracy in the council and they wouldn't need these cuts.

Exactly - £41k could easily be saved by reducing senior management.

 

[_angel_]

Exactly - £41k could easily be saved by reducing senior management.

they don't want to save money, in fact they'd happily spend money as long as it makes life miserable for the"wrong sort". Few groups are as hated as young single mums are.

 

[coley]

they don't want to save money, in fact they'd happily spend money as long as it makes life miserable for the"wrong sort". Few groups are as hated as young single mums are.

Makes you wonder how many daily mail reading types there are in this country when policies like this are seen as 'vote winners'

 

[_angel_]

Makes you wonder how many daily mail reading types there are in this country when policies like this are seen as 'vote winners'

We keep getting repeatedly told it's what people want - it's what some people want. Not everyone at all. I guess since all politicians are only up for chasing a few swing voters in marginal seats.

 

[SikhWarrioR]

We keep getting repeatedly told it's what people want - it's what some people want. Not everyone at all. I guess since all politicians are only up for chasing a few swing voters in marginal seats.

I dont want things like trident and tax breaks for corporations but no one seems to listen to me

 

[Belushi]

Exactly - £41k could easily be saved by reducing senior management.

The fucking biscuit budget is probably 41k

 

[coley]

I dont want things like trident and tax breaks for corporations but no one seems to listen to me

Think you would be surprised at how many agree with you,it just seems after years of being ridden roughshod over,the GP has become apathetic and as long as joe soap has a wage coming in,its duck your head down and let the devil take the hindmost.

 

[farmerbarleymow]

The fucking biscuit budget is probably 41k

You could ask them under the Freedom of Information Act on this page. Wise to check their disclosure log before putting in a request, as they may well have been asked this before and published info on it - biscuits were a hot topic a few years ago so most public bodies would have been asked about it.

 

[ViolentPanda]

The Focus E15 hostel is a foyer, which means it specialises in providing tailored help as well as shelter to its homeless young residents. Foyers are a French idea developed in the UK in the 1990s by the housing charity Shelter and drinks giant Diageo. They aim to break the link between youthhomelessness and unemployment. Focus E15's £125-a-week, one-bedroom apartments occupied by the women are paid for through housing benefit. A condition of staying at the foyer, they sign up to a programme of support for literacy, parenting, and life and work skills.
This the bit that puzzles me, how can the council arbitrarily remove HB? Hope there's room left on the lampposts for these 'labour' councillors, bastards.

It's not the HB that's removed, it's the additional funding that hostels offering these sorts of extra much-needed services attract, that has been cut, hence none of the "bog-standard" homeless hostels have been too badly affected (yet).
It's absolutely despicable that LAs have been forced to retrench back into basic generic services at the expense of specialised provision that's been proven to make a difference, but that's life under these neoliberal fuckwits. If a service is expensive and can't be exploited, then any utility it has becomes a moot point.

 

[ViolentPanda]

But at the end of the day it's going to cost the taxpayer much more than the measly £41 k they are supposedly saving,at least this place is giving people a chance.

That's neoliberal short-termism for you - spoiling the ship for a happ'orth of tar.

 

[farmerbarleymow]

That's neoliberal short-termism for you - spoiling the ship for a happ'orth of tar.

Boils down the tory mantra 'know the cost of everything, and the value of nothing.'

 

[ViolentPanda]

Hundreds of thousands lack decent homes but we can find £25 billion for the purchase of the pointless trident penis extention replacement and another £100 billion for trident's lifetime costs {In the unlikely chance the arms makers deleiver it on time/spec/budget} and we can let the banksters and fatcats avoid paying their correct taxes

That's because wankers like those spunkmonkeys in Parliament see Trident as the purchase of geopolitical power, rather than of a missile, and they're perfectly willing to mortgage our future (although not their own, obviously) for the sort of leverage that'll enable the state (and thus the Establishment) to compare dick size with the big boys, and steal the lunch money of the little kids.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Dispense with the services of the top flight of bureaucracy in the council and they wouldn't need these cuts.

This isn't about saving money. If it were, local authorities would have fought central government much harder to ameliorate the cuts. As it was, they took the thin gruel Pickles the Hutt offered them, and pretended they were being given a rich venison stew - wow, we're allowed to sell assets to fund expenditure! Glory be!
Of course, the thing about selling assets is that you're selling them - once they're gone, they're gone, and local authorities will be left with a much narrower asset base, and therefore much less leverage when borrowing/financing. That they either didn't notice or didn't care that they were leaving an open goal for any centralising impulses in central government, that's one of the more nauseating things about this.

 

[Frances Lengel]

There was some research a couple of years back about the cuts to local government funding by the House of Commons Library, and it showed that labour authorities suffered the harshest cuts on average*, lib dem middling, and tory the least. Not got a link I'm afraid, but it was reported at the time - probably in the Guardian.

* I think this was partly due to them typically having higher levels of deprivation so needing additional top-up funding from central government to deal with this, which presumably was withdrawn.

As well as that I think (and I may have said this before) that some labour councils implement cuts in as painful a way possible in order to make a point - "Look at what these bastards in central government are making us do" sort of thing.

That's not to say the government aren't bastards of course.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Think you would be surprised at how many agree with you,it just seems after years of being ridden roughshod over,the GP has become apathetic and as long as joe soap has a wage coming in,its duck your head down and let the devil take the hindmost.

I disagree about apathy. I'd say that there's a fair measure of...not fear, exactly, but a wariness about protesting or standing up to be counted that wasn't quite as prevalent even a couple of years ago. Claimants are increasingly scared to protest due to the ramping up of sanctions regimes, and workers are increasingly neutralised through the legislative straitjacketing of trades unions into ineffective comedic parodies of their former selves.