Friday, 27 April 2012


The latest sign of the pressure of immigration on housing was illustrated this week with a proposal to move 200 families from Newham in London to Stoke.
The cap on housing benefit to £20,000 per year is said to be the reason for this, and houses are cheaper in Stoke than Newham.

Boris Johnson has said that the £20,000 cap will cause "ethnic cleansing" of parts of London, this of course admitting the people in receipt of these huge benefits, paid for by us are aliens.

I am sure he was not referring to British people as they have largely been ethnically cleansed from the "diverse and vibrant" Newham.
The fact that it is proposed to move these families indicates also that they are not in work and are thus parasites on hard working British taxpayers.
To put it into context, to earn enough to pay such a rent after tax one would have to be on almost £30,000 and that is before fuel and food bills are paid, way above the average income.

The costs of rent in London districts are driven by the old system of supply and demand and this demand has been made more acute by the millions of aliens living there, and in turn has made living in some districts unaffordable for British workers who have been brought up there.

But there is another driver for these high rents and that is housing benefit itself.

Rentiers will naturally push for rents as large as the market will stand and if the market is supported by housing benefit these rents will be much larger than they would be in the absence of benefits.
The people who benefit most, apart from foreign parasites are greedy landlords who are making vast profits out of this system.
Banks are making money out of lending to the owners as well.
And who pays for all this?

Not the banks, landlords, alien tenants but yes
THE WORKING TAXPAYER who must subsidise this racket.

What I have stated above is a symptom of market economics where if there is money to be made people will avail themselves of the opportunity.
Similarly even the rich Londoners wish their servants, cleaners nannys etc and council workers to be housed at government expense to provide for cheap labour.

The government, especially with a Tory majority knows this. They know how business works but do nothing to solve it and indeed exacerbate it, because it suits their purpose.

Maggie Thatcher sold council houses not for the reasons often stated but to get the working class people dependent on the banks and building societies and in turn boost the profits of the City.

I believe housing benefit should be cut gradually to a maximum of perhaps £5,000 per year.
People will not be thrown out. The landlords need tenants and rents would be reduced.

An additional benefit would be to reduce the price of houses and help first time buyers, those people who are now taxed to subsidise these high benefits and through them the landlorsds, but can not themselves afford to live in these areas.
Taxes would also be massively reduced if these schemes and others were modified to favour those on modest wages.

And then we come to Stoke.

Stoke council houses were built as a social project for the people of Stoke, not for the dross of the Third World.
Have the people of Stoke been asked their opinion? I doubt it.
Do they matter? Must their interests be put secondary to these uninvited immigrants?
Are there any empty houses in Stoke, or is there a waiting list?

Of course there will be people in need of housing in Stoke, British people, but the government is putting their interests behind those of aliens, rentiers and the banking industry.



Anonymous said...

to day to be a landord in buisness just like farmers who get subsidies from the tax payer.It i difficult and not all money making.Rents are set as a fair rent and not many letting agencies or landlords put th e rents up year on year..Lots of tennents stop paying rent and leave the property ina shi&&y mess costing thousands to put rite in many instances the landlord will loose all the rent, the deposit not even covering the mess left !! so rents will not drop it will not be possable .only benefits will drop as the gov wants to put us back in the days of Oliver twist!! asylum and immigrants benefits are ring fenced by the gov; so the last whites willbe driven from london.. Then the BNP will have no chance of gaining any power base

Lanky Patriot said...

I know about both of these matters, as I was a farmer and received subsidies in return for low crop prices.
That is part of the EU rules and I and other farmers wish we could be rid of it, but as we are involuntarily in the system we have to accept these subsidies to survive as a business.

I also have a couple of houses I rent but at a lot less than the London rates and not with housing benefit.
I have these houses to hold my money together, not to screw the tenants or the government with housing benefits.
I have had one bad tenant and lost money and rent because of her.
My point is that £20,000 per year is excessive as housing benefit and only results in many British people being unable to buy houses.

Any property can be rented out for around £400 per month with enough for the landlord to make repairs and get a return on his investment, and that should be a basis of housing benefit.

I also only rent to people native to my town so I do not see how any BNP supporters would be disadvantaged.

I believe I provide a service, once provided by our council for local people.