Employed 'given housing priority'

Quote:

---

Westminster council may give employed housing priority

People in employment would be prioritised on Westminster's council house waiting list

The Conservative-run council said the policy was designed "to reward those who are in jobs".

But Labour councillor Guthrie McKie said: "To discriminate against people for being unemployed is disgusting."

A decision on the proposals will be made in February. If approved, plans will be implemented by April.

The council said the proposal was "designed to recognise positive contributions to society, reward those who are in jobs and to encourage those who are not currently employed to seek work".

'Political ideology'
Under the council's plans, working households will be defined as those where the main applicant or their partner are in work, have a permanent or temporary contract or are self-employed.

People who would be prioritised must have been working for a minimum of two years.

But Mr McKie said: "I don't think its a good policy.

"There should be a level playing field. We are in a climate of unemployment increasing.

"This policy is driven by political ideology, not the need to resolve problems with social cohesion in the region."

Westminster cabinet member for housing, Councillor Philippa Roe, said: "We want to introduce a system which is fairer to local people and rewards those in employment.

---

Finally SOME common sense.

The labour guys comment is just laughable. OF COURSE the working should get housing - they are contributing to society - paying taxes - going out and working - hopefully contributing to the economy.

I wish this was implemented EVERYWHERE tbh. The fact that unemployed, sometimes illegal, immigrants are put above our employed, British citizens is just disgusting.

Comments?

I like the idea, good move.

Suppose it's a good idea, definitely worth trying that's for sure.

But are there many unemployed people in Westminster anyway? :P Considering it has some of the highest house prices in the world, you must have a pretty decent income to be able to afford to live there! I'd be interested to see this policy brought to elsewhere in England and see whether it gets more people into jobs (if so it's surely a good thing?).

Only four percent of council housing are actually inhabited by immigrants/asylum seekers? Doesn't include private rented property.

I do understand where they're coming from but it's not the right time for it? a lot of people are losing their jobs, selling their properties for less meaning they have no equity or actually owe out. This would mean they need council housing/housing support. To then deny them housing because they're unemployed is stupid and difficult to work around?

I think it should be people employed and people unemployed for no more than a year. This way it's fair, benefits those whom work and have worked?
Instead of the chavy, (sometimes) obese health problems that hog most council houses, who sit at home smoking and contributing nothing.

This is a fantastic idea and definitely a step in the right direction.

when asylum seekers are given expensive houses, mobile phones and luxury cars? yes please, the employed are clearly contributing to the country, get them decent housing to encourage further contributions, and leave the unemployed with a motive to actually find work. lessen JSA so the unemployment trap isn't an issue anymore, and you get a win-win situation.

Seems like a good idea, afterall most of the people I know who are desperately seeking homes are employed but cannot afford to buy a house in the current climate, so definitely a good move even though Westminster doesn't seem the sort of area to have a large percentage of unemployment :P

Just wondering; the people that are saying good idea, how many of you have a job and aren't living with mummy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Niall!

Just wondering; the people that are saying good idea, how many of you have a job and aren't living with mummy?

---

I'm 17 and a full time student so it doesn't matter. the vast majority of people on here are students so we can't be expected to fend for ourselves seeing as we're too young and cannot get a full time job to fully support ourselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jordy

I'm 17 and a full time student so it doesn't matter. the vast majority of people on here are students so we can't be expected to fend for ourselves seeing as we're too young and cannot get a full time job to fully support ourselves.

---

Let's say someone is 18. He comes from a broken home, his father left years ago and his mother is ill. Eventually his mother gets taken into hospital and he's forced to grow up in an orphanage. Because of the disruption in his life he wasn't the best student; understandable. Eventually he turns 18 but cannot get a job because of circumstances that he couldn't change. But the government then says "**** you you useless pile of ****" and gives a house he was seeking to someone who works a full time job and can't be bothered paying rent.

Yeah, this sounds like a fantastic idea. This was just a message to little kiddies out there who agree with this. Humans aren't equal, that is true. But giving free things to the ones already better off is ******ed.

(The person in this story is made up, but I know someone who went through something similar apart from the ending)