BBC BLOGS - Have Your Say
« Previous | Main | Next »

Should jobless get help to move home?

08:51 UK time, Sunday, 27 June 2010

Unemployed people living in council homes could be offered incentives to move to areas where there are jobs, the work and pensions secretary has said. Is this a good idea?

Iain Duncan Smith said millions were "trapped in estates were there is no work", unable to move for fear of losing their right to a home.

He told the Sunday Telegraph the system must be more flexible, but did not give a clear commitment to rehouse workers.

Would this proposal help deal with unemployment? Do the jobless need more incentives to find work? Do you have a personal experience to share?

This debate has now been closed. Thank you for your comments.

Comments

Page 1 of 10

  • Comment number 1.

    This is a no brainer. Of course they should gain assistance from the Goverment. This Goverment wants us all back to work and dropping until we are dead so any help from them is welcome.

  • Comment number 2.

    Once again I'm excluded. I wouldn't mind relocating for a job but I live with my mother who owns her house. I can't get a council house because I'm a single caucasian male with no children.

    Don't worry, Britain. I get the message. I don't matter.

  • Comment number 3.

    Well, yes, providing incentives to move to a job in another area IS a good idea.

    The danger is that compulsion will set in - and already we are seeing nasty signs of fascist compulsion in the reference to people without children being kicked out of their homes.

    Have we got rid of one nasty fascist government only to have fascist policies replace those of Slave Labour?

  • Comment number 4.

    This sounds like social engineering to me. While the people that want to work will be moved off of estates, they will become filled with the feckless & workshy. I can't really see this idea working since there is a massive shortage of affordable homes & the available housing ought to be going to those in the greatest need.

  • Comment number 5.

    All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

  • Comment number 6.

    It's a much better idea than creating artificial jobs where there aren't any. Anybody who's ever got anywhere in their career had to move to go to where the work is. For instance most people working in London didn't actually grow up and live there. I just wish I'd had assistance when I moved.

  • Comment number 7.

    Offer incentives to people to move in order to find work?

    Nothing should be put in the way of those seeking work. My own father during the depression cycled 25 miles each way each day to put bread on the table and his name was, thank God. most certainly not Tebbit. Many of my family moved away from the UK in the 19th and 20th centuries to find work, going to New Zealand, Australia, South Africa and Canada. The best job I had involved moving from Eastern England to Wales as my employers had requested that I did so, even though the job was a seafaring one. My wife came to this country a few years after the war to get work. My own childrent have moved away from our home in the South West to different parts of the UK in order to find work. In fact millions of people have moved around the world since the dawn of history in order to find opportunities to work. The biggest incentive of all has been the finding of work, who needs incentives to move to find work? Might I suggest that whilst there some who will face large difficulties in moving to find work there are at least as many whose only difficulty is a psychological one, i.e. they are tied to Mum's apron strings or just lack the guts to get up and go or are just plain workshy.

    Yes do everything to assist and facilitate the relocation of those who are honestly seeking work, but the incentive should already be there.

    Having said that if the government has largesse it wishes to place in the way of those seeking work then let them use it to improve the rewards attached to the jobs themselves, too many jobs in our economy are by British standards grossly underpaid. Many foreign workers are incentivised to leave home in order to find work in the UK because these jobs are not taken up by those who normally live within our shores, to many of these foreigners the jobs are better paid than those they can get at home, in other words they are incentivised to move.

  • Comment number 8.

    All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

  • Comment number 9.

    Yes they should, I own my own house on a council estate and from where I live I can see 6 families that don't work that potentially can. Many don't drive and are stuck in a small town with little work available. Move them to the larger cities or disperse them so they get out of that council estate attitude of "Well no one else works so why should I"

  • Comment number 10.

    Why shouldn't it be accepted that if there is no work in a particular area, then you move to where there is work. The East Europeans can do it with no problem and with no assistance, but then they seem to be keen to work for a living rather than sponge off everyone else. If they can find jobs, then there is no reason our own workshy can't find jobs, if they can find anyone dumb enough to employ them.

  • Comment number 11.

    No. It would be far better to give incentives to companies to start-up or move to areas where there is high unemployment.

  • Comment number 12.

    This is a good idea but not a practical one. There are a number of reasons why:

    Moving is expensive and who is going to pay the bill?

    What happens if they lose their jobs or don't find one do they then move back? Who pays the bill?

    Areas where jobs are available probably have a higher standard of living than deprived areas. Housing benefit will be higher. Who is going to pay the bill?

    Areas with where jobs are available, lets say affluent areas, will not want the possibility of having smart councils dumping ASBO ridden families in their area. Who is going to accept them?

    IDS says Britain has a "static" work force. The British generally want to stay in an area near their relations. Who will move?

    What is going to happen when the the government move jobs Civil Service jobs to the regions and the affluent areas lose some of their affluence? Will it all start again?

    Will we see a re-run of "The Grapes of Wrath"? With convoys of the "Clampets" winding down country roads to land of Oz.

  • Comment number 13.

    I would take Mr Duncan Smith's comments as an admission that Conservative policy in the 1980s "trapped millions on council estates", and the comment on 'jobs' every bit as specious and poisonous as Tebbit's "On yer bike".

    I thought it was the role of a responsible government to demonstrate where the jobs are, real jobs, not those stored away on electronic job points not worth the caress of a touch screen, or the whirr of a printer. Look at the quality of the print out paper - hardly substantial is it?

    When Government owns up to the duplicity of their own department of work and pensions then I will believe that we are making progress; when we have employment advisers with a job card filled out by a local employer with a verified real job at the end of it I will believe there are enough jobs to make the search worthwhile. Until then I would remind IDS that not only doesn't he have a clue he doesn't have a mandate either.

    The Tories are always first to devalue the unemployed but this time they follow an administration that was equally unpleasant towards those without work. So what threats are there left that do not involve streets and homelessness? Cardboard boxes wilt in the rain; is that what IDS is thinking of?



  • Comment number 14.

    This will probably be the prelude to people being told by the ConDems if they won't move and they can work end of.

    I'm sure many people would be grateful for the help to find a job but propably not if they are relocated to a completely different part of the country resulting in them being cut off from family and social ties.

    In any case who will pay for this scheme as the Government have just increased the defecit in their recent budget.

  • Comment number 15.

    Decent public transport would have made a big difference to mobility, but it's all been privatised now.

    So potential employees can't afford it and employers only have access to a smaller pool of local vicinity labour.

    That was the win-win vision underlying cheap mass public road and rail travel.

  • Comment number 16.

    I've got a better idea, no benefits if not registered as "job seeking" and a gradual reduction of benefits over time, so that getting employment, becomes increasingly benficial.

    Getting "unemployed people" out of poverty has become the way many people choose to live, is unaffordable and socially devisive.

    Jobs the Brits "don't want to do" should never be heard again!

  • Comment number 17.

    All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

  • Comment number 18.

    No, we should remove all EU workers until we have full employment here and stop ALL benefits for anyone refusing to work.
    Then we should introduce strict import tax on items we can manufacture ourselves.
    It is basic housewife common sense economics that if your country imports more than it exports it will go BUST.

  • Comment number 19.

    Once again IDS shows he's still as out of touch with reality as when he led the party. What council houses? Doesn't he remember his beloved Maggie sold them all off and stopped councils building new ones. I have a friend who worked with the last Conservative governement. He said they did care about the poor, it was just that they thought being poor was having to give up your second home! No wonder they think this budget doesn't effect the poor unfairly.

  • Comment number 20.

    This Tory government is beginning to look more and more like Mrs Thatchers reign and the Lib-Dems are meakly following, turning more blue as time goes on. "On yer bike or pack your bags, you lazy do nothing people, move and find work". For some people it may well be a challenge they would like to take up, particualrly if they are young and single. But what about families? Is this government creating a new breed of travellers? Even if they were given a council home somewhere else, do ministers know how much it costs to establish a new home, even at a very modest rate? Do they know that moving house is the second highest cause of stress and depression? Will they fund expenses for these new economic travellers? Will they provide child care funding and support them in getting a place at decent schools for their children and all those other pressures that follow moving house? Why not spend money to investigate and create work in the areas where people are living instead of cutting back on commercial investment and creating economic deserts where those for whom no work can be found, will live their soul-less lives with all the consequences that derive from that?

  • Comment number 21.

    I think it's a great idea but why only people in council houses ? Everybody should be given help if there is a job at stake. I would also like to see the low paid get some kind of help to buy a house - first time buyers are now waiting until their 40's to leave home because the UK housing market prices are so high.

  • Comment number 22.

    I would like to see the government CREATE jobs. So far they done nothing and have spoken very little of job CREATION. This is not to be confused with moving jobs from one area to another to satisfy statistics. We need NEW jobs which are paid more than minimum wage.

    Why do we have so few British owned companies now ? Why do we insist on letting foreign companies buy our companies and then keep our workers on minimum wage or shift production out of the country altogether ? We need to get tough and stop selling our futures.

    Why can't there be a British equivalent to Apple of Microsoft ? I would gladly buy British if a British company was selling the products I want.

  • Comment number 23.

    Never mind relocation. If someone is unable to find a job in their own field within 6 months then they should be made to take any job that they can do and the wages they then get topped up by benefit so they are no worse off working.

    This cuts jobless, cuts benefit payments and fills jobs.

    And while we're at it, while there are jobless UK citizens, no immigration from outside EU AT ALL to fill any jobs that can be done by jobless UK citizens.

    Finally, people living in £1.6 million benefit (or other expensive)rented accomodation to be moved out to a cheaper area by Agency. Why should anyone on benefit live in central London costing us £millions a year - it's madness.

  • Comment number 24.

    The government has to understand that some people have no intention of
    working.

    I can imagine long term unemployed people taking taxpayers' money to move to new accommodation and then avoiding work as they live in their free accommodation and put more pressure on council tax payers.

    I think that the government should help pay for removal firms when the applicant has a new job, some distance from their home.

    It is more important to ensure that the total package (job seekers allowance, accommodation etc) for the long-term unemployed is lower than the lowest wages for a job. The government must stop the 95% tax that applies to many people who get a job after leaving unemployment. The tax should be the same as for working people, otherwise there is no incentive to work.

    I get tired of hearing people like Ed Balls saying that people can't be forced to work. His Labour government spent too much money on children and families and encouraged unemployed people to have large families, so they could get £50 child benefit per child per week, as well as larger homes (not available to working people - but since when did Laboutr care about people on moderate incomes?).

    Mortgage holders don't have a choice about whether to work or not, whether to pay taxes or not and will not receive financial help to move. While the long-term unemployed are being offered help, but can stay in their homes if they have no intention of working, working mortgage holders risk losing their homes if they become unemployed due to the cutbacks.

    The government expects people to work into their 70s, but will it help middle-aged people who become redundant, have little chance of getting a new job (employers are still biassed against older workers) and have a high risk of losing their homes?

  • Comment number 25.

    No - there should be laws preventing people from closing companies that are making any profit whatsoever; from taking huge salaries, bonuses and golden handshakes whilst there are job losses; and from moving company production to other areas or overseas without the payment of HUGE fines.

  • Comment number 26.

    Having looked at the latest unemployment figures where the revelation that we have over 8M economically inactive people in this country of course it is important to encourage these lazy parasites back to work.

    Out of work and not seeking work is unacceptable behaviour which puts strain on the provision for those genuinely in need.

    Those who do not work because of incapacity, illness etc is one thing and should be provided for in any decent society, but to continue to fund a clique of people who are capable of work but are not seeking work is fundamentally immoral.

    This has been the one big disaster of the last government. Not only grossly over-inflating the public sector with non-jobs but encouraging this economically inactive group.

    I fully endorse the comments of simpleoldsailor who provides a view of the traditional attitude to finding work - getting off your a*se and looking for it. We shouldn't need incentives - the incentive is in the achievement of obtaining work and not relying on the rest of society to provide a hedonistic lifestyle for the feckless.

    Protection of the weak and those in difficulties should be protected by the larger society. Protection of those who will not work should be withdrawn.

  • Comment number 27.

    Ridiculous idea. There are many jobless people who are simply unwilling to work and will not put the effort into finding a job. They are certainly not going to find the effort to move house.

  • Comment number 28.

    All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

  • Comment number 29.

    Such help would be of very limited assistance, as for most people it is very difficult to relocate, and to be honest in most parts of the country there aren't any jobs. Some areas are worst hit that others, but even in London I know of a lot of people who are finding it difficult to find work.
    Any help would be best directed at the young unemployed who have less commitments and can relocate a lot easier because they don't have spouses that may already be working, and children.
    My daughter relocated to London three months ago, after being out of work for nearly six months, as there were no jobs where we live. She was able to do so as she had limited commitments at home.
    What really helped her was the job centre payment of travel expenses to interview, as she went down to London at least 20 times for various jobs, and would not have been able to attend the interviews if her expenses had not have been paid. What would also have helped would have been some help with her accomodation costs until she received her first pay cheque, as she was seriously out of pocket when she first moved down as she needed to pay a deposit and other things. Fortunately she had a £1000 saved so could do this, but for people with no savings this is a disincentive.

  • Comment number 30.

    So if the government are going to move people out of these 'job less' areas, who is going to live there??? There is already a shortage of council housing. Yes incentives are needed but how about help with travel costs.
    At present the benifit system makes it easier for people to live on benifits, to go out and find work would probably mean a drop in income for a while and this just put people off.
    The government needs to get tough, they need to make being on benifits less appealing especially for youngsters who see it as an easier way of living.

  • Comment number 31.

    What a stupid idea. Most people in the UK want to work and already tend to migrate to the large cities, only to find when they get there that the streets are not paved with gold. There has to be a need for extra staff before people can be employed but right now, businesses are downsizing.

  • Comment number 32.

    What we need in this country is more non-skilled manual jobs. Why not invest heavily in the agriculture industry and get people back working the land. It would increase employment, improve the nations health and reduce our dependence on expensive food imports.

  • Comment number 33.

    More Thatcher policies resurrected. but in a new way. "On yer bike said Tebbut That really pleased the people Turn the working population into gypsies then bring in reforms telling caravan dwellers "you cant park there. If Govt Really want to help the unemployed And save money revive that old chestnut MOVE POLITICAL DEPARTMENTS OUT OF LONDON.. It makes sensem Its logical and in this day and age of network conferencing Whats the problem. Look what its done for the DVLA in Swansea. The saving on buildings, London allowance for workers congestion in the capital etc etc And the vacated buildings could be let to the private sector companies at over the top rents to recoup some of the bankes hand outs. Its a win win situation but it will never happen because the old school boy network will never relinquish these lecrative jobs to the likes of the northern peasants, Yea of course were all in this together HAHAHA what a joke

  • Comment number 34.

    Sounds excellent. Lots of people have to move for work reasons, but not all jobs pay enough to make this possible; if the government can close this gap it'll not only unite workers with jobs but also dilute concentrated pockets of unemployment and the problems that come with them.

    Some 30 years ago when I obtained my first job I was obliged to move to London from Wales. I was told I was entitled to funding from something called the Employment Transfer Scheme, which was also to do with moving workers to where the jobs were. As I recall the funding depended on there being no demand for my chosen profession where I lived but my having been offered a relevant job elsewhere, or on demand exceeding supply at my destination - I forget which! In either event I was glad to have it, so why not revive it, or something like it?

  • Comment number 35.

    Where are these areas with jobs? As far as I can see there is nowhere with jobs available which are suitable for those without qualifications who coincidentally very often come from council estates - I think it is something to do with not being able to afford to buy a house due to being either unemployed or in a low paid job that they live on council estates and living on a council estate they tend not to get educational support so they become unqualified so they end up on a council estate so - well you get the picture.
    Also haven't Governments from the Thatcher era onwards been discouraging councils from building cheap community housing (unfair competition for slum landlords) so where are these mobile council tenants going to go? No council houses where they may want to move even if they could jump the list, can't afford to buy - no credit history for the mortgage especially if they have been unemployed until they move.
    Also don't a lot of families nowadys try to have more than one breadwinner due to low wages so what is the point of upping sticks and moving to a place so one can have a job if it means the other has to leave their job?

    Another fine soundbite which fails to consider the practicalities and realities of the non-millionaire life styles. I had hoped we had had got rid of that with the demise of the last government but yet again my niave optimism that politicians may change with a change of government has been given a dose of reality.

    It is a pity politicians aren't forced to live in the real world before they are allowed in office. There I go again off into my dream world.

  • Comment number 36.

    19. At 09:54am on 27 Jun 2010, PeteBristol wrote:

    Once again IDS shows he's still as out of touch with reality as when he led the party. What council houses? Doesn't he remember his beloved Maggie sold them all off and stopped councils building new ones. I have a friend who worked with the last Conservative governement. He said they did care about the poor, it was just that they thought being poor was having to give up your second home! No wonder they think this budget doesn't effect the poor unfairly.


    Congratulations, you are the first poster on this HYS to blame Margaret Thatcher. How unoriginal.

  • Comment number 37.

    Incentive?! There should be no greater incentive than being employed. It is too easy to be unemployed and let the state pay. I travel 120 miles a day to work and pay my bills, it's hard but worth it. I could give up work, claim benefit and be only a few quid worse off each month after you add all the sums up. I have been unemployed at certain times in the past. It saps your soul having to deal with the benefits system.

  • Comment number 38.

    This is an absurd proposal from a wicked rightwing government. A recent report suggested depopulating the North to areas of the South and was totally rejected by Cameron when he was a moderate. Since his far right credentials have taken over.

    This is total nonscence and wicked to the core. The way to develop areas blighted by unemployment is to redevelop the area using bold ideas. However we are in this country slaves to the free makret which is clearly insane at least in the UK. If IDS plans were realised you would have overboiling and enormous overpopulation with overstain on resources in some areas and total ghettoisation and ruin in other. I suppose this is what the free market is of course. Mad to the core.

    Im off to church and I will pray for the downfall of this barbaric capitalist system which is clearly the antichrist. The Tories are evil and a stain on humanity.

  • Comment number 39.

    Why should this apply only to people in council homes?

    If anything they should be at the back of the queue as they are receiving support from the State already.

  • Comment number 40.

    Yes it's a good idea, and even help young people to go abroad and work, so that they see something of the world. So we are not all locked into thinking we live at the centre of the world. So many families are only in big cities because generations earlier, nmoved there for work...

  • Comment number 41.

    #32 You are indeed the voice of reason.

    Spot on!

    And we won't get this country back on its feet by buying foreign produce. Anyone buying Evian or Perrier water should be locked up for treason!

  • Comment number 42.

    I blame Thatcher. I don't know why because I struggled at school but it's all her fault. And if Ingerland don't beat Germany today then it's clearly the Thatcherite policies of the 80s that prevented the development of our working class heroes on the battlefields, er, sorry, playing fields.

    In other news:

    Thatcher created the global recession (see page 24)
    Maggie responsible for BP oil spill (special report on page 5)

  • Comment number 43.

    Once again I'm excluded. I wouldn't mind relocating for a job but I live with my mother who owns her house. I can't get a council house because I'm a single caucasian male with no children.

    Don't worry, Britain. I get the message. I don't matter.

    ----------
    If you were a single non Caucasian male or female you would be in exactly the same position.

    Incidentally I am married with 2 kids and have been on the council waiting list for 11 Years so don't get paranoid about it.
    If you don't build council housing and you flog off the existing stock to encourage people to vote for you that's what happens!

  • Comment number 44.

    1). Not such a good idea! because we Brits are generally sticklers for not wanting to up and move from our areas. We were born in so & so place, our family and friends live there. Moving just a few miles down the road is stressful for us!..(sarcastic tone!).

    2).I think in more austere times we should not be too career minded and just obtain a good solid job just for the sake income...

  • Comment number 45.

    No - there should be laws preventing people from closing companies that are making any profit whatsoever; from taking huge salaries, bonuses and golden handshakes whilst there are job losses; and from moving company production to other areas or overseas without the payment of HUGE fines-------
    It's called nationalisation and I am inclined to agree with you

  • Comment number 46.

    38. At 10:16am on 27 Jun 2010, Norman Brooke wrote:

    Im off to church and I will pray for the downfall of this barbaric capitalist system which is clearly the antichrist. The Tories are evil and a stain on humanity.


    Blimey. You need to calm down or you will do yourself a mischief.

  • Comment number 47.

    I think that it is a good idea, provided that it remains optional and no one is forced to move.
    It would also be a good idea to try to get companies to invest and create jobs in the places where
    there is not much work so as people don't have to move.

  • Comment number 48.

    A few years ago someone did some research which showed that there was no shortage of housing in this country, just too many people wanting to live in the same areas. Whole new housing association estates have been knocked down in some parts of the country because there weren't enough tenants to fill them. Meanwhile in other parts of the country there are massive waiting lists for housing and huge numbers of homeless families, many of whom don't work and could re-locate to another area.

    There are already mobility schemes designed to help social housing tenants relocate to other parts of the country if they need to move because of work or to be closer to family.

    My parents and several of their siblings moved to other countries after the war because there was no work or housing where they grew up because of severe bomb damage. I have cousins all over the place. Having contacted many old school friends and other people who grew up in the same colonial town and country as I did there is hardly a country in the world where at least one of them doesn't live, either for work or because they have chosen to settle there. On the other hand I have dealt with some people who only want to live in the same street, as or round the corner from, their mother.

    What we do need in this country though is to get away from London being the centre of everything and relocate businesses, factories etc to parts of the country that really need the work.

  • Comment number 49.

    This suggestion is unfair as not all unemployed people live in Council Houses.

    This suggestion would allow people who are unemployed and in Council-owned property to be able to move to Council-owned property in another area where there is work available but how would that incentive benefit people who live in their own home, pay a mortgage and who actually need more help as no work = no income = no cash for their mortage.

    The suggestion sounds helpful but it is intrinsically unfair to those people unfortunate enough to have bought their own property but happen to be just as likely as Council Tenants to become unemployed.

  • Comment number 50.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 51.

    Yes, of course people should be given incentives to move.

    People have always moved to where work exists. It’s happening all around us today. There are countless Eastern Europeans who have moved much further for economic reasons.

    Either people in the UK move to areas where jobs exist, or economic migrants will continue to take these jobs instead.

  • Comment number 52.

    43. At 10:22am on 27 Jun 2010, steve wrote:

    If you don't build council housing and you flog off the existing stock to encourage people to vote for you that's what happens!


    I agree with you. I'm really surprised that during the 13 years of the last Labour government that they didn't build more council housing.

  • Comment number 53.

    What IDS should be saying is that this administration will help people who need help to (re)gain employment,and at the same time rehouse all those who live on these hideous "housing estates"(modern ghettos for the poor)and demolish the estates,building houses in streets instead,we DO have the land to do this but the will to do it is barely existent.Every administration since 1945 has gone along with the type of social housing development planning that the likes of Corbusier advocated,tower blocks and "estates."As he (Corbusier)put it"machines for living in",a truly modernist and completely philistine approach to social housing.With streets we will have communities worthy of the name,neighbours will actually see each other on a regular basis and kids can play in each others gardens,it is no surprise that without the "estates" we would not have developed such an isolated"underclass"for various administrations to both exploit and to demonise when they need scapegoats.As for the "on yer bike"mentality of these knee-jerk reaction Tories,it is typical of those who,on the one hand patronise the poor and unemployed as if they were errant children,and on the other hand,demonise and scapegoat them when they need to divert the populations anger from themselves and their partners-in-crime in industry and finance.In this none of the various administrations we have suffered since 1945,have differed one tiny bit,they have all treated us like factory/cannon fodder.and their social housing policies have reflected this contempt in which they hold the majority of the populace,especially the poorest and the least educated,most disenfranchised.

  • Comment number 54.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 55.

    How does this actually work, though?

    I had a council house, a very nice one actually, and had to give it up to move with my work. I (rather naively) thought that I would get a council house in the area to which I was moving. I was soon disabused of that - I am a married, fully able, white male with 2 children and a job, so never stood a chance. If this initiative will redress the balance, then it is a good thing. All I wanted was a good roof over my family's heads at a reasonable price. Because of the history of council housing I presently have to commute a silly distance from a property we can just about afford, because I'd rather be in work than without it.

    And that's where I hope this policy will change things - if it encourages people to work to gain an advantage then it's a good thing, but if it is only a way of redistributing the feckless and unemployable then stop it before it starts.

  • Comment number 56.

    16. At 09:50am on 27 Jun 2010, Clive Hamilton wrote:
    I've got a better idea, no benefits if not registered as "job seeking" and a gradual reduction of benefits over time, so that getting employment, becomes increasingly benficial.

    ------- --------------- -------------------
    Clive; Is'nt THAT HOW JOB SEEKERS WORKS.....

    I know haven taken Factory work, (and been happy to do so), while waiting for a better job, and I'm not alone in this by a long way, many other people have done the same thing.. The new plans are a bold way to help people and encourage them, to help themseleves, not hinder and punish them as you sugget...

  • Comment number 57.

    It is certainly a good idea but it won't work. No councl houses! Politicians letting us down again. Moving is an expensive business in any event and most people struggle with moving.

    I did have a thought about solving the issue. If the Government encourage us to eat unhealthily, smoke, drink, drive on the pot holey roads and walk on the holey pavements then all their problems disappear. We shall all die earlier thus never drawing our pensions!

  • Comment number 58.

    Again more comments from those who have not bothered to read the whole proposal. Did you miss the bit about council tenants being locked into lifetime yenancies which makes it difficult to relocate.
    No one in their right mind is going to give up their house and lose the right to return unless there is more flexibility within local authorities and housing associations.
    Not everyone lives in the area wwhere they were born and this scheme may well enable them to return and also find employment.
    Some rural areas have plenty of jobs in farming and asociated jobs that are currently filled by the Eastern Europeans, Those that have been forced to move from country to town might welcome the idea of being able to return.
    There is also the issue of those who occupy properties that are too large with families in that which is too small, is this fair or sensible.

  • Comment number 59.

    All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

  • Comment number 60.

    I am not aware that there is a shortage of labour anywhere in Britain.

    There are two and a half million people unemployed.

    There is a surplus of labour in every part of the country, so there is very little sense in making people move.

    They would just be jumping out of the frying pan, into the fire.

  • Comment number 61.

    How about Iain Duncan Smith also offering incentives to industry to move to areas where people are "trapped in estates were there is no work" or didn’t that thought occur to him.
    At least an effort should be made to distribute, whenever possible, work opportunities sensibly.
    Supposing people did abandon such areas then what will happen to those estates? Will they be declared social wastelands abandoned by the state?

  • Comment number 62.

    All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

  • Comment number 63.

    An excellent idea in principle, though it would much better if it were made easier to create jobs where the people are. Our local council has an unofficial official policy to only allow business premises to used for tourist related use, imported fluffy teddy bears etc, anything that involves 'industry' is effectively banned (Source : Local Estate Agents, when trying to find premises for a cars spares business). The last area of town that was used for 'industrial' start-ups has now been sold to an utterly un-required supermarket and the businesses evicted - many have closed or left the area as there is no alternative place for them. Sorting this sort of nonsense out would be a no-cost option.

    In addition, a version of the Princes Trust for the over 30's would be a good idea (talk about institutional ageism!). How about an effective mechanism for people to go self-employed? I have a business plan, some stock, premises found, web site bought etc but have no access to capital - for less than the cost of moving (£3,000) if I were able to claim full benefits for, say, 12 months I could be off the dole. I believe some thinking out of the box is required from the government.

  • Comment number 64.

    This is a good idea in principle. But i fear the practice will be a LOT different. I owe my own home for which the mortgage is being paid by the Govt. I have no equity in it so wont have a deposit to whack down on another place. The house i'm currently in is worth less than i paid for it so the mortgage company wont let it go for less and no one wnats to pay the price we need. So should i get a job in another part of the country how will the Govt. help me move. They going to pay my mortgage whilst i pay rent on a new place? because i sure as hell wont get a new mortgage. Yet another sound bite from Govt. that means nothing.

  • Comment number 65.

    Didn't the Nazis attempt to move Jews, Gypseys and other people they didn't want into ghettos?

  • Comment number 66.

    All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

  • Comment number 67.

    The west is financially weak, China is financially strong.

    More government spending in the west is not going to solve the problem, but opening up the Chinese market would.

    What we in the west cannot continue to do, it apply a sticking plaster to our uncompetitiveness by government borrowing and spending. Obama doesn't want to accept this because he has short term political goals.

  • Comment number 68.

    good idea :)
    another great idea would be to tax the rich more and make them work harder for there money!

  • Comment number 69.

    11. At 09:41am on 27 Jun 2010, the_voice_of_reason wrote:
    No. It would be far better to give incentives to companies to start-up or move to areas where there is high unemployment
    ===================================================

    Good point, I agree with you, certainly the (foreign) company I work for located where they did because of this policy in the 1980's.

    But why not adopt both policies?

  • Comment number 70.

    "Mr Duncan Smith told the newspaper Britain had one of the most static workforces in the western world with people "locked" to areas."

    There are areas of large unemployment because the Tories of the 1980s and 1980s shut down the UK by selling off its industry. Would anyone like to admit that they'd like to see these people move into housing on their street?

    Should everyone move to London where the city will expand and eventually cover 100 square miles?

    It seems to me that IDS has been out of the news loop for a while and is desperately trying to make a name for himself. Well, I have a name for him already, but he won't like it.

  • Comment number 71.

    62. At 10:49am on 27 Jun 2010, Emily radetsk wrote:
    Further smokescreening their pals in the city who caused the mess.
    -------------------------------------------------------------
    Excellent! This thread is coming along beautifully. Having blamed Thatcher and now the City, all we need now is someone to lay the blame at MPs expenses and another HYS job is done.

  • Comment number 72.

    The big problem is lack of affordable housing, and it is that problem that needs tackling.
    If we had affordable housing, people could move more freely without needing taxpayers` support.

  • Comment number 73.

    55, Teedoff, you obviously have experienced exactly the brick wall that people have come up against.

    I don't honestly believe that the feckless and unemployable will benefit from this idea, what would be the point.

    To 61, the government IS offering incentives to businessess starting up in areas away from the South East of didn't you read the emergency budget.

    68, the 'rich' pay considerably more tax and oddly enough they are the ones who own businessess that provide employment for others.

  • Comment number 74.

    Why do allow immigration supposedly to help the economy grow, when we have about 6 million unemployed? Some unemployed British people will not take these jobs because they live a very comfortable life curtosy of the taxpayer. This is wrong and has to be changed. This proposal is a step in the right direction.

  • Comment number 75.

    This is a great idea. Move millions of unemployed from the north to the south east of England where all this country's wealth is. The weather is much better down there so energy costs will be less and the greenhouse effect reduced. Wonderful idea: pity the southeast is already overcrowded, but we all have sacrifices to make.

  • Comment number 76.

    The government is very ill equipped to even start to understand this mess,it wasted years in opposition with biggetry and deniel of this problem.at no singele time did it ask an unemployed person on how to spend the taxpayers money.

    Clearly we must take the advice of the Federation of The UK Unemployed

    Remove means testing for low value benefits

    Close the jobcentre plus as it has no place in the future of government


    Every government contract or major planning application must have a quota of UK longterm unemployed between the ages of 40-65 (these cost the country the most)

    We need a champion in parliment not government abuse of the disabled

    Come on get with it!. with every thing you do.... including stopping EU emergration today.

  • Comment number 77.

    I don't think that they need it as we already pay for the royals to swan about....and I do not think that they have any intention of getting a job.

  • Comment number 78.

    We appear to be breeding a hatred of anyone who lives in a council home ?
    If you think you are "better off" and "better than" by a owing a couple of hundred thousand pounds in mortgages to banks on a home owned by the banks than someone who is "solvent with no debts" renting a council house than I can tell you the Root cause of all this financial mess.
    YOU !

  • Comment number 79.

    I am surprised that help is NOT there already!
    But what will encourage people more is the coalition Government's plans to cut benefits in certain areas and especially the measures to make those who chose not to work, but to live on benefits, as a career choice.
    I can think of one person I know who hasnt worked in years and I loathe paying benefits to those who are perfectly capable of working, but cant be bothered to get of their ar*es to find work. They don't even bother to look.
    Why should I work my guts out to pay taxes for those who are not in dire need of the state's support? I am 100% fed up !!!!

  • Comment number 80.

    Absolutely not. Why should one section of society, just by the very fact that they live in a Council owned property, be given preference over those who do not?

    If this is to work, the incentive should be given to all unemployed, not just Council tenants...

    This is an unfair, unjust and somewhat dangerous proposal...

    And don't worry, I am not unemployed and I don't need such assistance myself, just in case any of you thought I did...

  • Comment number 81.

    65. At 10:54am on 27 Jun 2010, pgmetcalf wrote:
    Didn't the Nazis attempt to move Jews, Gypseys and other people they didn't want into ghettos?
    --------------------------------------------------------------
    No

    The Nazis attempted the genocidal elimination of these people resulting in the horrible deaths of millions of men, women and children.

    This is of course exactly what IDS is suggesting here. You must have seen the concentration camps in the countryside where the evil Tories are planning to send the unemployed?

    Or perhaps he's simply looking at options to help the jobless in to work?

  • Comment number 82.

    Have they thought this one through. If everyone who couldn't find a job moved where there were more jobs then that would impact on the local economy of the place they were leaving leading to less jobs and therefore an even bigger exodus.

    At the other end the sudden influx of people with jobs would have a positive impact on the local economy leading to more jobs hence more people moving in.

    The entire country will eventually be divided into overcrowded towns and ghost towns.

  • Comment number 83.

    Most large corporates provide allowances and expenses as an enticement to staff mobility, and it is only right and fair that some financial incentive be given to those wanting to escape their demoralising existence in areas of high unemployment. I and my family moved home five times in the space of 16 years, and the experience of living and working with different people each time left me less blinkered than I might otherwise have been.

    There must be conditions attached, however. Potential breadwinners need to be offered, and must accept, the employment available, no matter how menial, and must stick the job out for a minimum period of five years. Benefits must cease, or be curtailed, throughout that time.

    Unfortunately, my personal experience of many is that they are too set in their ways already, and are most reluctant to move into new areas. They like the convenience of living off benefits, and have all their friends and family around them, all sharing the same outlook and feelings.

    I do, however, hope and believe that this initiative will encourage young people and young families to make the break and get a decent start in life. They and the country would reap rewards.

  • Comment number 84.

    "Do the jobless need more incentives to find work?"

    The only incentive they need is to cut their benefit to a point where they can't afford to NOT work. Yes, I know this sounds harsh, but I'm sick to death of hearing about how hard it is for people on benefit.

    Try getting up for a dead-end job every day, doing as much overtime as you can to pay a mortgage and then finding you have to pay ridiculous amounts of tax to pay the benefit for people who can't be bothered to support themselves. Now THAT'S harsh.

  • Comment number 85.

    Although I do think that this is a good idea, in practice it will create ghettos who will get forgotten and will only get worse.
    The govt needs every bit of tax revenue that they can get and will do anything to get people working but at the cost of the 'estate' left behind.
    The work done in previous years within deprived areas will be undermined and make the communty work even harder.

  • Comment number 86.

    This is a good idea. The present system which ties somebody to their area is a form of compulsory discrimination - they can't get a job because of where they live. There should still be efforts to create employment opportunities in these areas; a two pronged approach which includes flexibility in population and new employment opportunities makes sense.
    The risk and possible down side is that some areas will become further denuded of population while unemployment in that area is low and conversely other areas may become over populated, however the employment and population in an area will over time re-balance to sustainable levels. Some care and planning in how this is implemented needs to be applied to mitigate these risks.
    In addition, there can be environmental benefits where people commute less to go to work as well as saving them the additional travelling expenses of long commutes. Also there may be some rural areas where the irony may be that there are people who are stuck there who would happily work in a town whilst there may be farm workers who cannot find a home close to their work and where swapping the areas where they live would be mutually beneficial.

  • Comment number 87.

    77. At 11:15am on 27 Jun 2010, Trainee Anarchist wrote:
    I don't think that they need it as we already pay for the royals to swan about....and I do not think that they have any intention of getting a job.

    -------------------------

    Why do we have to always have comments like this "Trainee Anarchist" post? It is always about the Royal Family and usually has no relevance to the debate. They usually get through the moderators for obvious reasons.

    Fortunately the Royal Family came over from Germany at the behest of the British people who offered them employment and now they donate £200M to the economy.

    So, Trainee Anarchist, congratulations on becoming the first "Royal Family this - Royal Family that" poster to actually use it in context.

  • Comment number 88.

    Message 50, Lynn.
    "Great idea! Jobless people should all live in caravans like gypsies"

    As long as they don`t park it next door to you, eh, Lynn?

  • Comment number 89.

    In Europe, renting is the usual thing to do because it provides for job mobility.

    So on the face of it, it is a good idea (but will be a problem for families with cats - cats hate moving and they take a long time to adjust. They also need "cat friendly" accommodation (with cat-flaps)and be away from main roads.

    This being England, the worst usually happens. We might see grotty overcrowded areas becoming more overcrowded and more grotty. Areas where jobs are plentiful tend to look run down - but as said, this is an English phenomemen

  • Comment number 90.

    74. At 11:11am on 27 Jun 2010, Bradford wrote:

    Why do allow immigration supposedly to help the economy grow, when we have about 6 million unemployed? Some unemployed British people will not take these jobs because they live a very comfortable life curtosy of the taxpayer. This is wrong and has to be changed. This proposal is a step in the right direction.


    ----------------------------

    Where does your figure of 6 million come from?

    If you include the entire population of the UK, with the current 7.9% unemployed, you still won't reach that figure...

    2.4 million is much nearer the mark...

  • Comment number 91.

    82. At 11:24am on 27 Jun 2010, angry_of_garston wrote:

    Have they thought this one through. If everyone who couldn't find a job moved where there were more jobs then that would impact on the local economy of the place they were leaving leading to less jobs and therefore an even bigger exodus.

    At the other end the sudden influx of people with jobs would have a positive impact on the local economy leading to more jobs hence more people moving in.

    The entire country will eventually be divided into overcrowded towns and ghost towns.


    -----------------------

    Just take a look across the pond to Detroit, once the motor city, now a mere shadow of its former self. Full of decay and desolation...

    A ghost town...

  • Comment number 92.

    'Should jobless get help to move home'? This is phrased in a closed way and has attracted the usual inflammatory comments? Fair enough - some are totally justified and understandable.

    'How can jobless, in social housing, get help to move to social housing/home for work in other areas'? Could be a better question?

    The private sector has a long history of 're-location' packages for employees to move either through promotion or new branches opening or their employers' expansion across the UK or abroad?

    Why should people in social housing be forced to stay in an area where there are no opportunities for work or genuine further education, for fear of losing their tenancy?

    It's true to say there are 'enclaves' or 'ghettos' if you like, where several generations of families are 'trapped' because there are no positive pathways. There are a lot of good people and very intelligent youngsters whose potential has been blighted by the few and who would love the opportunity to move away with a 'government led' relocation package to start a new life?

  • Comment number 93.

    "But Mr Duncan Smith suggested that a tightening of the rules could apply more widely, meaning single occupiers or couples without children could be asked to leave larger houses. “We have tons of elderly people living in houses which they cannot run and we’ve got queues of desperate people with families who are living in one and two-bedroom houses and flats,”"

    Hope they are going to be tough on people who have un-necessary second homes, like MPs......

    As a longish-term (9 months) unemployed person, I find this frankly laughable. When I was made redundant, the job centre told me that there was nothing they could do for me. I had previously been in a very technical role which was off-shored.

    I cannot now find a job which makes financial sense - I have insurance cover which picks up much of my costs, and if I take a job on a lower wage, I lose that benefit, and so would be worse off. With savings, I get (after 6 months) absolutely no benefits.

    Crack on with your social engineering, IDS.

    Until you get the economy sorted out, you'll be fiddling while Rome burns.

  • Comment number 94.

    The majority of HYS mention those who don't want to work and I am sure there are many. However, there are thousands of people in the pottery industry, car industry etc. etc. who have been looking for work for many months or longer. Their skills are no longer needed. At the same time Colleges and Universities have their budgets cut and therefore fewer people have a chance to be retrained in skills that will provide them with a decent income. Many of those people are not lazy layabouts! They are proud people who have worked hard, have great skills but are no longer wanted. Would IDS like to humiliate these skilled and proud people even more by making them push trollies at Tesco, clean toilets, work at chicken farms in a different part of the country, cut off from family and community support? Has this autocratic ToLibDem government looked at the cost to NHS, Social Services etc. as a result of families being split up? Single people in who want to work might appreciate a helping hand but what about many who own their home, will the Government help sell it in these difficult times, will they help them with the cost of a higher mortgage because where there is work, the housing costs are higher. Where are those jobs IDS want them to take? IDS has made some very not thought through remarks in the past and he is at it again.

  • Comment number 95.

    Well done Duncan Tebbit. At last a tory who is willing to throw off the cloak of politeness and show that underneath they are the same thatcher loving upper middle class privately educated numpties.
    Roll back to the eighties and I'm sure many of us got on our bike and moved to find work. I myself went to London to be called Paddy, Mick, murderer and terrorist. I loved being seventeen and on my own in London. I enjoyed the casual racist remarks, being refused service in pubs and leaving my family.
    I'm ashamed that many people find that this is a good idea, memories are short in this country. The break down in family and community life that the tories call broken Britain is a direct result of this policy. How hypocritial of you all.

  • Comment number 96.

    As a youngster in South Africa it was common practice to travel looking for work. I could not believe it when I came to the UK and saw people refusing to move for the chance of employment. Many years later I still find it a problem to get my head around it. Here we have 'illegals' who will travel thousands of miles for a good job, and in the UK they will not travel fifty.

  • Comment number 97.

    In the 1920's / 30's during the past Era's of former Conservative Governments they bought in a scheme called "The Direction of Labour" which lead back then at best to finding a Days work every now again somewhere [ perhap ] while queing at Sun-Rise outside the FACTORY GATES.

    However, now today long GONE are those once back-bone Factories of British Export, and the Gates as well have long, long ago fell to pieces.

    Now we hear from todays CON-DEMED Government from the Grand-Son of Norman Tebbit that the Unemployed in Council Flats should get upon their broken down Bikes once again to look for non-existance Jobs much further afield.

    We are also hearing that there is a Million or more Poles expected to return to the UK in a search for Employment, and the way things are going across Europe it won't be long before others from Greece, Spain and Portugal will also turn up in the UK also looking for Work.

    My Question to the clue-less Mr Iain Duncan - Smith is: Just where are all these Jobs standing vacant that will accommodate the Millions whom WILL BE and are ALREADY looking for these non-existance Jobs?

  • Comment number 98.

    · 36. At 10:14am on 27 Jun 2010, the_voice_of_reason wrote:
    19. At 09:54am on 27 Jun 2010, PeteBristol wrote:

    Once again IDS shows he's still as out of touch with reality as when he led the party. What council houses? Doesn't he remember his beloved Maggie sold them all off and stopped councils building new ones. I have a friend who worked with the last Conservative governement. He said they did care about the poor, it was just that they thought being poor was having to give up your second home! No wonder they think this budget doesn't effect the poor unfairly.

    Congratulations, you are the first poster on this HYS to blame Margaret Thatcher. How unoriginal.


    #########################################


    It may be unoriginal but that is largely due to the fact that the comment is 100% true. Margaret Thatcher did give away this country’s housing stock and she did prevent councils from replacing them. This is why we have the housing problems that we do in this country.

    The reason Thatcher is still regarded as the person responsible for this country’s sorry state is that every problem we have now can be traced back to one of here disastrous policies.

    The reason that “Labour” lost the election is that they just continued to follow the capitalist path trod by the conservatives.

    Unoriginal it may be but the truth often is

  • Comment number 99.

    i'd love to work but no one will give me a job, even the jobcenter has tld me that as a transsexual i wont get a job. They have stopped hassling me to find work etc. Problem is I want to work, i dont want to be sat on my ass all day with no money nothing to do etc.
    Please dont assume discrimination laws help me in anyway as theres a myriad of ways to not give some one a job.
    I am well qualified and have a Masters Degree in an IT field an, still i cant get a job.
    This may help some people and I hope it does, but for me it makes no difference to my life.

  • Comment number 100.

    I have moved from town to town and country and continent to follow work. Has the government ever helped me? No...and I wouldn't expect them to.

    Of course I am not a member of the social strata under debate. There will be genuine cases who could become productive members of society with a bit of a leg-up but IMO most are beyond help. They are indolent and uneducated and have little sense of self-worth and no ambition. Please do not tell me that I am not being PC. Frankly I don't care. I have watched enough TV to see for myself that many cannot string more than a few words together and have minimal pride on themselves.

    I am 100% sure that my feelings are shared by many, many others.

 

Page 1 of 10

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.