I don't know if this is worthy of a whole diary, but it concerns something I've been reading often in coverage about the riots in England: [cuts in] housing benefit. It's for those not familiar with what that means.
Basically, if your income and capital are below a certain level, the government will pay all or part of your rent. See here. They say they will look at if the rent is reasonable for your particular home. It comes down to what you consider "reasonable".
The caps being put into place in London range from £250/week for a one bedroom apartment to £400/week for four bedrooms. That's about $400 - $650 at the current exchange rate.
The concern is that these caps will drive the poor from the city.
I would argue that private landlords charge what the market will bear, and so the amount the government pays has a large impact on the going rate, thus affecting everyone who rents. In other words, many people have already been driven from or could never even consider living in London because they cannot afford it. They don't get housing benefit. Many are faced with a long commute into the city where their jobs are.
Sometimes you see signs on buildings with apartments for sale in central areas saying "If you lived here you'd be home by now." They wish. (Yes, even with the riots, which, horrible as they are, haven't yet managed to burn London as comprehensively as the big one.)
Don't get me wrong; I don't wish that my household income was so low that benefits kicked in. But there is clearly something wrong with a system that benefits one group over another in this way, and ultimately makes it worse for the working poor -- and almost everyone else for that matter -- by helping to maintain a very expensive environment.