David Cameron's Assault on the Homeless

Post Reply
devogue

Re: David Cameron's Assault on the Homeless

Post by devogue » Sat Mar 05, 2011 6:53 pm

Rum wrote:This issue is not a stand-alone ring fenced one as Dev suggests in my view. We do owe a duty as a society to the most vulnerable. But this is only one aspect of a massive disinvestment in social infrastructure. We have not really seen anything but the first symptoms of the impact of this in my view.
You are of course correct, but to clarify I think that in any society the homeless are the most utterly destitute, the most completely desperate and visibly hopeless section of the community, and how we treat our poorest reflects on us all as much as how we treat our sick.

User avatar
Tigger
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 piccolos
Posts: 15714
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 4:26 pm
About me: It's not "about" me, it's exactly me.
Location: location location.

Re: David Cameron's Assault on the Homeless

Post by Tigger » Sat Mar 05, 2011 6:59 pm

In the UK in 2012 the housing benefit for anyone aged 34 or under will decrease dramatically. Such claimants will only be eligible for a shared room rate, which is significantly less than the full rate entitlement that is available now (but only for those over 24). This means that landlords who are inclined to take on people on housing benefit will have to try to obtain the balance to make up the full rent. I let out houses, and I only take what the housing benefit rate is, not wanting to take further from their benefits (some landlords do, and that is unfair IMO). If the benefit rate is cut like this, landlords will have little choice but to not let their properties to under the 35s. The margins in the area I'm in aren't very good, and the finance on the properties will be greater than the amount paid in benefits and such tenancies will be untenable. It stinks, and it's probably going to add to the number of homeless.
Image
Seth wrote:Fuck that, I like opening Pandora's box and shoving my tool inside it

User avatar
Rum
Absent Minded Processor
Posts: 37285
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:25 pm
Location: South of the border..though not down Mexico way..
Contact:

Re: David Cameron's Assault on the Homeless

Post by Rum » Sat Mar 05, 2011 7:00 pm

devogue wrote:
Rum wrote:This issue is not a stand-alone ring fenced one as Dev suggests in my view. We do owe a duty as a society to the most vulnerable. But this is only one aspect of a massive disinvestment in social infrastructure. We have not really seen anything but the first symptoms of the impact of this in my view.
You are of course correct, but to clarify I think that in any society the homeless are the most utterly destitute, the most completely desperate and visibly hopeless section of the community, and how we treat our poorest reflects on us all as much as how we treat our sick.
A good point, but I could make a strong case for Bankers (let's scapegoat them for the purposes of this) being directly responsible for a predicted raise in the abuse, harm and deaths of children.

Some of the safeguarding systems set up by the last government were a waste of time quite frankly and the worst of those are being abandoned, from my perspective quite properly, however despite the government bleating about protecting front line services, in fact they have not done so. The support for families where children are vulnerable and are either being abused or at risk of being so will reduce. As a result more children will be killed or sexually abused before someone notices they need help and provides it one way or another.

Care to prioritise the two groups now?

I'm not being sarcastic or scoring points, just pointing out some of the consequences as I see them of the policies that are being rolled out.

devogue

Re: David Cameron's Assault on the Homeless

Post by devogue » Sat Mar 05, 2011 7:11 pm

Rum wrote:
devogue wrote:
Rum wrote:This issue is not a stand-alone ring fenced one as Dev suggests in my view. We do owe a duty as a society to the most vulnerable. But this is only one aspect of a massive disinvestment in social infrastructure. We have not really seen anything but the first symptoms of the impact of this in my view.
You are of course correct, but to clarify I think that in any society the homeless are the most utterly destitute, the most completely desperate and visibly hopeless section of the community, and how we treat our poorest reflects on us all as much as how we treat our sick.
A good point, but I could make a strong case for Bankers (let's scapegoat them for the purposes of this) being directly responsible for a predicted raise in the abuse, harm and deaths of children.

Some of the safeguarding systems set up by the last government were a waste of time quite frankly and the worst of those are being abandoned, from my perspective quite properly, however despite the government bleating about protecting front line services, in fact they have not done so. The support for families where children are vulnerable and are either being abused or at risk of being so will reduce. As a result more children will be killed or sexually abused before someone notices they need help and provides it one way or another.

Care to prioritise the two groups now?

I'm not being sarcastic or scoring points, just pointing out some of the consequences as I see them of the policies that are being rolled out.
This is what gets me.

We're fucked if we hammer the super-rich, and we're fucked if we don't. So....

Hmmm. Tough choice.

Time to take to the streets?

User avatar
Rum
Absent Minded Processor
Posts: 37285
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:25 pm
Location: South of the border..though not down Mexico way..
Contact:

Re: David Cameron's Assault on the Homeless

Post by Rum » Sat Mar 05, 2011 7:19 pm

devogue wrote:
Rum wrote:
devogue wrote:
Rum wrote:This issue is not a stand-alone ring fenced one as Dev suggests in my view. We do owe a duty as a society to the most vulnerable. But this is only one aspect of a massive disinvestment in social infrastructure. We have not really seen anything but the first symptoms of the impact of this in my view.
You are of course correct, but to clarify I think that in any society the homeless are the most utterly destitute, the most completely desperate and visibly hopeless section of the community, and how we treat our poorest reflects on us all as much as how we treat our sick.
A good point, but I could make a strong case for Bankers (let's scapegoat them for the purposes of this) being directly responsible for a predicted raise in the abuse, harm and deaths of children.

Some of the safeguarding systems set up by the last government were a waste of time quite frankly and the worst of those are being abandoned, from my perspective quite properly, however despite the government bleating about protecting front line services, in fact they have not done so. The support for families where children are vulnerable and are either being abused or at risk of being so will reduce. As a result more children will be killed or sexually abused before someone notices they need help and provides it one way or another.

Care to prioritise the two groups now?

I'm not being sarcastic or scoring points, just pointing out some of the consequences as I see them of the policies that are being rolled out.
This is what gets me.

We're fucked if we hammer the super-rich, and we're fucked if we don't. So....

Hmmm. Tough choice.

Time to take to the streets?

All in due course I fancy..

User avatar
Warren Dew
Posts: 3781
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2010 1:41 pm
Location: Somerville, MA, USA
Contact:

Re: David Cameron's Assault on the Homeless

Post by Warren Dew » Sat Mar 05, 2011 7:59 pm

Tigger wrote:In the UK in 2012 the housing benefit for anyone aged 34 or under will decrease dramatically. Such claimants will only be eligible for a shared room rate, which is significantly less than the full rate entitlement that is available now (but only for those over 24). This means that landlords who are inclined to take on people on housing benefit will have to try to obtain the balance to make up the full rent. I let out houses, and I only take what the housing benefit rate is, not wanting to take further from their benefits (some landlords do, and that is unfair IMO). If the benefit rate is cut like this, landlords will have little choice but to not let their properties to under the 35s. The margins in the area I'm in aren't very good, and the finance on the properties will be greater than the amount paid in benefits and such tenancies will be untenable. It stinks, and it's probably going to add to the number of homeless.
It seems to me your post implies that people will prefer to sleep on the streets over sharing a room. Am I misreading something?

User avatar
Tigger
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 piccolos
Posts: 15714
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 4:26 pm
About me: It's not "about" me, it's exactly me.
Location: location location.

Re: David Cameron's Assault on the Homeless

Post by Tigger » Sat Mar 05, 2011 8:10 pm

Warren Dew wrote:
Tigger wrote:In the UK in 2012 the housing benefit for anyone aged 34 or under will decrease dramatically. Such claimants will only be eligible for a shared room rate, which is significantly less than the full rate entitlement that is available now (but only for those over 24). This means that landlords who are inclined to take on people on housing benefit will have to try to obtain the balance to make up the full rent. I let out houses, and I only take what the housing benefit rate is, not wanting to take further from their benefits (some landlords do, and that is unfair IMO). If the benefit rate is cut like this, landlords will have little choice but to not let their properties to under the 35s. The margins in the area I'm in aren't very good, and the finance on the properties will be greater than the amount paid in benefits and such tenancies will be untenable. It stinks, and it's probably going to add to the number of homeless.
It seems to me your post implies that people will prefer to sleep on the streets over sharing a room. Am I misreading something?
Yes you are. It means that people living one their own will "suddenly" have to find someone to share a house with, or "suddenly" have to be able to make up a huge shortfall in the rent. Would you want to share your home with a random stranger?
EDIT: Obviously it's better to share than be homeless, but it's not a matter of choice. Finding a sharing partner will be insurmountable to some.
Image
Seth wrote:Fuck that, I like opening Pandora's box and shoving my tool inside it

User avatar
sandinista
Posts: 2546
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:15 pm
About me: It’s a plot, but busta can you tell me who’s greedier?
Big corporations, the pigs or the media?
Contact:

Re: David Cameron's Assault on the Homeless

Post by sandinista » Sat Mar 05, 2011 8:30 pm

Seth wrote:
charlou wrote:
Seth wrote:Hm. Shelter workers say that people won't volunteer and charity won't pay the bills.

Does that make Cameron a dick, or does it make everybody in the UK who DOES have a home and a job selfish insensitive pricks, even by Marxist standards?

Or is it, as I predict, the socialist entitlement mentality at work here, the "it's not my job to take care of my fellow man, it's the government's" mentality proclaimed loudly even as the statement "taxes are too high" comes from the other side of the mouth?
Soup kitchens are run by charitable organisations/volunteers, not the government.
Funny, the article says "government-funded charity," which is something of an oxymoron, don't you think, since nothing funded by government is ever the result of charity, it's the result of, in the end, naked force on the part of the government extracting money from the public.

But the point was that if private charity and volunteer help isn't enough to serve the needs of the homeless, as objectors to Cameron's plan claim, what does that say about the charitable instincts of Brits?

We know, for example, that Brits donate less than half per capita of what Americans do by way of charitable donations.

Time for Brits to step up and quit thinking it's someone else's job to care for their fellow man in need.
Charity is a band-aid solution at best and an enabler at worst. Poverty is systemic, charity is never the answer. Anyone interested in "charity" should give this a watch.

Our struggle is not against actual corrupt individuals, but against those in power in general, against their authority, against the global order and the ideological mystification which sustains it.

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 40055
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: David Cameron's Assault on the Homeless

Post by Brian Peacock » Sat Mar 05, 2011 9:33 pm

"I passionately believe that the welfare system should be there to support the needy and most vulnerable in our society and provide security and dignity for those in old age.

"That's why the system was born, that's what it's always done - and with me, that's the way it will always stay.

"But that doesn't mean the welfare system shouldn't change. It has to change - because it just isn't working."

David Cameron, 7 February 2011.
Source...
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
Atheist-Lite
Formerly known as Crumple
Posts: 8745
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 12:35 pm
About me: You need a jetpack? Here, take mine. I don't need a jetpack this far away.
Location: In the Galactic Hub, Yes That One !!!
Contact:

Re: David Cameron's Assault on the Homeless

Post by Atheist-Lite » Sat Mar 05, 2011 9:43 pm

Brian Peacock wrote:
"I passionately believe that the welfare system should be there to support the needy and most vulnerable in our society and provide security and dignity for those in old age.

"That's why the system was born, that's what it's always done - and with me, that's the way it will always stay.

"But that doesn't mean the welfare system shouldn't change. It has to change - because it just isn't working."

David Cameron, 7 February 2011.
Source...
Change - never trust a politican when he utters a neutral word like that. :coffee:
nxnxm,cm,m,fvmf,vndfnm,nm,f,dvm,v v vmfm,vvm,d,dd vv sm,mvd,fmf,fn ,v fvfm,

User avatar
Warren Dew
Posts: 3781
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2010 1:41 pm
Location: Somerville, MA, USA
Contact:

Re: David Cameron's Assault on the Homeless

Post by Warren Dew » Sat Mar 05, 2011 9:47 pm

Tigger wrote:Yes you are. It means that people living one their own will "suddenly" have to find someone to share a house with, or "suddenly" have to be able to make up a huge shortfall in the rent. Would you want to share your home with a random stranger?
EDIT: Obviously it's better to share than be homeless, but it's not a matter of choice. Finding a sharing partner will be insurmountable to some.
I'd rather share my home than sleep on the street. There might be a few that just cannot find a roommate - and can't find a landlord that will find a roommate for them - but it seems to me that will be a very small proportion of those affected by the decreased housing subsidy.

User avatar
Warren Dew
Posts: 3781
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2010 1:41 pm
Location: Somerville, MA, USA
Contact:

Re: David Cameron's Assault on the Homeless

Post by Warren Dew » Sat Mar 05, 2011 9:49 pm

sandinista wrote:Charity is a band-aid solution at best and an enabler at worst. Poverty is systemic, charity is never the answer.
Government handouts are just as enabling and do just as little to fix any systemic problems. Indeed, private charity tends to do a better job at the latter, by providing support networks that help people reintegrate into society.

User avatar
sandinista
Posts: 2546
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:15 pm
About me: It’s a plot, but busta can you tell me who’s greedier?
Big corporations, the pigs or the media?
Contact:

Re: David Cameron's Assault on the Homeless

Post by sandinista » Sat Mar 05, 2011 9:53 pm

Warren Dew wrote:
sandinista wrote:Charity is a band-aid solution at best and an enabler at worst. Poverty is systemic, charity is never the answer.
Government handouts are just as enabling and do just as little to fix any systemic problems. Indeed, private charity tends to do a better job at the latter, by providing support networks that help people reintegrate into society.
Who said anything about government handouts, like corporate welfare, or "bailouts"?
Our struggle is not against actual corrupt individuals, but against those in power in general, against their authority, against the global order and the ideological mystification which sustains it.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: David Cameron's Assault on the Homeless

Post by Seth » Sat Mar 05, 2011 10:11 pm

devogue wrote:
Rum wrote:
devogue wrote:
Rum wrote:This issue is not a stand-alone ring fenced one as Dev suggests in my view. We do owe a duty as a society to the most vulnerable. But this is only one aspect of a massive disinvestment in social infrastructure. We have not really seen anything but the first symptoms of the impact of this in my view.
You are of course correct, but to clarify I think that in any society the homeless are the most utterly destitute, the most completely desperate and visibly hopeless section of the community, and how we treat our poorest reflects on us all as much as how we treat our sick.
A good point, but I could make a strong case for Bankers (let's scapegoat them for the purposes of this) being directly responsible for a predicted raise in the abuse, harm and deaths of children.

Some of the safeguarding systems set up by the last government were a waste of time quite frankly and the worst of those are being abandoned, from my perspective quite properly, however despite the government bleating about protecting front line services, in fact they have not done so. The support for families where children are vulnerable and are either being abused or at risk of being so will reduce. As a result more children will be killed or sexually abused before someone notices they need help and provides it one way or another.

Care to prioritise the two groups now?

I'm not being sarcastic or scoring points, just pointing out some of the consequences as I see them of the policies that are being rolled out.
This is what gets me.

We're fucked if we hammer the super-rich, and we're fucked if we don't. So....

Hmmm. Tough choice.

Time to take to the streets?
What would that accomplish except to destroy more housing and communities through riot and disorder? Every time the blacks riot in LA, they riot in Watts and burn down their own community. The same thing generally happens whenever people "take to the streets." They destroy their own shops and stores, burn down their own communities, loot their own neighborhoods and generally make the problem worse.

Sure, you can "hammer the super-rich," but how much will you be able to extract from them before they flee with their goods and their money to somewhere else that respects their property rights? What happens to the UK when all the capital the "super-rich" have exits the country, which it can do in a heartbeat with the push of a button these days? You can seize the "means of production" (meaning the factories) but what are you going to use for capital to buy raw materials when nobody will loan you any because of the risk that you'll just steal it from them?

Pretty quickly, as happened in the Soviet Union, production will decline, so will wages and employment, and the whole system will collapse because the dependent class insisted on "taking to the streets" to seize the means of production from the bourgeoisie merchant class, but won't be able to run the production facilities to generate wealth.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: David Cameron's Assault on the Homeless

Post by Seth » Sat Mar 05, 2011 10:14 pm

sandinista wrote:
Warren Dew wrote:
sandinista wrote:Charity is a band-aid solution at best and an enabler at worst. Poverty is systemic, charity is never the answer.
Government handouts are just as enabling and do just as little to fix any systemic problems. Indeed, private charity tends to do a better job at the latter, by providing support networks that help people reintegrate into society.
Who said anything about government handouts, like corporate welfare, or "bailouts"?
You evidently fail to integrate the fact that corporations employ people, and that "corporate welfare" in the form of tax breaks and other incentives create far more wealth than they cost society, which is why governments use them to entice corporations to locate in their communities. As for "bailouts," I'm no fan of bailing out failing businesses, no matter how large they are. Nothing is "too big to fail."
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests