David Cameron's Assault on the Homeless

[devogue]

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.

[Tigger]

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.

[Rum]

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]

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?

[Rum]

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..

[Warren Dew]

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?

[Tigger]

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.

[sandinista]

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.

[Brian Peacock]

"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...

[Atheist-Lite]

"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.

[Warren Dew]

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.

[Warren Dew]

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.

[sandinista]

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"?

[Seth]

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]

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."