|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: English social cleansing
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
L'Organist: "I'm saying those problems of being separated from extended families and school friends happen to everyone."
Well, yes. Successful, ambitious people choosing to move to remain on the ladder of personal advancement may see it as a price worth paying. People whose lives aren't a success will probably see having their chances of work reduced and their social network ripped apart as deeply depressing. Bear in mind the people you spoke of can afford to travel to see their family but those on benefits won't be able to.
Since I said your quotes, not L'Organist:
Maybe it's different in England, or maybe there's more of a tendency to see it that way in England, but here in America we don't all fall in one of two categories, the rich ambitions people with glittering careers and the poor helpless ones whose social network would be ripped apart if they had to move a hundred miles because they couldn't figure out how to get on a bus.
I left West Virginia at eighteen with about thirty dollars, went to Columbus, Ohio, got a room in a rooming house and went to a rip-off employment agency that found me a job checking invoices from gas station managers. Then as now, Columbus, Cleveland and Detroit are full of people from Kentucky, West Virginia and all points south who are working in factories and blue collar positions because there was no work at home.
It can be depressing but it also affords people a chance to develop skills, see new opportunities, and move upward economically. The truly depressed, and we know this by the enormous use of drugs and meth labs in Kentucky and West Virginia, are the ones who stayed behind, living life on government benefits, seeing nothing around them but the stagnant lives of their parents and siblings.
I know your scenario is different because they will still be on benefits, but if they have not been able to find jobs in London then, maybe, just maybe, they will be able to find jobs in their new area. One big advantage in separating from the extended family is that they might make contacts with new friends and neighbors with job contacts or their children might experience something beyond a generational attitude of welfare dependence.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
There is a difference between people making the choice to move - whether to improve job prospects, to get away from relatives (yes, that social network is a two edged sword), go to a college that offers a course they want, to be closer to a friend/relative away from home, etc - and those who are instructed to move without any real choice about where they go, just to cut a few quid from the amount paid by one part of the welfare system.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Twilight: quote:
I know your scenario is different because they will still be on benefits, but if they have not been able to find jobs in London then, maybe, just maybe, they will be able to find jobs in their new area.
No, probably they would have a greater chance of finding at least a minimum-wage job if they stayed in London. There are far more jobs in London than there are anywhere else in the country. And 'ripping people away from their support networks' may affect their availability for work, especially if they have children. I am neither poor nor helpless, but I live 120 miles away from my closest family and I struggle sometimes to find childcare.
120 miles probably doesn't seem like much to an American - our American friends are willing to drive that far for an afternoon's entertainment - but it's a long way over here. Too far for my mother to come and babysit.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Clint Boggis
Shipmate
# 633
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Since I said your quotes, not L'Organist:
Maybe it's different in England, or maybe there's more of a tendency to see it that way in England, but here in America we don't all fall in one of two categories, the rich ambitions people with glittering careers and the poor helpless ones whose social network would be ripped apart if they had to move a hundred miles because they couldn't figure out how to get on a bus.
...
Apologies to both you and L'Organist for mis-attributing those words.
I fully accept that it's not such clear-cut distinction between 'successful' and 'failing' but I still object to (probably) reducing people's life chances for a short-term cost-saving for central government while ignoring the negative consequences.
Also "couldn't figure out how to get on a bus" is belittling, and implies those people just can't be bothered, when one significant factor is the cost of travel for people with no money to spare at a time of rising prices and stricter limits on benefits.
Posts: 1505 | From: south coast | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
And I wonder if anyone outside the UK has any idea how much a 100 mile journey by public transport would be likely to cost.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Midge
Shipmate
# 2398
|
Posted
Even supposing the jobless got on their bike there is no guarantee that the job they relocate for will still be there in a few years time. That is because our employment strategy is as messed up as our housing strategy.
Are there any strategies?
--------------------
Some days you are the fly.
On other days you are the windscreen.
Posts: 1085 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
Even supposing the jobless got on their bike there is no guarantee that the job they relocate for will still be there in a few years time. That is because our employment strategy is as messed up as our housing strategy.
Are there any strategies?
That's an interesting point, since presumably neo-liberalism is meant to rely on a deregulated market, with many services privatized, and with a small state. There seem to be all sorts of mini-strategies available for politicians, I guess, so that they can stimulate the economy, in order to provide low wages and high bonuses. On the other hand, they can also flatten the economy, producing stagnation. It's exciting!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
Even supposing the jobless got on their bike there is no guarantee that the job they relocate for will still be there in a few years time. That is because our employment strategy is as messed up as our housing strategy.
Are there any strategies?
They expect them to move again. Which is only annoying if it's just you, and a complete pain in the arse if your partner has a job that isn't moving. So you'll have more families needing in-work benefits or on the poverty line, or both, because of all those people who had to move because of one partner's job who then find the other partner can't find a new one in the new location.
But as long as there's a supply of people desperate enough to work shit hours doing shit for shit money...
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Karl: quote:
And I wonder if anyone outside the UK has any idea how much a 100 mile journey by public transport would be likely to cost.
It's not just the money, it's the time as well. Going to my mother-in-law's takes about two and a half hours on average, door to door, if we go by car. Going by public transport takes at least four hours even if all the connections work out (there isn't a direct train and neither our house nor hers is within walking distance of a station, so we have to do buses or taxis at either end).
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Never mind 100 miles, try five and-a-half.
For me to get from my home to the church where I play on a Sunday is, for the moment, possible again. However, to get to a service with a 10am start I need to leave home at 8am and the cost will be over £10 - hard to get a precise costing because I never use the bus, it being cheaper to drive!
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Now you see that's crying out for a quick trip out on the bike; 20-25min and almost free.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Except that I can't ride a bike!
Never had one as a child and have had various surgical procedures that make riding one highly difficult/dangerous.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Since I said your quotes, not L'Organist:
Maybe it's different in England, or maybe there's more of a tendency to see it that way in England, but here in America we don't all fall in one of two categories, the rich ambitions people with glittering careers and the poor helpless ones whose social network would be ripped apart if they had to move a hundred miles because they couldn't figure out how to get on a bus.
...
Also "couldn't figure out how to get on a bus" is belittling, and implies those people just can't be bothered, when one significant factor is the cost of travel for people with no money to spare at a time of rising prices and stricter limits on benefits.
Of course it's belittling. That's why I don't like the attitude and I see it in statements from the "this is social cleansing!" folk that talk about Birmingham as though it is Siberia and imply that these people will never see their extended families again. Give them a little credit! Entertain the idea that they will figure out how to get back to London from time to time.
Of course it costs money to travel by bus but visiting relatives isn't something that needs to be done every day. I've lived in separate countries from my parents and had to go for as long as three years without seeing them because a seven hour flight was too costly. Bus tickets from Birmingham to London don't seem that impossible to me, but we all aren't entitled to see our extended families on a regular basis.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
The fact remains, though, that someone who is that far away is NOT part of your regular social network. Which was actually the point.
My mother looks after her grandkids fairly frequently, which has been a great help to my sister in working. If they weren't living in the same city, that wouldn't be possible.
It's that kind of thing that was relevant. Not the hyperbolic version you created.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Except that I can't ride a bike!
Never had one as a child and have had various surgical procedures that make riding one highly difficult/dangerous.
Jusst ha one of those moments where you misread something- read this as 'various liturgical procedures that make riding one highly difficult/ dangerous'- and this being the Ship, assumed that must make some sense somehow.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The fact remains, though, that someone who is that far away is NOT part of your regular social network. Which was actually the point.
My mother looks after her grandkids fairly frequently, which has been a great help to my sister in working. If they weren't living in the same city, that wouldn't be possible.
It's that kind of thing that was relevant. Not the hyperbolic version you created.
Well it's great if your mother provides free baby sitting for your sister. How nice for her. I would love to have had my mother around when I was a young mother but it didn't work out that way -- like many if not most of the world I had to go where the jobs were. I guess my question is -- why are those who get their money from the government expected to have an easier time in life than those who get their money from employers? Why is it okay if the working people have to leave their extended families but when those who are on benefit have to do it it's tragic? Why are some people entitled to have a "social network," while others are expected to do without so as to go where the money is?
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The fact remains, though, that someone who is that far away is NOT part of your regular social network. Which was actually the point.
My mother looks after her grandkids fairly frequently, which has been a great help to my sister in working. If they weren't living in the same city, that wouldn't be possible.
It's that kind of thing that was relevant. Not the hyperbolic version you created.
Well it's great if your mother provides free baby sitting for your sister. How nice for her. I would love to have had my mother around when I was a young mother but it didn't work out that way -- like many if not most of the world I had to go where the jobs were. I guess my question is -- why are those who get their money from the government expected to have an easier time in life than those who get their money from employers? Why is it okay if the working people have to leave their extended families but when those who are on benefit have to do it it's tragic? Why are some people entitled to have a "social network," while others are expected to do without so as to go where the money is?
Just in case you haven't picked this up so far, it's primarily because they have a job to go to, which will provide many of the things that only a family network can provide for those who do not have a job. To remove a family against its will from a caring network is bad for everyone in just about every way, especially if there is nothing in it for the family being moved.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
For what it's worth, I think it utterly sucks when people have to leave their extended support networks to find work. But that people do so doesn't make me think that those who are not doing that should suffer more. Why this "I had it bad so you should to"?
I am aware of a man who had been an alcoholic; clean for 12 years with the help of his support network. Did the "right" thing and moved to find work. Away from his support he's back on the sauce and gravely ill as a result.
This sort of thing really does fuck people over.
Twilight - you made a choice. We're talking about people being given no choice but being made to move to a worse life.
[ 27. March 2015, 15:59: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
It's not, "I had it bad, so you should, too." It's, "Leaving home is part of life for most grown-ups in today's world." Not since most of the world was agricultural did you stay home with, or next door to, Mom and Dad after you were grown.
Besides, if you think because there were jobs where I went that I needed a support group less, then you have it backwards. I did not need a babysitter when I was home all the time.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Twilight - you made a choice. We're talking about people being given no choice but being made to move to a worse life.
No choice? Really? The police come to the door and force them to move to Birmingham? I doubt that.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
It's not, "I had it bad, so you should, too." It's, "Leaving home is part of life for most grown-ups in today's world." Not since most of the world was agricultural did you stay home with, or next door to, Mom and Dad after you were grown.
Besides, if you think because there were jobs where I went that I needed a support group less, then you have it backwards. I did not need a babysitter when I was home all the time.
Leaving home is one thing. Being uprooted and moved half way across the country against your will for absolutely no benefit for you, but considerable disbenefit, is quite another. Your choice to move, despite the downside, because you could see an upside (otherwise why would you have done it) is not remotely comparable with a forced move that benefits the mover not one iota.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Twilight - you made a choice. We're talking about people being given no choice but being made to move to a worse life.
No choice? Really? The police come to the door and force them to move to Birmingham? I doubt that.
No. The council tax stops covering their rent. Therefore they will be evicted. They either move to Birmingham or are made homeless. Since they've been offered a move, if they reject it they'll be classed as intentionally homeless and get nowt. The choice at that point would be to live on the streets (children presumably taken into care) or move. Near enough forced for my money. It's a policy devoid of compassion or empathy, rather like, I have to say, the tone of your posts.
[ 27. March 2015, 16:25: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Twilight - you made a choice. We're talking about people being given no choice but being made to move to a worse life.
No choice? Really? The police come to the door and force them to move to Birmingham? I doubt that.
Please, just try reading what has been stated already. It is UK government policy to move families from London (where rents are sky high) to cheaper areas simply to save the government money. Not to a place where there is or even may be a job. Nothing constructive, just deliberately moving people around.
If you think any of that is fair, reasonable or anything other than ghettoization I want a better case than "Something similar happened to me 'cos my husband was in the US Armed Forces". Shit, my dad was in the RAF, but we got moved (all expenses paid too) when he was assigned another post.
(x-p with Karl)
[ 27. March 2015, 16:29: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
The police won't come at first, but the bailiffs will, if you don't leave, and if you still won't, the police might come.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Please, just try reading what has been stated already. It is UK government policy to move families from London (where rents are sky high) to cheaper areas simply to save the government money. Not to a place where there is or even may be a job. Nothing constructive, just deliberately moving people around.
Surely, as housing is a local issue, it is not a central UK govt policy but the policy of some local councils, most notably Westminster.
--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tulfes
Shipmate
# 18000
|
Posted
Joanne
No, it is down to central government policy. Central government has placed a cap on the total benefits which a family can receive (£26K per annum or £500 per week). The cap doesn't apply if at least one of the adults (or the only adult if a single parent family) is working at least 15 hours a week. So it only affects workless families. If the cap applies, housing benefit is reduced (not cash benefits received eg child benefit) to meet the cap. This means that in high rent areas the family are unlikely to be able to afford their current rent, unless they psy the difference from their cash benefits and starve.
Housing benefit is administered and paid by local councils on behalf of central government (DWP).
Posts: 175 | Registered: Feb 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
tomsk
Shipmate
# 15370
|
Posted
Joanna P said'Surely, as housing is a local issue, it is not a central UK govt policy but the policy of some local councils, most notably Westminster.'
Yes and no. While there is an element of local choice, The fundamentals are driven centrally, in particular the shortage of housing stock is the result of central laws making them available for sale to tenants.
Posts: 372 | From: UK | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
"Something similar happened to me 'cos my husband was in the US Armed Forces". Shit, my dad was in the RAF, but we got moved (all expenses paid too) when he was assigned another post.
(x-p with Karl)
No. I didn't marry an Air Force man until I was 33. At 18, I left West Virginia, by myself, and went to Ohio to look for a job. I found a minimum wage job and a room in rooming house and occasionally went hungry.
This is all such a first world problem. "We can't have free housing, medical care and food unless we move to a different city," vs people in Africa who have none of those things under any condition. Even the idea of the extended family as a "support system," rather than, quite possibly, a financial and emotional drain sounds like the talk of privileged people to me.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I always find it bizarre when someone uses the internet to criticise people about 'first world problems'.
We live in the first world. Of course we have first world problems. Why on earth would you expect people to get all the way back to third world issues before they're allowed to start being upset about going backwards?
[ 27. March 2015, 21:51: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
It's a bit like a Monty Python sketch; you think you had it hard, we had to wear cardboard on our feet.
Cardboard! Jings, we had our feet amputated to save on shoe-leather.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
I think we live on a planet with all these worlds and a finite amount of resources, so that it seems odd to me to be worried, to this extent, about some people's preferences as to exactly where they receive free food and housing, while others are homeless and starving.
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Twilight -- It's a policy devoid of compassion or empathy, rather like, I have to say, the tone of your posts.
Well, I think your tone is patronizing. I think your view sees only two types of people. Highly educated people like yourself who move to other cities to take professional jobs at high pay and those others who aren't capable of ever supporting themselves or functioning without your help. I think there are lots of people in between who might actually do well from this change and find jobs where there were, obviously, none in London.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It's a bit like a Monty Python sketch; you think you had it hard, we had to wear cardboard on our feet.
Cardboard! Jings, we had our feet amputated to save on shoe-leather.
You find stories of my life so comical because what I remember as ordinary and typical of the people I grew up with, sounds like an hilarious Monty Python sketch to you. It is just life to most of us. It's how the large majority of people live. Only a small percentage have the education that you have and the luxury of either laughing at or patronizing the rest of us.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
There are lots of jobs in London. The original subject of this discussion was people being forced to move - often to places with fewer work opportunities- to save money on housing costs. I have no problem with people moving around ffor work or wwith people being encourageed and helped to ovee around for work. Thing is, when you've got fuck all else, your social networks are not things you sacrifice lightly, especially if they'll help you manage childcare and so on. I was walking through Bermondsey in SE London yesterday, a traditionally working class area. Still quite a lot of council housing and, wonder of wonders, some actually being built, but more and more pricey flats going up, 'gentrification' creeping in. The people living there maay well in fact have jobs locally, but where are they going tto go when rents are going up- including in social housing- to levels they can't afford? AIUI most people in Britain who claim Housing Benefit (welfare assistance with rents) are actually in work. It's not the simple case of people needing to bee prepared to light out for the territories that you seem to imagine it is, Twilight.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It's a bit like a Monty Python sketch; you think you had it hard, we had to wear cardboard on our feet.
Cardboard! Jings, we had our feet amputated to save on shoe-leather.
You find stories of my life so comical because what I remember as ordinary and typical of the people I grew up with, sounds like an hilarious Monty Python sketch to you. It is just life to most of us. It's how the large majority of people live. Only a small percentage have the education that you have and the luxury of either laughing at or patronizing the rest of us.
Well, I'm sticking up for the poor and the disabled in the UK, who are getting shafted by the present government. It's possible we are going to get 5 more years of it as well. I think we should say no to a world where the poor are punished, so that the rich can keep their bonuses.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
And that's what's been happening to housing in London and similar areas: the poor and the not so poor but just ordinary get shafted, directly or indirectly, so that the rich can make yet more money in proprty sspeculation.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
And then Twilight says it's a first world problem. Fuck, there are people in London who in winter have to choose between eating and heating. But never mind, there's somebody worse off than you.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
AIUI most people in Britain who claim Housing Benefit (welfare assistance with rents) are actually in work. It's not the simple case of people needing to bee prepared to light out for the territories that you seem to imagine it is, Twilight.
Tulfes said in the OP quote:
The problem portrayed in the film is that rents and housing benefit in London are so high that non working familiss are caught by the cap and face heart breaking situations of being shipped out of London to eg Birmingham (where rents are cheaper) with consequent problems of getting separated from extended family and friends and children losing their schools and friends etc.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
And then Twilight says it's a first world problem. Fuck, there are people in London who in winter have to choose between eating and heating. But never mind, there's somebody worse off than you.
The only thing I've been talking about her is the problem Tulfes stated in the OP. People who do not have jobs, being asked to move to Birmingham so that they can be given free housing.
I don't find that particularly punishing.
How that opinion translated to me not having sympathy for people who don't have food or heat, I don't know.
Do you actually know any poor people? If they told you they had to chose between food and heat would you pull out your tiny violin and tell them they remind you of a Monty Python sketch? Is it just the poor in abstract who spark your compassion?
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
And then Twilight says it's a first world problem. Fuck, there are people in London who in winter have to choose between eating and heating. But never mind, there's somebody worse off than you.
The only thing I've been talking about her is the problem Tulfes stated in the OP. People who do not have jobs, being asked to move to Birmingham so that they can be given free housing.
I don't find that particularly punishing.
How that opinion translated to me not having sympathy for people who don't have food or heat, I don't know.
Do you actually know any poor people? If they told you they had to chose between food and heat would you pull out your tiny violin and tell them they remind you of a Monty Python sketch? Is it just the poor in abstract who spark your compassion?
I give up, I really, really do.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Gordon Bennett.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
You know, Sioni Sais, you're the one that implied all my 15 moves must have been easy ones because I was married to someone in the Air Force, leading me to explain that I was actually not well off at all during my earliest moves, leading Q to imply I was doing a version of "I had it worse than they do," which I certainly was not.
So now you just give up, you really do.
I happen to be a liberal Democrat entirely in favor of free medical care for all, food and housing for the poor, social security, aid to dependent mothers, food stamps, WIC coupons, head start, you name it. I vote and give accordingly.
I simply found the OP a bit over the top in its lament of "social cleansing," and the "heart break" of kids having to change schools, like that never happens.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
It isn't that it ever happens, but that it shouldn't.
This is true in the U.S. as well, ISTM.
The government, to benefit the rich, makes life more difficult for the poor and those in the middle.
It widens the gap between the rich and the poor and pushes the middle towards the bottom.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
And then Twilight says it's a first world problem. Fuck, there are people in London who in winter have to choose between eating and heating. But never mind, there's somebody worse off than you.
The only thing I've been talking about her is the problem Tulfes stated in the OP. People who do not have jobs, being asked to move to Birmingham so that they can be given free housing.
I don't find that particularly punishing.
How that opinion translated to me not having sympathy for people who don't have food or heat, I don't know.
Do you actually know any poor people? If they told you they had to chose between food and heat would you pull out your tiny violin and tell them they remind you of a Monty Python sketch? Is it just the poor in abstract who spark your compassion?
It's not free housing. They have to pay for it but they can claim social assistance to meet the cost. But rents in all sectors have been rising (and the government now thinks that 80% of market rent is an 'affordable' social rent, which in most of the SE it plainly isn't) and assistance is being cut. It's a complex problem but it is having a huge human cost.
[ 28. March 2015, 09:00: Message edited by: Albertus ]
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
(I meant that children often have to change schools, children of well to do families, probably most often.)
So, it's not free housing as I thought. If they are not working at all, how are they paying that?If they are paying 80% of their rent in London, does that mean they can stay where they are if they come up with the other 20%?
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
... (I meant that children often have to change schools, children of well to do families, probably most often.)...
Evidence?
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
So, it's not free housing as I thought. If they are not working at all, how are they paying that?
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
It's not free housing. They have to pay for it but they can claim social assistance to meet the cost.
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
If they are paying 80% of their rent in London, does that mean they can stay where they are if they come up with the other 20%?
( ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif) No wonder people are giving up. ![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif) )
No, they're paying 100% of their rent, just like anyone else. The 80% figure means that the if the government decides that average market rent is 1,000 clams/month, the housing benefit will pay up to 800 clams/month, but no more. However, this is a benchmark that does not necessarily take into account local variations:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
... the government now thinks that 80% of market rent is an 'affordable' social rent, which in most of the SE it plainly isn't) ...
In an area where market rents are actually 2,000 clams/month, 800 clams doesn't go very far. If they're not working or working for so little that they qualify for assistance, how exactly are they supposed to come up with an additional 1,200 clams/month to top that up?
Obviously, they can't. So the options are: 1) move to a place where the rents really are 800 clams/month, or 2) stay and eventually be evicted for non-payment of rent and end up doing 1) anyway. And remember, this does not take into account whether employment prospects are better or worse in either location, never mind abandoning the social capital accumulated in that community.
The same thing is happening in Caprica City:
quote:
...just four percent of privately run SRO* hotels surveyed are renting all their rooms for the welfare shelter rate of $375, compared to nine percent last year. The authors found no vacant rooms renting for $375 or less. ...
... Other statistics highlighted by CCAP include an average lowest rent of $469 a month ...
... The report also identifies a “troubling trend” of rents rising to $500 a month or higher, with 614 of SRO rooms surveyed renting at this rate. ...
... CCAP also noted that provincial income-assistance rates have not been increased from $610 since 2007. Yet between 2009 and 2013, the average lowest rent in SRO buildings surveyed increased from $398 to $469. ...
Downtown Eastside housing survey shows rising SRO rents
*SRO = single-room occupancy hotels like these:
Three Vancouver SROs win prize for worst living conditions
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Yes. The detail of your explanation is not quite correct but the general tenor of it is- thank you.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
I suspect there may be a pond difference regarding one's relationship to the land, and having to move.
quote:
69 per cent of the acreage of Britain is owned by 0.6 per cent of the population. Or, more pertinently, 158,000 families own 41 million acres of land, while 24 million families live on the four million acres of the urban plot. No other country in Europe, apart from Spain, has such an unequal concentration of land ownership.
Article here. I suppose that's progress: quote:
less than a century and a half ago, all land was owned by 4.5 per cent of the population and the rest owned nothing at all.
Article here. So unless you were part of the aristocracy, you sat on some rich bugger's land and could be bumped off it at his pleasure. This caused Some Resentment and motivated emigration.
North America, by contrast, was treated as terra nullius, "land belonging to no one" (with which several aboriginal groups begged to differ, but I digress). Moving from place to place is likely to have been by choice for better opportunity, rather than being caused by some distant rich bugger throwing you off his land.
Strangely, I think the difference in attitude to gun ownership may be a historic carryover from one place to the other. People who had emigrated and finally got land ownership were unhappy with the prospect of being forced off it for any reason. Hence the mythology around using firearms to defend one's homestead.
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Leaf--
Yes re guns and land, at least here in the US. And it's been reinforced, for decades, on TV and in the movies--primarily in, but not limited to, Westerns.
And, for pioneers, it was a long time before they had to deal with much (if any) law enforcement. So people settled things on their own, often with violence.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
anoesis
Shipmate
# 14189
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
It has been going on for years. Even back in the seventies the DHSS was moving families out of London to seaside towns that had seen better days and didn't have great communications with London. I can remember this in Bexhill and St Leonards but I'm sure it happened elsewhere too.
It was all entirely voluntary you understand.
I'm finding this whole thread fascinating because, as far as I understand it, my own government has the opposite policy: If you wind up jobless and on a benefit in our own miniature version of London, you can't opt to move away to our own miniature version of [insert name of faded provincial town here], in order to both save money on housing and live better on the remainder, because by doing so, you would remove yourself from the category of "actively seeking work", and thus not qualify for a benefit any longer - the assumption being that there IS no work in faded provincial towns. What really galls me about this is that for some people, realistically, there are no jobs ANYWHERE. Not just because some people are unemployable, mind - though that's likely true, but because there are just more people than jobs. It's how things are. Someone has to miss out - always. Why should these people then have to pay a staggeringly high proportion of their (incentivisingly meagre)* benefit, in order to live in a festering shithole of a dwelling, whose many deficiencies are likely to be entirely ignored by any landlord, given that what is really worth money in this city is land, not buildings - and the value of the land will skyrocket anyway, while Johnny unlucky pays the mortgage and eats white bread and weetbix? Why, especially when said provincial towns are faded, as much as anything, from a 50-year hemorrhaging of population to the main centres?
*Can anyone explain to me why you incentivise poor people by taking money away from them, but incentivise CEOs by giving them more?
--------------------
The history of humanity give one little hope that strength left to its own devices won't be abused. Indeed, it gives one little ground to think that strength would continue to exist if it were not abused. -- Dafyd --
Posts: 993 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
