Mumsnet Talk

You can volunteer in the local charity shop but still not pay your rent on time.

Very well planned Hecate. Just like they always fail to mention that most people claiming housing benefit are working. Or that those claiming the huge amounts of money they always troll out in Housing benefit each year actually amount to less then 1%.

But that doesn't fit with the benefit bashing angle does it?

What annoys me beyond belief whenever the homeless issues are discussed is the people saying "why should they be housed in an expensive area that I can't afford to live in?"

Honestly, go and check out the homelessness application process in your Local Authority. Then come back and explain to me how a person can just "go somewhere cheaper and be homeless there" when you have to have a local connection to apply for homelessness in the first place?

How can they tell though?

Just because you work it doesn't automatically follow that you won't blast your music out at all hours does it.

Yes, and you can be a millionaire who is a nasty bastard. But if you are in a position where you need other people to give you stuff to fund your life, then you have to do what is required of you.

If you are working but blast your music out at all hours, then there are other things in place to deal with that.

Chopping through respite care services for disabled children in these ere parts......a half decent respite care package has kept my dniece out of care which would cost around 500k per year, people have already been round our centre to establish whether it's good value for money and a well used facility ( It's the only one in our area and only the most severe cases get in ) sometimes it closes for weeks at a time because it has to take in emergency cases, disabled children who are too violent to be around other kids.

What will happen if we lose it ?? Doesn't bare thinking about.

Well maybe you wouldn't have been quite so deserving of your council house in the first place.

I don't think ex forces is supposed to = good tenant. Ex forces is supposed to = deserving. Which of course they are, but that doesn't mean others are less so.

why are they more deserving? they chose to be in the foces.
people don't chose to be disabled.

Most people don't choose to be homeless or poor either.

But don't let that get in the way of the feckless undeserving poor bollocks spouted by Dave and his supporters.

It doesn't say anything about disabled people in the article. Why are you assuming that someone who is disabled will be seen as less deserving than someone who is in the services?

You are making it up, not going from the article in the OP.

People who choose to work make a positive contribution to a community, as do those who have children and fill up schools, consume etc. Their needs should be balanced with the needs of those who are not able to contribute as much (old, sick, disabled etc). I think any policy on housing should seek to mix up housing stock so that there is no ghettoisation - no "projects" but simply houses, for everyone to buy / rent / apply for. Sadly, there are areas that are desirable and popular and those that are much less so. Any policy that seeks to end divisions caused by having huge areas of poverty will start to bring about genuine social mobility.

I live somewhere remote and our housing is very mixed. The school, therefore, has no obvious class or social divisions and the community is very cohesive. There are the disabled and the poor (although almost everyone works) but no one is stigmatised because we are all equal. Unfortunately, in bigger places, this is not the case.

However, I do feel some note should be taken of someone's contribution / potential to contribute to society and their willingness to do so. A family who wants to stay in a particular area might just break the cycle of dependence on the state if they are told that otherwise they will have to move. This is not the answer but there IS only so much money to go round and we do all have to play our part in society.

Also, many housing associations have already had tightened up criteria for housing, much like those being proposed for a while now.

I just think it's a slippery slope towards even more hatred between those 'more deserving' and those who apparently are not.

Freddo - I think the fact that disabled people who don't work aren't going to tick any of the boxes is what makes people say that. It may not be in the article but the absence of an exclusion list says it all really.

I think it's an ill designed policy. And yet again it assumes that ALL homeless people are pulling a fast one to get a home.

But the question is, why keep implementing all these policies to lower the numbers on the list when the obvious answer is to invest in more housing stock - only the Tories have taken out the rule that new build developments MUST contain a % of social homes. Because it clearly isn't a priority. And add these policies to that fact and you get the truth of how this government view those in Social Housing. It's not pretty.

And as a quick aside with regards to the social housing/bad tenant stuff - if you live in a council house and are an inconsiderate neighbour you lose your tenancy. What happens if your bad neighbour owns their house? I've been following a blog recently where a women in a social house is living through hell but has no choice because her neighbours are home owners. They are getting away with so much. It's very unbalanced in housing. With a clear divide between homeowners and social housing tenants.

Yes. It is a slippery slope down a path were people have to actually learn to be responsible for themselves, be valuable members of society/community and away from the entitlement culture that is crippling Britain socially and economically.

"Pregnant women and families with children, or vulnerable individuals such as care leavers or people with severe health problems who are accepted as homeless currently go to the top of the local queue for social housing. But local authorities now have powers to redraw allocation priorities in order to give priority to "groups who make a special contribution".

So, where are those with severe health problems etc likely to go?
The only answer is workhouses.

Please come and discuss 'entitlement' culture with my dh. He was a philosophy lecturer before he had a minor infection and was given the wrong drugs. He can't walk now. Perhaps those of you who think that those of us who have an entitled attitude (and trust me, I do) would care to explain why you think we should be marginalised.

Well I won't be voting Con for a number of reasons but I don't agree with Labour or Lib Dems - they've all lied and run the country into the ground and each party finds someone to discriminate against in some form or another. So who do you vote for instead??????

"So, where are those with severe health problems etc likely to go?
The only answer is workhouses."

I dont think this is suggested at all.

Classic hysteria about workhouses.

To suggest that we will have workhouses is frankly offensive to all those people who suffered in the Victorian workhouses.

What do you think will happen to the disabled then.

It isn't hysteria.

This is social cleansing.

Why does every debate about anything vaguely connected with the welfare state always get taken back to disability on MN.

It would be really refreshing to be able to discuss social housing and benefits available for people who are not disabled without every thread being brought back to the same thing. It is pointless when the vast majority of people believe the welfare state should support disabled people and carers before anyone else anyway.

Sorry if someone else has already made this comment (commenting before reading whole thread).

When high rises were built just on the outskirts of most of our cities some decades ago, didn't the fullfill the role of a modern day workhouse? Lump all the poor unfortunates together? What is so different about this? Ok they're talking about moving them further away, but for people in the 60's etc the distance they were moved was substantial to them. They got past it they had to. People have been moving for jobs since the dawn of time and not necessarily because they want to my family is a victim of that one, why should anyone else benifit claimant or otherwise be less of a victim of economics than me? If the government can no longer afford to keep them where they live so be it, we're all making sacrifices.

What do you think will happen to the disabled then

With regards to a policy about allocating social housing, I would expect disabled people to have exactly the same high priority that they already have. The issue here is everyone else.

Presumably disabled people will be able to pay their rent on time and not indulge in anti-social behaviour?

Yes? So nothing will change then.

Talking about workhouses is hysterical nonsense.

And yes to clearly anyone who has a really need of social housing (vulnerable, disabled) needs to stay where they are near family and established support.

Read a bit about Victorian workhouses before you go screaming left right and centre.

It is hysteria.