To think it won't be long before we have workhouses again?

[MrsTawdry]

I really know very little about politics but I know that there's a proportion of people who love benefits bashing and love abusing those who receive housing benefit etc.

It occurred to me recently that one "answer" to the housing crisis might be a sort of "Housing Centre" ....basic blocks of flats sort of thing...where occupants lose a portion of their JSA in return for a roof...and from there it's a step to being given food vouchers as part of benefits and working on a voluntary basis....litter picking etc.

Could this happen? Could a government legislate and make this happen?

I don't understand why it's chilling. I can see how it could be done badly, certainly, but there is nothing about what I'm suggesting that's prison-like. No one would be locked up, and it would be optional. The idea would be that vulnerable people, or people who've fallen through a net, or people just out of prison, etc., would have an option that doesn't have to entail finding a whole house/flat, and living 100% independently, when often the system makes that impossible. It would be a way of helping people. I'm very left wing and pro-welfare and am seeing it from that POV.

There was a radio 4 face the facts type programme the other day about how people with MH issues can't jump through all the hoops so get sanctioned, and multiple agencies are constantly having to deal with these people ending up in emergency and crisis situations, becoming homeless or ill, etc. A place where people could live semi-communally with support on site is not chilling, it might really help.

The same for people leaving prison - a woman on the radio the other day explained exactly howe she had ended up re-offending 7 times - because every time she was released she had no money and nowhere to go except back into the arms of friends and dealers who would get her straight back on drugs. A halfway house where you can have basic accommodation provided as a stepping stone, with help to get work etc, would help people.

A kneejerk reaction that this idea equates to a "prison" or a "workhouse" is not very helpful. If we can't contemplate new potential solutions because any form of having people live together is a "workhouse" then no wonder there's so little progress.

And yes I do think architecture has a massive role to play and I also lay a lot of the US's social problems at the door of their approach to urban planning, but that's another thread.

Keep should the state not care for the vulnerable?

Just spent all my lunch break catching up - very interesting but I have no time to formulate a response now. Will try when I get home tonight - after I catch up again :-)

Madder but we weren't talking about mentally ill people. We were initially talking about everyone who is in receipt of some sort of state help.

Keep should the state not care for the vulnerable?

I think the state should help the vulnerable, I am not sure about care for them.

In any case, if vulnerable means receiving benefits, currently about 30% of Londoners are classed as vulnerable, as almost that amount receive housing benefit. it's not sustainable.

Re gender separation, as I said, optional.

So if there was a hostel/accommodation centre for women only, you could go there if that was important to you, if you were at risk from an ex, etc. If I was in that situation, that's what I would prefer. I'm not talking about anything, whatsoever, being enforced.

Likewise a hostel for people leaving prison would make sense because then the support that's most relevant for those people - rehabilitation, support with work skills etc. could be in one place.

There is such a thing as actual support and help, which isn't just euphemistic bollocks like what we get from this government now. It's not helpful to automatically assume I am talking about some way of banging up or segregating or controlling unwanted people. In fact my point is the opposite - no one can consider this kind of thing at all because of the "workhouse" accusations.

Remember also that some charities eg for people with learning difficulties, and that organise halfway house systems for offenders, do operate in this way and they haven't suddenly produced workhouses.

Yes tawdry "everyone who is in receipt of some sort of state help" is most people.

I'm talking about people who the state is supposed to help, but is punishing, not just those with MH but multiple issues and situations, where the state's failure to help is leading to far worse, more expensive problems, for, for example, the NHS and the criminal justice system.

While that not might be most people, it could happen to most people, and is happening to a lot of people now.

Simple care...provide for...whatever. Of course they should.

Madder you don't need to preach to the converted. I'm the OP. Whilst there might have been some confusion over my standpoint thanks to my badly worded OP...if you read the thread you will see where I stand thanks.

If you have never seen this before please spare just 5 mins to watch.
We say it won't happen today but look at the similarities.

I'm not trying to preach. But to point out that a system to support people that may involve group accommodation, need not add up to a workhouse... and might in fact be an actual positive approach.

Well not might, but could, in a socially progressive country, where people care about people. Not this government.

The fact that I can't even raise that without people thinking I want to imprison someone is kind of telling.

But you're not suggesting anything that's not already been tried Madder. We've got homeless hostels and halfway houses. In my town we have some social housing specifically for young Mothers who are single...it's seen as a bridge...a stop gap before they get housing alone...they all get a room in a hostel type building and also support workers to advise them.

Your idea is not new. It's not a bad one...it's already happening to some good effect but it's flawed anyway and is not the answer to any of the real issues at heart.

Then if it works, and is helpful, more of it might be a solution for various other groups. I think one thing that prevents there being enough of exactly that sort of thing is the cries of "workhouse"! (and nimbyism) But whether or not what you describe in your OP equates to a workhouse, depends on social policy.

The issue of work and whether people should be forced into work for no money/basic benefits is a very separate issue. On that score, the government (and places like Tesco etc) are already trying to create a "workhouse" culture and ethos, minus the building.

Madder

Can you not see though that with all the conquer and divide and propaganda that gov spin to society, nobody will be able to stand their ground, complain, if things are bad because society won't listen or want to help.

The clip i linked to above shows exactly what happens when society doesn't give a fig about the vulnerable.
You only have to read threads on here bashing benefit claimants.
Society is greedy, jealous and out for themselves and when this increases as I believe it will, we could well end up as we did in the past.
Most people tend to look the other way, believe what they are told rather than make the effort to understand the plight of many less fortunate than themselves.
Its the hardship that happens to them over there not people like us. Anyway the government sort them out, they're ok.
When CCH first aired the BBC switch boards were jammed, how could this be allowed to happen, a quarter of the British population watched it and it had to be repeated 2 weeks later. Society couldn't believe people were treated like this.
It was the same society that shunned the vulnerable and didn't want to know let them be somebody elses problem.

Could this happen? Could a government legislate and make this happen?

Well if the Tories or UKIP manage to get in to power in May it very well could happen.

It appears to be this unelected Government's ambition to completely revert to the Dickensian era at any human cost, and there has already been a lot of that already, far more than they admit.

We have the vulnerable of our society being put through assessments that in many cases makes their conditions worsen, We have the homeless having their personal belongings confiscated to make them move on, we have families having to go to food banks even if they are working because the cost of basic living has gone up so much and minimum wage is so low, I could go on, but the final point is that there is so much hatred voiced against people who have found themselves in the unfortunate position of having to claim benefits through no fault of their own.

Also please do bear in mind that both IDS and Cameron made good use of the benefit system in the past even though they had millions at their disposal.

Yes I can see all that, as I've said in my posts. Not with this government, and this government's attitude. I can see how it can go wrong/be done wrong. However, I think the idea of the shared building and the actual workhouse culture should be separated.

You can have the "centre" without the workhouse attitude and it can work well.

You can also have the "workhouse" without the actual house - it's happening.

Like this Madder?

www.emmaus-sheffield.org.uk/

I thought that Emmanus was really good until I went to see their shop. They had second hand furniture but it was really, really overpriced. They had an Ikea table we bought new for £10 and they wanted £35 for it second hand!

Turns out that people who are council housed are forced to get stuff from their at massively inflated prices because they're one of the few places that will supply with payment from the benefits office. But they have to pay it back by having it deducted from their benefits.

Such a shame they've ruined such a good idea for one lot of homeless people by making it so unfair to another lot!

Madder

Perhaps it could work with private investors or even a different government. But when the present gov and much of society is happy to vilify the vulnerable, it doesn't seem such a good idea.

Madder you can't have the centre without the WH if the accommodation is dependent on the "beneficiary" working for his or her roof and food.

Which was what my original post suggested.

I think the problem with this kind of communal living is when it's compulsory and there is no alternative. The most vulnerable in society end up in places like that and also some of the most dangerous in society and you risk creating an atmosphere in which vulnerable people are ripe as victims of exploitation. If you are, for example, putting people with substance abuse problems in the same place as people leaving prison the chances that they're going to end up criminals has got to rocket.

Moan you're right but Madder seems to think it would be ok if we separated the sexes.

I still can't see how this is even being debated in this age, don't people learn about the past?
Do they think because we are so many years later the end result won't be the same, however its dressed up.
It scares me that already the tide has turned in societal belief and norms that all it takes are a few changes in policy for us to be right back there again.

YANBU

Oh come of it. There is uproar if it is mooted that the unemployed have to rock up at the job centre once a week. No wonder working seems an issue for them, that would mean actually getting somewhere on time every day.

Can you imagine if they were actually asked to work for what they get!

"They" they are all of us - just one illness, one piece of bad luck, one accident, one redundancy - we become "they"