Grenfell tower exposes stark inequalities in our society.

[thinkiamgoingcrazy]

In the new luxury block some of the Grenfell residents have been rehoused in, 3 flats put together are "worth" an eye watering 5 million pounds. The same amount of money as the government has pledged for the Grenfell victims.

What is the matter with our society that such vast inequalities are able to exist? When did London become an investment bank for the rich rather than somewhere for its citizens to live with dignity ?

[Why are there some "private" squares in London where the benches have plaques on them reading that they are only for the patrons of the nearby hotel ?]

Why are we such an unequal society in general with a massive gap in earnings, and a tiny precentage of our population owning such a huge amount of our wealth?

I don't think that this is a dignified or progressive way to live. Nothing against capitalism, but ffs it can't be allowed to do its rampant worst. IMO.

So equally, why is the brain surgeon more deserving of security and comfort (which is the essence of what we are talking about) than the chap who cleans the theatres and hospital floors, simply due to a quirk of fate? Due to the comparative luck of birth?

He's not more deserving , but he's harder to replace than a cleaner,- as there are very few people who can do his job. How hard either work doesnt enter the equation. His salary is based on his unique skills, not his effort..

The govt does create a lot of the conditions and the environment for society; that's why it can influence our attitudes. We can't avoid that. We all choose our path in life but there are few who would argue that our circumstances are not at all a product of our environment.

Ps quite a lot of people can't just walk down the road and get one of the 20 jobs on offer. I think you're quite blinkered in your thinking if you really believe that. There are many reasons why you can't- for example a single mum abandoned by her man and responsible for 2 children can't do that. And many other reasons.

I agree absolutely, abuse of the rules should be clamped down on. It's just not fair otherwise. Yet again though govt is responsible here- they need to make provision for this clamping down, they're not really doing that currently

a single mum abandoned by her man and responsible for 2 children can't do that I bet she could if she had to.

Your comment is ridiculous.

No it's not. These squares are not the same as the locked gardens you mention. They are public thoroughfares which look like any other part of the city that you might walk through. But because they have been sold by the council to the nearby commercial concern, the latter have in some cases appropriated the benches etc...

The city belongs to everyone. For passers by to fancy a sit down in what they think is a nice part of their city only to look at a bench to realise that they "can't", is IMO unacceptable.

Oh ha ha.

Why the bitterness/rudeness. My OP was not about envy. It was about widening inequality

This thread has gone a bit weird. Not feeling quite so positive about the future as I was at the beginning 😂. May have to move to Scandinavia.

Me too Squeegle.

LadyInCement
you can be in work AND poor.

For all the sympathy on here, how many of you would happily have these families move in next door either side of your houses? Really?

Me! I live in a very mixed area, socio-economically. We have huge semi-detached houses on all sides plus housing association flats peacefully co-existing. I wouldn't have the slightest hesitation in anyone living next door to me, as long as they kept their bins tidy, turned their music off by 11pm (maybe midnight at weekends ) and occasionally took in the odd parcel for me .

I'm a big fan of capitalism, I think people should be able to work hard and further themselves in life if that is their wish, but NOT by stepping on the poor or disadvantaged. Inequality in the UK is growing and that is not good for anyone.

It is possible to feed,clothe and heat your children on benefits. If you decide you can't live without an IPhone or other lifestyle choices then it becomes more difficult

I can assure that it is not possible for all working poor. Unemployment benefits, I wouldn't know, but I doubt it since they'd receive more or less the same as me. And it's nothing at all to do with iPhones.

Energy prices have gone up, Food prices have gone up, Council tax support has been slashed, housing benefit hasn't risen in line with rents, WTC have been frozen.

It's my gas, rent and council tax that eat up all my money, not my iphone bill seeing as I don't have an iPhone. We won't be using heating this winter.

It's also worth remembering being poor is expensive. We can't buy things like washing power in bulk because we can't pull out that much money in one week. Our houses are likely to be old and poorly insulated thus more expensive to heat. Pay as you go meters cost more than direct debits and often benefits claimants are stuck with them.

I've lived in both mixed tenure and private areas. And surprise, surprise, there were good and bad people living in both. Social Housing residents are perceived as being the cause of asb, drugs, noise nuisance, etc. I've seen just as much of this on 'naice' private estates. It's maybe just not quite so visible as there's more space and everyone's not living on top of each other.

I agree with the OP, the inequality in our society is appalling. How can it be ok that we have some people living such lavish lifestyles, while others have to rely on food banks to feed their children?

I do feel the appetite for change is getting stronger, social media means people who have been repressed for such a long time finally have a voice and people have had enough.

Rightly or wrongly, if you took everyone's wealth off them and then redistributed it equally, there would still be people who made more out of their allowance than others. Trade has to go on in order for life and moneybags to be generated and some people have to believe they can reach the top or what's the point of trying, if there's a ceiling on allowed wealth before it gets taken off you and redistributed again?

Also there are people who are lazy or nit intelligent enough to do wisely. That's aside from advantages in life such as "class", "schooling" "parenting quality", etc. I know lots of people who had none of those advantages and they still succeeded, also I know people who had it all and made nothing of their lives. People are not born with equal drive, determination or brains. Just as people are not born equally creative, sporty or caring. It wouldn't take long - just one generation in many cases I expect - before some people sank and some succeeded with their allowance, because of innate skills they were born with even if the playing fields were levelled.

That's not to say I think being stinky rich is great when some people are struggling. Just that redistributing the wealth (in basic form) won't solve the problem or prevent it happening again and again.

*money not moneybags!

Rightly or wrongly, if you took everyone's wealth off them and then redistributed it equally

No-one is suggesting doing that. Not once in this thread has anyone typed the phrase '100% tax bracket' but the divide needs to close, not by yanking the top down to meet the bottom but by a taking a little from the top to pull the bottom up a bit, preventing overseas buyers hoarding our housing stock and ensuring everyone has fair access to decent housing and education.

I think some changes that will come about will not only be about building material.

The people of Grenfell Tower who survived will only be rehoused if they were social housing tenants. People who were privately-renting, sub-letting off of council tenants or owner-occupiers who had bought their flats will not be offered accommodation. Why is one persons need greater than another. Both have suffered the same experience but some are more entitled than others. Why are one group insisting on only being rehoused in Kensington and other survivors not being offered anything. I think this is the true inequality.

chester the LA has a duty to rehouse anyone who is made homeless - not just social housing tenants

Personally speaking if I was an asylum seeker or refugee I would be glad of any accommodation I was given surely it must be better than the war-torn country you came from. I would not insist on Kensington.

Personally speaking if I was an asylum seeker or refugee I would be glad of any accommodation I was given surely it must be better than the war-torn country you came from. I would not insist on Kensington

Really? Even if you had kids in school, a job and friends, extended family in the area?

You'd gratefully tear your children away from their school, friends and family to be housed miles away due to a horrific fire that was not your fault, in which your children suffered terrible emotional trauma that will take them years to recover from along with possible injuries, loss of siblings/parents/friends? Leave your own job and family behind?

Because I seriously doubt that any person would do that and do it happily.

chester you say that until you're forced to move to an isolated area where nobody speaks your language, your can't access your place of worship and non of the shops or restaurants in a ten mile radius cater for your diet/culture.

I work with unaccompanied asylum seeking children. I can tell you that even though they are happy to be here they still very much have an opinion on the areas they feel comfortable living in.

Would most owner occupiers have home fire insurance and therefor be on their own to find their next accommodations?

I doubt the ha will take responsibility to house "everyone"

out LA still has a duty to house them until they are in a position to re-buy/rent.