How wicked of you, David Cameron.

[vivizone]

So we're going back to Victorian notions of the 'undeserving poor'. Time to re-open the workhouses.

How this man and his cronies are getting away with so much damage done to the ordinary man and woman, I do not know.

Help us all.

www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/nov/09/deserving-families-council-housing-priority

wow god help you if you are poor and disabled, no doubt you would end up in the back of beyond.

Dear fucking god. So homelessness is no longer considered a priority?!

I've been saying for quite some time that we can expect to see workhouses in this country in the not too distant future. Said it on here. Said it in rl. People have laughed at me.

Well, they won't be laughing when the first 'complexes' for the needy are built...

If we don't have them within 10 years - I will streak across the racetrack at Royal Ascot on ladies day with I LOVE MUMSNET written across my arse.

YABU.

It's a perfectly reasonable policy.

Typical left-wing bollocks from the Guardian (so no doubt it will go down well on MN).

I disagree with most of what this government is doing.

However, nothing causes more controversy and conflicting opinions than the whole issue of families who make a lifestyle choice of not working but getting social housing and claiming benefits. Some say they are entitled, others say they are undeserving and should try to make their own living.

It seems to me however, that people who work, whether voluntary/unpaid work or not, will take priority over those who does not want to work.

But can the government create some jobs first rather than going bottom first down a one way chute?

I think you will find that many people will agree with this. Perhaps as many as those who disagree.

Prepare for a bunfight.

It's quite scary really.

You think it's 'wicked' that people who work or who make the effort to contribute to society deserve more back from society than those who do nothing? Those who may be criminals, or who make attempt to work or get training?

Honestly, measures like this is are just common sense! You make effort, you get rewarded, you do nothing but take from society, you go to the bottom of the list. Obviously people who can't do anything shouldn't be included, but the article makes no mention of disabled people. And many disabled people who can't work are able to do voluntary work anyway.

What I don't understand is why this sort of common sense has taken so long to come about.

I think it's wicked that homeless people exist at all.

But Dave and his supporters obviously don't.

This policy is sadly totally unsurprising to me. Completely and utterly disgusting of course, but no shock at all.

It's why it's so fucking important the ConDems are ousted from power as soon as possible. Call Me Dave has no business whatsoever leading a country. Neither do his upper class chums, with no experience or knowledge (or any intent to get either) of what it's like to be normal. Not even poor, just normal.

The only good thing about the disgraceful policies of this government is that it's helping me wheedle out those people who are not fit to be my friends. If you support this kind of policy, you are not good enough to be in my life.

Fancy a running mate, Hecate?

Nothing wrong with there being rewards for contributing through work or volunteering.

This is absolutely not something that should be regarded as a reward, hermione.

FFS!

What about women escaping domestic violence, where are they on this "list"? It's hard enough ALREADY for single parents to work, and if you're looking after children who've just had a massive upheaval of their lives, then working shouldn't NEED to be a priority for a while.

And that's not to mention people with disabilities or parents of children with disabilities or special needs who might also find it difficult and/or counterproductive to work

yeah.

Sadly, my arse is big enough to handle the slogan by itself, but you could have the logo on yours

I can see it.

demonisation of the poor and vulnerable.
Creating and feeding an attitude of the undeserving poor to minimise public sympathy and take us back to the old days where being poor was seen as a disgusting thing for you to be, of your own making and making you a second class citizen
changes to social housing policy
moving people away to different parts of the country
deciding that being homeless doesn't mean you need a home more than someone who volunteers with meals on wheels

next will come a sudden attack of social conscience and a need to house our poor and vulnerable cos we're just that lovely, and the building will start...

My area has been giving priority to "positively contributing applicants" for a while.

Because obviously, if you don't work or volunteer you are not contributing anything good to the community are you?

This is not about families making a lifestyle choice.

What about carers? Or disabled people?

It's surprising that they get to sneak so much of this crap through. Yesterday it became legal for a council to offer a homeless person a private rented place and if they refused the council will discharge their duty to house you. Regardless of your status or needs.

If the council say it is suitable and you turn it down they will not help. But they are saying it doesn't matter where it is. They could offer you a private house 30 miles away. It's madness.

From the article.

The paper prepared by Gale says these these priority groups might include:

? Low-income households who are in employment.

? People who are in training or who volunteer in the local community.

? Potential tenants who are "prepared to undertake a training course on how to be a good tenant".

? People with no history of rental arrears and who can demonstrate "good behaviour".

? Ex-armed forces personnel.

If all someone has to do to get into the priority group is to demonstrate good behaviour, I really can't see the problem here.

So do they assume poor people don't know how to be good tenants then?

well I don't tick any of those boxes, nor does my dh(health troubles) nor does my dd (disabled)
so we would be fucked.
I so should stick her in residential care so that I can be a volunteer.

Yes. Another message given out that poor=problem.

It's all very well planned, imo.

If you don't pay your rent on time and you can't say that you demonstrate good behaviour, then what on earth makes you think you have a right to live in someone else's property?

Where does it say that they are assuming poor people don't know how to be good tenants?

If they are good tenants, then they will fit into the last suggested category.

"Potential tenants who are "prepared to undertake a training course on how to be a good tenant"."

So it is assumed that potential tenants will be problem tenants?

I think if they are suggesting that you need to take a training course, they're suggesting this is a skill you don't already possess.

why does everyone assume ex forces = good tenant?

But it might not be a skill you already possess Hectate. If it isn't, then you will be rewarded for making the effort to learn. If you do know how to be a good tenant, then you will fall into the last catergory.

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