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

It doesn't say that disabled people will have the same high priority, but it doesn't say they won't either. So there is absolutely no need to bring disabled people into it when we are just at the state of reading one Guardian article on the subject. Making assumptions is pointless and turns the thread into a ridiculous discussion, which is a shame.

let's see if we can find any more information then, shall we, in any of the other broadsheets?

The bit that really irritates me is the bit about people no longer thinking that becoming homeless is an option. I mean FFS. So now anyone who finds themselves homeless is tarred with the "benefit cheat" brush too.

Let me get this straight, enough people are just pretending to be disabled/homeless that this makes sense? Bollocks are they.

As for getting housing being in any way easy if you are homeless, like fuck it is. Try it for yourself if you think it's so fucking easy. I bet you'll get offered all the nicest properties.

Outraged Given the track record wrt disabled people, I think it is perfectly understandable to bring them into it.

Go for your life Wigan. I was happy trying to just discuss what was in the article posted by the OP, as I assume that was the intention of the thread.

But then posters who can't answer simple questions and respond to valid points choose to leave the thread or start screeching about workhouses that don't exist, rather than coming up with reasonable points. It's pathetic.

An unemployed lone parent with young children may not have the time to do voluntary work, but she still needs a roof. She may have worked in the past and will work again, but now deserves to be homeless?

What about women fleeing domestic violence?

Wicked, divisive policy.

An unemployed lone parent or a women escaping domestic violence would fit into the category of paying rent on time and displaying good behaviour. So where's the problem for them?

nothing in the Telegraph or the Independent. Searching gov.uk for the source of article....

If those of us able have moved to secure a job (hundreds of miles) and avoid being homeless, why should someone not working (other than those in genuine need who we're trying to exempt from this discussion in the hope the goverment haven't totally lost touch with reality) have different choices? Genuine question.

but we can't discuss the article at all if you reason like this outraged, because as you rightly state, it's incomplete. Are we discussing the article itself or the issue of who deserves housing? God knows I'd hate to make an inference about who the Government might consider "deserving"...

I have seen a 2 of my customers go homeless in the last week due to unreasonable benefit sanctioning.

My heart breaks that the govt are planning on making it worse.

I try and console myself that I am in the minority and most people want this. But then logic kicks in, and I know most people really do not understand the shit these people are in and faced with the reality of what these policies do, they would backtrack very quickly.

The tories have never considered single mothers deserving...

People who have their housing benefit cut will have rent arrears... see where this is going?

I don't think most people would backtrack, mcmooncup. I think a rather significant percentage of the country is happier demonising single mothers, the disabled and the long term unemployed. It makes it easier to deal with ignoring the fact that successive governments have put no money into affordable housing and there is a large proportion of the country whose wage really won't cover buying their own house. And when we're busy slagging each other off we aren't busy lobbying our MPs to build more state owned housing.

Are we discussing the article itself or the issue of who deserves housing?

I thought we were discussing who deserves housing. As I think that we can pretty much all agree that disabled people who are in need of housing deserve it more than anyone else. There isn't much discussion to be had there. We all agree, apart from the odd complete tosser.

So why not talk about everyone else that wants/needs social housing?

If those of us able have moved to secure a job (hundreds of miles) and avoid being homeless, why should someone not working (other than those in genuine need who we're trying to exempt from this discussion in the hope the goverment haven't totally lost touch with reality) have different choices?

Because if you're moving because of a job, you're moving to something. A new start, employment (which will bring you in touch with some sort of community), it's hopefully a positive step in some way.

If you're someone vulnerable, say second or third generation unemployed, maybe with low level mental health issues, or low self esteem because you've never worked, and you're moved miles from where you grew up, what do you have? No support network, no friends, a feeling perhaps of having been banished or socially cleansed because you're worth nothing, no prospects.

I feel socially cleansed from my home town due to not being able to attain experiance to get a decent job. I miss my family I miss my old life but that's how it goes, am I not deserving of the same support for my family? What about all the unsupported working mums who've had to move for work? Who gives a crap about them when it all goes tits up miles from home.

I think what people have to bear in mind is that this govenment is a fan of the biopsychosocial medical model.

So it's not enough to say 'let's assume disabled people will have priority in housing lists.' We have people in power who are pushing the line that if you work; if you try harder, you won't be ill. Therefore potentially you'll have someone with a serious health condition being told that they as they aren't in work or volunteering, they can't be seen as a priority. I'm not saying that will happen, I just don't think people realise just how sinister this way of thinking is and how it's going to affect the lives of disabled people. There was an article recently about people potentially losing their benefits if they didn't pursue the appropriate medical treatment (I'm sorry, can't remember which paper it was) - which if I recall correctly was aimed at drug addicts/alchoholics and rehab but which could also affect others.

If you haven't heard about the biopsychosocial model, google it. It's awful.

I dont see anything wrong with that article at all.

Incidentally I wouldn't have been able to afford private rented or mortgage and would never have got on a social housing list.

Hmm. Now why does it keep going back to disability. Ahh... let me see.
Probably because the welfare reform bill as it stands is impacting the MOST upon people with disabilities and their carers. Not Vicky Pollard.

The govt really don't care about that. So there is absolutely no reassurance at all that they won't be equally as unfairly impacted by this policy.

Nobody actually gives a shit. That's why we shout. But all the time we're considered 'other' and somehow 'different' and 'undesirable' the govt will be allowed to do what the fuck it pleases to us. Nobody will so much as whisper about it. No, they'll bitch about losing child benefit instead.

Jelly that's really and it sounds very difficult. I'm speaking generally in my post. Hopefully most people moving elsewhere for a job do experience some of the positives I mentioned. But it is of course an issue if you don't, and you of course deserve the same support.

I still don't think it's ok to make people move miles from their support network when they have nothing, and no prospects.

I was playing devil's advocate GhostShip. I see nothing especially wrong with it, other than it has not stated who is NOT deserving, presumably because the papers the Graun obtained don't state it.Phacelia's comments seem to shed light on this to my mind. If the govt does not explicitly state who 'deserves' a home, we are left guessing, and thinking that if only people tried harder, they too would be 'deserving'.

You know outraged, I'm sure the Daily Mail has message boards where you could chat with like-minded people if you find the general consensus on MN 'refreshing' enough

We're all alot closer to being homeless than you think - it only takes a few bad breaks for it to happen - redundancy, bereavement or marriage breakdown.

I have been in private rental since my divorce in 2007 - I am a professional in relatively well paid job but also run the risk of becoming homeless should my ll decide to sell up or want me to leave.

I moved in the summer and found it hard to find the deposit for next rental which is required before you get the deposit back from the previous ll.

There is a housing crisis in this country and policies like this do nothing to help it.

Can't stand DC and his chums. Actually when I saw the title of this thread thought it was going to be about the comments he made on This Morning - which were also wicked, misguided and revealed rather alot about his views!