THATCHER’S BACK

From THE MIRROR:

Council tenants will no longer have a "home for life" under a plan unveiled by David Cameron yesterday. The PM said fixed term contracts should be issued so that people can be evicted if they get a job or start earning more.


Eileen Short, of Defend Council Housing, said families and communities will be split up and ministers should be building more council houses to address the shortage instead of cutting funding. She said: "It is completely ill-conceived. Instead of creating communities it will create pockets of poverty and despair."


Mr Cameron already plans to slash housing benefit for poor families in private accommodation - in a move that will force thousands from their homes.

COMMENT: I love Americans but, boy, do I hate America. It sits their in its doomsday bomb protected smugness, one huge excuse for every tin pot, tory, wannabe Thatcher to screw the poor and working classes of their own countries.

I suppose it is inevitable that we will all become American one day. Unfortunately this terrible prospect is being thrust upon us far quicker than it should because it seems the first thing the English people chose to ape is the American working class's lemming like insistence on voting into power posh boys who they know full well are just going to make their lives even more miserable.

People are stupid.

Comments

THATCHER’S BACK — 38 Comments

  1. What is wrong with this? I have known some in Australia including relatives where the woman remains in a 3 bedroom house on low rent although her husband has died and the children have grown up. They object to being moved to a one bedder. This despite the fact there is a waiting list of young families for housing commission homes. One of them, a fellow worker, complained because the commission would not send a plumber to fix her hot water system on a Sunday. I pointed out I could have got a plumber on Sunday but at double rates at least. Sadly too many people exploit government assistance which gives it a bad name and leads to others suffering when it is cut.
    If people have a rise in income or gain a job they should join the rest of us in paying full rent or purchasing a home.

  2. Another bash the US post, just a little overdue. Can’t you English even take responsibility for your own PM, whom you didn’t elect? Not the fault of the US at all, but of your crazy election system and your lemmings disguised as voters. And, when all is said and done, despite your huffing and puffing about the US, the lemmings are English.

  3. My dear friend,

    It is obvious that you are quite thoroughly vexed and troubled by this obvious circumvention of common decency and abdication of the bedrock principles of the social contract upon which the great Commonwealth is founded.

    As a concerned friend and well-meaning (com)patriot, I would recommend to you a course that uniquely British Balm of Gilead, to wit- writing a strong letter to the Times.

  4. Maybe it’s time that we balanced the “gravy train” that many have now come to believe as their right with a pragmatic approach to need.

    And really, this Government can’t do any worse than the last lot.

  5. MP when will you blame us for poor British dentistry? Prince Charles’ big ears? Camilla? Gourmet Brit cuisine? And most importantly of all, the Archbishop of Canterbury?

    😉 I appreciate the love the sinner hate the sin attempt you made with this post.

    WV: quite

  6. There are always anecdotal stories to make assistance cuts sound good, but it comes down to a simple principle: would you rather have a few people cheat and keep a program that will benefit far more people who need help or would you rather cut off assistance to many who need it to try to go after those few cheaters? It’s the same rationale as the principle of presumed innocent until proven guilty. Some guilty will go free but fewer innocent will be wrongly imprisoned.

    And yes MP it is frustrating that the US imports so much of its worst rather than its best to the rest of the world. How do you think it feels living here? But we also reveal the real agenda of many of those elected officials pushing cuts to needed programs, especially the hypocrites who have never been part of any group that needed any such assistance. Our far-right has gone bat shit the last couple of years and has now taken a spin into WTF? territory with openly racist material, delusional paranoia (see Rep. Gomert’s fear-mongering about terror babies or Colorado gubernatorial candidate Dan Maes’ theory that promoting bike riding is a secret agenda to end freedom), and consistently voting against positions they championed until a year or two ago because their opponents are now supporting them.

  7. Seems fair, I like Englishmen but despise English inability to take responsibility for their own idiots.

    FWIW
    jimB

  8. I’m not accusing the US of exporting anything. I’m accusing politicians in the rest of the world of using the US as an excuse for their ultra capitalist policies. They see US politicians getting away with it and think if the most powerful country in the world screws its poor then why shouldn’t they. Of course, if the knee jerkers had bothered reading the bloody post they would have seen that. But that wouldn’t have been half as much fun as being able to claim victim status.

  9. Yeah, I know, about it *feels* like we are exporting it (I think I goofed and said “importing” before). I am proud of all we have done and I think my fellow liberals are too hard on our nation, but at times the cookery does get the better of you. I am hoping that the vitriol and insanity we are seeing now in politics are the death rattles of an outdated mindset. I do deep down believe we are better than that.

  10. Yes, MP, people, as voters, ARE stupid. I simply don’t understand it. I blame it on television, but then again I blame television for the decline of reading, conversation, volunteering, aimless woolgathering alone or with friends, chess-playing (insert favorite board or card game here), and general social interaction, as well as for the decline of political and general knowledge and of citizenship.

    Signed, the only person I know who hasn’t bothered with cable TV. For that matter, with the advent of digital transmissions, I don’t have access to broadcasts, since I have an old TV – hey, it plays DVDs just fine.

    Harrumph.
    wv of the day: barmeld: the position one assumes after finishing the third pint in an hour (for me – other people have higher tolerance)

  11. In Britain our TV media is scrupulously unbiased. But our press isn’t and the working classes read newspapers with naked women in that tell them to vote conservative.

  12. We don’t have cable, either, Nancy. There’s not enough substance on to justify the cost. I can get Rachel and Olbermann and the news online.

    I think the utter lack of empathy we see so often in those in the upper classes of wealth and/or power comes from something larger and more endemic than national boundaries. And some of it is linked to paranoia and fear of scarcity and otherness.

    –sheila–

  13. what in the hell does this have to do with America? come on, take responsibility for your own government.

    Seriously, I despise policies like this – you know that most of us do – but I’m sick and f+cking tired of my country, which in spite of all its problems I love dearly, being blamed every time someone f+cking sneezes.

    Jesus Mary and freakin Joseph. Gosh, I’m sorry, the whole wide world would be so goddamned better off if we weren’t here, right? sorry, but you do know that in spite of what we do wrong we do some things right and maybe a few of us really do love the place, eh?

    But, OK, I can play, too. Our street needs resurfacing. The big holes in the asphalt are out of control. It just makes me hate England so so much. Our state governor has cut services again for the poor and hungry. Damn those English. American students can’t afford university this year. Those damned English have a lot of nerve.

    see how well that works? how about saving blame for when it really applies and not insulting your friends for what they didn’t do?

  14. MP, Here is my concern. I do not doubt for a moment that we have a crop of real idiot politicians. After all the evidence exists — Congress. But why pick on us as the bad examples. Four words — Germany, France, Belgium and Holland.

    FWIW
    jimB

  15. Yesterday, I saw a car w/ a bumpersticker that said “Don’t blame me, I voted for McCain” . . . w/ a hammer&sickle on it.

    People are very, VERY stupid.

  16. I’m not on about your politicians. I’m on about your social policies. If the world’s current superpower has a patronising, begrudging attitude towards its poor then other countries have to be the same in order to compete. But I think it’s the example the US gives to the world that is the big problem.

  17. What are you complaining about? That people should get help while they need it and no help or less help when they no longer do?
    I have a friend who rightly got a council house when she was a single mother with 3 children. For the last 10 years she’s been married to a man who earns more than Susan and I earn together but they are still living in the same council house.
    They had the option to buy it at a low price but decided they didn’t want to be bothered with all the repair and maintenance costs.
    her choices make perfect economic sense for her, she’d be stupid to do anything else. But that doesn’t make the sytem right.

    At what level is that right, when you look at young couples with children who have to cram in with their parents because there is no housing for them?

    What’s wrong with asking people to be responsible for themselves when they no longer need the support?
    Or at least move to a smaller place when their kids have left home?

  18. Try imaging what it would feel like to be forced out of your home and perhaps you will understand, Erika. Moving house has the same psychological impact as a bereavement. Anyway, most of the people who would be affected wouldn’t be able to afford to buy a house. They would just be forced into renting and giving their money to landlords. Which is what Cameron is actually after, in my opinion. Council housing was not invented as an emergency measure. It was set up to provide people who couldn’t afford to buy a house a home for life.

  19. Council housing isn’t free. You pay a fair rent for the house. Those who are in need of help have their rent subsidised under our welfare system. The rent is nowhere near as much as private landlords screw out of their tenants. Cameron’s plan will just give such landlords the green light to charge even more because the displaced council tenants will have no other option than to pay it. The working, working classes will never get out of the poverty trap.

  20. People are not stupid. Most are modest and no great expectations. They couldn’t comprehend, even if it occurred to them, that some people are out to deprive them of what little they have, not because they want it for themselves, but because deprivation is evidence of their own power.
    Power, to be felt, has to hurt. People who do others good are not perceived as powerful.
    Why are some people addicted to power? I suspect it’s an effort to balance a deeply felt sense of insecurity. Self-confident people don’t have to lord it over other people.

    Btw, visual verification doesn’t work in a browser with images turned off and the auditory thing doesn’t work either. Even in Firefox, the letters don’t show up the first time around. That seems to be a blogger.com bug.

  21. It’s a difficult issue.

    There will always be those who abuse the goodwill of others, and there will always be those who see every penny as “charity” that must be earned by the worthwhile.

    Both screw it up for everyone else, and both seem to be the dominant (lowest-common-denominator?) human life form.

  22. Well, the couple I’m speaking of could easily have bought their own house.

    And I agree that this has to be accompanied by decent legislation for the private rental market. Most other European countries have excellent private renting laws and even affluent families prefer to rent and to invest their money in shares than to buy a house. We only have this thing about owning houses because their value rises at such a ridiculous rate.
    And that’s partly due to the fact that there just aren’t enough houses to go round, especially with the increase in single households and single parent households.

    So we’re back at reality, where a limited amount of ressources has to be used as effectively as possible.
    And as I also know a man who frequently cannot afford to eat because his benefits are late and insufficient, to be honest, I’d rather sod lofty principles about people being entitled to big houses for life regardless of family size and income, and make sure that those who can afford more theatre tickets than most and frequent holidays to America are made to look at the reality of other people’s lives.

    It is precisely because homelessness is so shocking that we should not allow people to be homeless because those who could afford to vacate their council houses refuse.

    After all, you only qualify for a council house if you’re below a certain level of income in the first place, and no-one says that everyone regardless of wealth and income should be entitled to council housing.
    Why should that same principle only apply at entry point?

  23. no-one says that everyone regardless of wealth and income should be entitled to council housing.

    Well, I do. I think that making money on housing, either from renting, speculating or just because of rising property prices is an obscenity. Along with Margaret Thatcher, private landlords are the reason I think the existence of hell is a good idea.

  24. Signed, the only person I know who hasn’t bothered with cable TV. For that matter, with the advent of digital transmissions, I don’t have access to broadcasts, since I have an old TV – hey, it plays DVDs just fine.

    Me either. I haven’t had it since 1996 and I like it that way. I read books. And play with Vikings.

  25. Not all American working class people vote for posh boys who want to bugger the working class. I’ll send you Joe’s phone number and he’ll be more than happy to talk to you about the long line of Wisconsin social Democrats he’s descended from.

  26. I dread to think that the only people that would allowowed social housing would be the unemployed or the very low waged. Where would the cut off be? Where would those who were just above the cut off find the deposit for private housing or owner occupied housing?

    Would it mean that families would be forced to move away from family friend familiar schools etc.

    I did have one thought last night while mulling this
    all over in bed. There is a couple in my mum’s street ( where I grew up) now in there 80s who live in a 3 bedroom housing association house. They have lived there 40 odd years having moved from a two bedroom house when the three children 2 boys and a girl were small. Most of the street is now owner occupied since many took advantage of Thatcher’s 80s policy.

  27. Who is going to pay for social housing for all? Someone else? That’s always the answer….. funnily enough.

    Easy to be self-righteous about things when others have to pay for it; harder to contribute meaningfully to the country’s tax income, enabling it to pay for social housing and hospitals and schools.

  28. I repeat, the tenant pays a fair rent for council houses in England and any adjustments for hardship are made through welfare payments.

  29. I don’t think you are trying to claim that there is not a significant cost to the taxpayer…. your statement mentions welfare payments when people (say they) cannot pay rent, but the real cost of social housing is the capital cost …..the taxpayer has to spend billions to build and maintain social housing…… they may want it to go only to those in need of help and may not want to pay for families to stay in B&Bs because 3 bed houses are often occupied by just one person after their children leave home.

    You may think it is great for all to have social housing but perhaps most people paying their taxpayers are happy to help those in need when they are in need but when people have got higher incomes and do not need help, do not see why they should be subsidising them……that is not unreasonable or unkind….. maybe those people in social housing who do not need subsidised housing or more rooms than their families fill should be thinking less of themselves and about how they can help the rest of society and, especially those who need housing help….. that would be a great thing, but people and society is selfish……no need for the welfare system (including council housing) to pander to that selfishness……actually, it is not good to pander to it, is it?

    Pls don’t get me wrong – when people need housing and cannot provide for themselves, I want the govt to help them if friends and family do not ….I am for a safety net, that is why I don’t like situations in which some can milk welfare systems….that deprives others in need and gives the whole system a bad name

  30. No. The fair rent pays for maintenance and, in England, we stopped building social housing under Thatcher. In fact, she made councils sell to tenants at far less than the market price of the houses. This reduced the social housing stock.

    Council houses were never intended to be for the destitute. They were built to provide affordable housing for those whose salaries would never allow them to buy their own house. The vast majority of people now living in council housing are still in this position. They would have to rent privately if they were evicted from their council homes. And landlords are the spawn of Satan, they do not maintain their properties and this results in the devaluing of privately owned properties nearby. Social housing is, in fact, good value for the tax payer.

  31. “Council houses were never intended to be for the destitute. They were built to provide affordable housing for those whose salaries would never allow them to buy their own house.”

    Right…I am all for that…but council housing was not intended to give single people 3 bed homes when others need them and they no longer do so…..and it was not intended to give housing to people who can afford to buy their own house (as in Erika’s example)….. I do not defend these things because I want to defend the principle of social housing for those in need.

  32. But Cameron’s proposals are not just to force people who could buy their own homes out of council housing.

    I hate Thatcher, but she is an idealist and consistent in her logic, so she had integrity. She wanted everyone to be a home owner. That is why she brought in the right to buy legislation (something Cameron wants to get rid of).

    Cameron doesn’t care about home ownership as such. He simply wants to retain council housing only for the destitute. Most of those evicted under his proposals would be forced to rent privately. They would be forced to live in poorly maintained properties at exhorbitant rents. Cameron’s loyalty is to those who want to make money and not to any ideal of private ownership. If you are a capitalist I expect this makes sense. But I am a Christian so I am not allowed to believe in a system based solely on the making of profit.

  33. it is not a Christian principle that those who can house themselves should be entitled to being housed by the state….. is it?

    nothing Christian in saying someone who was given a 3 bed house when they needed it for a family must still have the right to keep it when others now need it for their families…….

  34. Now you are just repeating yourself and refusing to engage with my argument. As I suspected, you are obviously a concern troll, so I am ending this conversation.