'Social cleansing' housing benefit cap row
And so it goes on.
Already in the school where I work a student has had to leave after her family's private landlord in Westminster told them as the new housing benefit cap wouldn't cover the rent they would have to leave - Westminster Council moved the family to Uxbridge, 17 miles away from the school.
Tuesday 24 April 2012
Tuesday 3 April 2012
Class War
http://www.islingtontribune.com/news/2012/mar/cost-living-islington-report-says-families-need-least-%C2%A372000-year-rent-two-bedroom-hom
London, like all major cities, is a mix of rich and poor living often side by side - but for how much longer? It would be easy to blame the current government policy on capping Housing Benefit on driving the working classes out of city centres but there is much more to this story than meets the eye.
Class War is a term that seems archaic in the post-Thatcher world of a so-called classless society. Truth is Britain is more divided than ever. These divisions are as class based as at any time in history. But the war is not from the working class against the middle and upper classes but the reverse.
There has been much comment about the demonization of the working class in recent years, especially the 'White British Working Class'. At best this group (of which I would be considered a member) is seen as a forgotten group my mainstream politics and politicians; at worst we are seen as work-shy, benefit living, racists, uneducated, violent and a blight on cities. We are mocked in the media, the butt of endless caricatures, the only group, it seems, that can be without fear of being brought to book by the PC brigade. Do we deserve this? No, we do not. But this is not the issue. Race and ethnicity have little to do with Class War. Delusion is everything.
My mum used to say there are only 2 classes of people - those that have to work for a living, and those who do not. Why do people do the lottery? To be in the position of the latter group that's why. If you have to work for a living you are Working Class. So why do some people define themselves as middle class? How does this group define itself? Seems to me it doesn't. Perhaps once it was defined by being in a profession or by level of education. Not anymore. I'd say the middle class define themselves as not being working class and that's it. And anyone who is not the same as them is working class. Like I say, delusional.
Of course this delusion wouldn't matter if it didn't mean that we have to suffer not only derision, being feared and despised, but now we are being pushed out of our homes and our cities.
Once upon a time successive governments pushed forward policies to build homes for the working class of Britain. Why was this housing needed? I'll tell you why, slums and slum-landlords. 1000s of people lived in overcrowded hovels, with insecure tenancies and the fear that at any time the landlord could kick them out. Slum clearance began between the First & Second World Wars but really took off out of necessity after WW2 because of bombing of British cities meant a housing crisis. Even so it took many years for people to be moved out of the slums and into what was seen as palaces by many, with electricity, heating and indoor plumbing, and families not having to share accommodation and facilities with other families. These council houses and flats offered good accommodation and secure tenancy - but at a price. The rents were often far higher that people were used to paying. I remember my parents telling me of the interview they had with the housing officer when offered their council flat; they were questioned about their ability to pay the rent and reminded that they would lose their tenancy if they got into arrears.
These council houses and flats were more than just good accommodation and secure tenancy though - they were (and are) people's homes. Home is where the heart, is so the saying goes; but it seems that if you don't own your home then you can't possibly have pride in your home or a stake in the area in which you live. Really? If some estates are in a state it's because the councils have let them run down and they have become filled with tenants who have social problems. Let me explain that last point. For many years now to stand any chance of getting tenancy of a council or housing association property you have to be a person in need, which often equals a person with any one of a number social problems such as mental illness, drug or alcohol addiction, release from prison etc. Now I'm not saying that people with these problems should not be entitled to housing but what I am saying is that when these people are given no other support and are just dumped on an estate that estate will begin to decline to the point that only the truly desperate will live there. And many people are desperate for the security of a home.
There is, we are constantly told, a chronic shortage of housing in Britain, especially what is referred to as 'affordable housing'. But who defines what is affordable? How much should we pay for a home, whether it is our own or rented? Property prices are market driven, dependent on supply and demand, and let's not forget, the whims of those who decide that one area is more 'up-and-coming' than another. In cities this means that, just like in the country villages, local people are priced out of any opportunity to buy a property in their area. Private rents are likewise driven by the same, meaning that for example, to rent a property privately in my area will cost as much per week as a council or housing association tenant might pay in a month.
Whose fault is that? Not the council tenants, yet we are going to be the ones that have to pay.
http://www.homesandcommunities.co.uk/ourwork/affordable-rent
Councils will be allowed to charge up to 80% of the cost of private rents to their tenants. Why do we have to pay for the fact that people with more money than sense are willing to pay stupid amounts in rent to live in a 'trendy' area?
The article at the start of this post describes what is happening in housing in my area as 'social cleansing' and that doesn't feel like an exaggeration.
It is war, sisters and brothers, Class War.
London, like all major cities, is a mix of rich and poor living often side by side - but for how much longer? It would be easy to blame the current government policy on capping Housing Benefit on driving the working classes out of city centres but there is much more to this story than meets the eye.
Class War is a term that seems archaic in the post-Thatcher world of a so-called classless society. Truth is Britain is more divided than ever. These divisions are as class based as at any time in history. But the war is not from the working class against the middle and upper classes but the reverse.
There has been much comment about the demonization of the working class in recent years, especially the 'White British Working Class'. At best this group (of which I would be considered a member) is seen as a forgotten group my mainstream politics and politicians; at worst we are seen as work-shy, benefit living, racists, uneducated, violent and a blight on cities. We are mocked in the media, the butt of endless caricatures, the only group, it seems, that can be without fear of being brought to book by the PC brigade. Do we deserve this? No, we do not. But this is not the issue. Race and ethnicity have little to do with Class War. Delusion is everything.
My mum used to say there are only 2 classes of people - those that have to work for a living, and those who do not. Why do people do the lottery? To be in the position of the latter group that's why. If you have to work for a living you are Working Class. So why do some people define themselves as middle class? How does this group define itself? Seems to me it doesn't. Perhaps once it was defined by being in a profession or by level of education. Not anymore. I'd say the middle class define themselves as not being working class and that's it. And anyone who is not the same as them is working class. Like I say, delusional.
Of course this delusion wouldn't matter if it didn't mean that we have to suffer not only derision, being feared and despised, but now we are being pushed out of our homes and our cities.
Once upon a time successive governments pushed forward policies to build homes for the working class of Britain. Why was this housing needed? I'll tell you why, slums and slum-landlords. 1000s of people lived in overcrowded hovels, with insecure tenancies and the fear that at any time the landlord could kick them out. Slum clearance began between the First & Second World Wars but really took off out of necessity after WW2 because of bombing of British cities meant a housing crisis. Even so it took many years for people to be moved out of the slums and into what was seen as palaces by many, with electricity, heating and indoor plumbing, and families not having to share accommodation and facilities with other families. These council houses and flats offered good accommodation and secure tenancy - but at a price. The rents were often far higher that people were used to paying. I remember my parents telling me of the interview they had with the housing officer when offered their council flat; they were questioned about their ability to pay the rent and reminded that they would lose their tenancy if they got into arrears.
These council houses and flats were more than just good accommodation and secure tenancy though - they were (and are) people's homes. Home is where the heart, is so the saying goes; but it seems that if you don't own your home then you can't possibly have pride in your home or a stake in the area in which you live. Really? If some estates are in a state it's because the councils have let them run down and they have become filled with tenants who have social problems. Let me explain that last point. For many years now to stand any chance of getting tenancy of a council or housing association property you have to be a person in need, which often equals a person with any one of a number social problems such as mental illness, drug or alcohol addiction, release from prison etc. Now I'm not saying that people with these problems should not be entitled to housing but what I am saying is that when these people are given no other support and are just dumped on an estate that estate will begin to decline to the point that only the truly desperate will live there. And many people are desperate for the security of a home.
There is, we are constantly told, a chronic shortage of housing in Britain, especially what is referred to as 'affordable housing'. But who defines what is affordable? How much should we pay for a home, whether it is our own or rented? Property prices are market driven, dependent on supply and demand, and let's not forget, the whims of those who decide that one area is more 'up-and-coming' than another. In cities this means that, just like in the country villages, local people are priced out of any opportunity to buy a property in their area. Private rents are likewise driven by the same, meaning that for example, to rent a property privately in my area will cost as much per week as a council or housing association tenant might pay in a month.
Whose fault is that? Not the council tenants, yet we are going to be the ones that have to pay.
http://www.homesandcommunities.co.uk/ourwork/affordable-rent
Councils will be allowed to charge up to 80% of the cost of private rents to their tenants. Why do we have to pay for the fact that people with more money than sense are willing to pay stupid amounts in rent to live in a 'trendy' area?
The article at the start of this post describes what is happening in housing in my area as 'social cleansing' and that doesn't feel like an exaggeration.
It is war, sisters and brothers, Class War.
Monday 2 April 2012
Monsters – or can a TV series go on too long?
Last week Being Human series 4 ended on BBC3 and Dexter series 6 started on FX and I asked myself can any long running TV series really keep fresh?
Of course there have been and are long running TV series but generally they tend to be soaps or soap like dramas like Coronation Street on ITV or Casualty on BBC1 and these are popular and successful programmes, although not my personal cup of tea anymore I watched them and others like them in the past. Likewise I watched the hugely successful US imports like CSI and House – for a while. But in my opinion they got stale several series back. I don’t bother with them anymore.
The trouble with any successful TV programme is that those that commission and broadcast them want to milk that success for all its worth and care not if the standard falls as long as people keep watching. And of course if a series keeps going long enough it becomes a habit to watch for some people, which is why soaps generally do so well.
I was surprised when a new series of Being Human was commissioned. At the end of series 3 arguably the main character, the vampire Mitchell, was killed off and although the future was uncertain for the remaining characters as well as an introduction to a new threat, the Old Ones, I couldn’t see where the story was going to go next. This however was quickly answered in the opening episodes of series 4, killing off the next major character, the werewolf, George, leaving only one of the original cast, the ghost, Annie, and this was swiftly followed by replacements for the characters, Hal, the vampire and Tom, the werewolf (who had featured in series 3) and the story line of George and Nina’s baby, Eve, who may or may not be the saviour of humankind in the face of the vampire hoards.
This story line, with its prophesy element, reminded me of the excellent Buffy the Vampire Slayer (a programme that ran for 7 series by the way). There was also a bit of Blade going on with the vamps trying to take over the world. But as ever at the heart of Being Human was the struggle of the characters to live in the human world while being outsiders, monsters even. Annie has to become mother to Eve; Tom still has to find his way without his werewolf father McNair and Hal, who is an Old One, who has fight the urge to drink blood and kill by being OCD. Practicalities have to be dealt with while hiding their true nature and fighting off threats from their own kind.
But how long can a series run of one underlying theme?
Dexter is a very different kind of monster and as series 6 begins everyone’s favourite serial killer is also still learning to live in the human world. His issues are similar to the characters in Being Human; he has to hide what he really is, live in a world he is not really a part of but he has to also sate his ‘dark passenger’, that part of him that has to kill.
Of course Dexter has an advantage over Being Human; it’s also a cop-show. There’s a race between Dexter and his colleagues in Miami homicide to catch a killer. And his colleagues give another dimension to the story line in each series outside of Dexter’s world. Even so can we keep going along with Dexter in his seemingly unending task to learn how to live in the world? There has to be an ending sometime before we tire of his world view.
I believe the reason that Being Human and Dexter are successful is because the characters speak to us about our own isolation, our own difficulties sometimes in connecting with those around us, of living in the world where other people can seem unfathomable, different from us. I just hope these programmes end on a high and not dragged out till no one cares about the monsters anymore.
Of course there have been and are long running TV series but generally they tend to be soaps or soap like dramas like Coronation Street on ITV or Casualty on BBC1 and these are popular and successful programmes, although not my personal cup of tea anymore I watched them and others like them in the past. Likewise I watched the hugely successful US imports like CSI and House – for a while. But in my opinion they got stale several series back. I don’t bother with them anymore.
The trouble with any successful TV programme is that those that commission and broadcast them want to milk that success for all its worth and care not if the standard falls as long as people keep watching. And of course if a series keeps going long enough it becomes a habit to watch for some people, which is why soaps generally do so well.
I was surprised when a new series of Being Human was commissioned. At the end of series 3 arguably the main character, the vampire Mitchell, was killed off and although the future was uncertain for the remaining characters as well as an introduction to a new threat, the Old Ones, I couldn’t see where the story was going to go next. This however was quickly answered in the opening episodes of series 4, killing off the next major character, the werewolf, George, leaving only one of the original cast, the ghost, Annie, and this was swiftly followed by replacements for the characters, Hal, the vampire and Tom, the werewolf (who had featured in series 3) and the story line of George and Nina’s baby, Eve, who may or may not be the saviour of humankind in the face of the vampire hoards.
This story line, with its prophesy element, reminded me of the excellent Buffy the Vampire Slayer (a programme that ran for 7 series by the way). There was also a bit of Blade going on with the vamps trying to take over the world. But as ever at the heart of Being Human was the struggle of the characters to live in the human world while being outsiders, monsters even. Annie has to become mother to Eve; Tom still has to find his way without his werewolf father McNair and Hal, who is an Old One, who has fight the urge to drink blood and kill by being OCD. Practicalities have to be dealt with while hiding their true nature and fighting off threats from their own kind.But how long can a series run of one underlying theme?
Dexter is a very different kind of monster and as series 6 begins everyone’s favourite serial killer is also still learning to live in the human world. His issues are similar to the characters in Being Human; he has to hide what he really is, live in a world he is not really a part of but he has to also sate his ‘dark passenger’, that part of him that has to kill.
Of course Dexter has an advantage over Being Human; it’s also a cop-show. There’s a race between Dexter and his colleagues in Miami homicide to catch a killer. And his colleagues give another dimension to the story line in each series outside of Dexter’s world. Even so can we keep going along with Dexter in his seemingly unending task to learn how to live in the world? There has to be an ending sometime before we tire of his world view.I believe the reason that Being Human and Dexter are successful is because the characters speak to us about our own isolation, our own difficulties sometimes in connecting with those around us, of living in the world where other people can seem unfathomable, different from us. I just hope these programmes end on a high and not dragged out till no one cares about the monsters anymore.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
