COMPASS: Attacking the easiest targets

compassoffice Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 05:09:56 PM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

It should not surprise us that again New Labour is claiming that all of society’s ills can be solved through getting people back to work. However, it certainly should disappoint us that this latest attack is made on those most vulnerable in society.



In her first interview since the reshuffle Housing Minister Caroline Flint stated that up to a million people in social housing including those on council estates should be expected to actively seek work as a condition of their tenancy.

Flint argues that the culture of “no one works around here” – and by this she is referring to what she describes as a peer pressure; an atmosphere of depressed aspirations – has to be broken. Surely in this she may be right, if there is a fatalistic atmosphere in these areas as she describes, this is damaging to them and society as a whole. However, what she seems happy to ignore is the reality of 21st century social housing provision.

Since the great council house sale in the 1980’s the stock of publicly owned housing has been declining. Now only the most desperate and in need have even the slightest chance of provision. There are 4.6 million people living in social housing in Britain, of these there are 2.6 million who are of working age, the population of the average council estate is made up of single mothers, the disabled, the elderly and the desperately poor. This demographic is significantly different from the national average, therefore should it surprise us that 1.4 million are currently out of work. Flint seems to think that this issue can be solved with a stick; she wants to penalise and punish people for failing to find employment, when the reality is significantly more depressing. These are the people who have been let down by the system; a decade of New Labour and they have consistently been forgotten. It is not through the fear of losing their homes that these people should be helped. Instead it must be through better, cheaper child care provision, a more comprehensive education system which doesn’t leave people behind, early years provision, and a realisation that some problems can’t be solved with force but must be solved by an enabling state.

We should not be penalising people because we have let them down. By shifting blame to those in desperate need we create an enemy of some of the most at risk in society. At a time when the popular dream of getting on the housing ladder moves further and further out of most people’s reach how can we consider denying a home, a roof, and a community to those most in need. We should be ashamed that it was a Labour minister who said this and we should recognise that most problems can’t be solved by attacking the easiest target.

Zoe Gannon, Research Fellow, Compass

tags: , , , , , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
COMPASS: Attacking the easiest targets | 50 comments (50 topical)

Re: Our social recession can't be solved by (#1)

by TonyHannon on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 06:36:04 PM GMT

Zoe - This post looks like hackery.

Taken on the basis of what you've said - the proposal is to require eligible people to "look for" work. So you're wrong when you assert "...she wants to penalise and punish people for failing to find employment...[my italics]" . In fact, you're wrong when you say it's a penalty.

"New Labour" did not say "all of society's ills" will be cured by any one measure.

Let's leave the hackery to the Conservatives eh?


Re: Caroline Flint is right (#2)

by NorthernMonkey on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 06:49:11 PM GMT

I'm sorry but this is absolute garbage.

First of all, Caroline Flint never said "she wants to penalise and punish people for failing to find employment" - what she actually said was that there should be punishments for those who cannot even be bothered to LOOK for employment - there is a huge difference.

In my past, I lived on a council estate for many years and whilst most on there are hard-working and decent, there were some who were quite frankly lazy and just cashed the Dole cheques week in week out without looking for work and without feeling the slightest bit of guilt. This is wrong.

People should not expect to recieve welfare for doing nothing. If people genuinely cannot work, or cannot find work, then they should be entitled to welfare.

But if there are people who can work, and there is work available, yet they choose NOT to work, then welfare should be withdrawn.

We should never accept homelessness in society and society should ensure homes are available for all - but if you are to accept housing from the state, you should be expected to at least make the effort to find work. If not, then you don't deserve the welfare.

Of course, expanded child care facilities and improved education is also vital for helping in this situation.


But we are in the Labour party to lift up the poor and disadvantaged - but you do not do that by fostering a welfare culture where people can get welfare without looking for work. The true way out of poverty is employment. People who work have a higher self-esteem and their children grow up in a culture where working is seen as the norm. This is what we should aim for. It is cruel and heartless to leave people on welfare when they can do so much better for themselves.


And Caroline Flint was very much on the right lines (providing you actually read what she said and not make some strange interpretation of it).

I get the feeling that those who oppose this measure are generally people who have never stepped foot on a council estate in their lives and think that by patronising the poor, you are actually helping them. Trust me, you are not.


Re: Caroline Flint is wrong (#5)

by donpaskini on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 08:45:29 PM GMT

The original post is one I agree with, it's the comment that I'm replying to.

Caroline Flint referred to 'new council tenants'.  Because of the shortage of social housing, these are mostly people in priority need - either with very young children, or drink and alcohol addictions, or mental health problems.  Do you think that someone with a 6 week old child should have to look for work or face homelessness?


Her idea isn't actually legally enforceable (the Tories spotted this one).  If people were to be evicted, at the moment, they could just present to the council as homeless, and get allocated somewhere else to live after a period in temporary accommodation at higher cost to the taxpayer.

I've been doing some work with people who have been running successful schemes in getting people into work, and they say that this proposal would actively undermine their efforts.  For someone who has been homeless, for example, getting them somewhere safe and stable to live is vital before they are able to start looking for work.  For what it's worth, they say that the bigger problem with trying to get people off welfare into work is that in many areas, most of the available jobs are ones where employers don't want people who will need additional support (e.g. because of mental health problems) or time off to look after their kids when they are sick.


There are already plenty of sanctions against people who won't look for work, and plenty more on the way as part of reforms which involve getting private and voluntary sector companies to give personalised support to get people who have been out of work for a while into jobs.


And finally, whatever you think about this issue, thinking that people who oppose this are all well off and just 'patronising the poor' is pathetic.  Unlike you, I've spent the day talking to people who are terrified that they are going to be kicked out of their homes and their children are going to be taken into care as a result of this.


[ Parent ]

Re: Caroline Flint is wrong (#6)

by NorthernMonkey on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 09:07:15 PM GMT

Do you think that someone with a 6 week old child should have to look for work or face homelessness?

No, and neither I nor Caroline Flint has said that they should.

Her idea isn't actually legally enforceable (the Tories spotted this one). 

Since we're the party of government, we can actually change laws.

And finally, whatever you think about this issue, thinking that people who oppose this are all well off and just 'patronising the poor' is pathetic.

You might not agree with me, but I'm entitled to my view. I think keeping people on welfare when they can do so much better is cruel - and it's the children I feel sorry for as they'll grow up thinking that not working is acceptable and have no aspirations of their own.

Unfortunately, there are people in society who abuse the welfare system and claim benefits when they are perfectly able to work and there is work available. This is wrong and it actually makes life worse for those who genuinely do need benefits as the money gets spread more thinly.

Unlike you, I've spent the day talking to people who are terrified that they are going to be kicked out of their homes and their children are going to be taken into care as a result of this.

Don, as far as I'm aware, you don't know how I spend my days so you shouldn't be presumtive.

Also, I think saying people are 'terrified' is slightly melodramatic. If people genuinely can't work, or have very young children, or there is no work available then no welfare will be removed (Flint made that clear). But if people in council housing can work and there is work available, then they should work.


[ Parent ]

Re: Caroline Flint is wrong (#9)

by donpaskini on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 09:32:45 PM GMT

"Since we're the party of government, we can actually change laws."

So how would you change the laws?  Would you bar people from social housing if they don't look for work?  If you don't, then Flint's idea is ineffective, if you do, then you end up breaking up families and with a return to Cardboard City as when Maggie Thatcher was in power, with people with mental health problems and addictions sleeping rough.  Neither is an especially appealing idea.

"You might not agree with me, but I'm entitled to my view"

Indeed.  But it was you who slagged off opponents of Flint's plan as middle class and out of touch.  People on both sides are entitled to their view without being assumed to be speaking in bad faith. 

"I think keeping people on welfare when they can do so much better is cruel"

I think all people should have the opportunity to work, and be better off in work than on benefit.  But this won't achieve that goal and will in fact undermine efforts to do so.


[ Parent ]

Re: Caroline Flint is wrong (#11)

by NorthernMonkey on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:52:25 PM GMT

So how would you change the laws?  Would you bar people from social housing if they don't look for work?  If you don't, then Flint's idea is ineffective, if you do, then you end up breaking up families and with a return to Cardboard City as when Maggie Thatcher was in power, with people with mental health problems and addictions sleeping rough.  Neither is an especially appealing idea.


I'm sympathetic to the idea that welfare should be withdrawn if a person doesn't bother to look for work even though they're perfectly able to do so. That does not include those with mental health problems. Of course, if there are children involved then that makes the matter more complicated - you can't withdraw welfare from children because it's not their fault if their parents refuse to work.


However, if children aren't involved - then welfare should be withdrawn if someone refuses to look for work and they're able to do so, and this includes council housing.


I'm sure that if any welfare cheats knew that their welfare would be cut off if they didn't look for jobs, then they'd soon change their minds about not working.

Indeed.  But it was you who slagged off opponents of Flint's plan as middle class and out of touch.  People on both sides are entitled to their view without being assumed to be speaking in bad faith.

They may not be speaking in bad faith, but they might not have the experience to know what is best for the poor. Take somebody like Polly Toynbee - she's never been hard up in her life, yet feels perfectly able to attack anyone who actually doesn't believe that patronising the poor through welfare over work is a good thing.

I think all people should have the opportunity to work, and be better off in work than on benefit.  But this won't achieve that goal and will in fact undermine efforts to do so.

I disagree here Don. I do think we must get tougher on those who are too lazy to work (and yes, these people do exist) in order to improve their own lives as well as those who genuinely cannot work.

This reform is not the sole solution by any means though - we need expanded child-care facilities, better education etc. as well.


[ Parent ]

Re: Caroline Flint is wrong (#16)

by donpaskini on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 06:55:15 AM GMT

"they might not have the experience to know what is best for the poor. Take somebody like Polly Toynbee - she's never been hard up in her life, yet feels perfectly able to attack anyone who actually doesn't believe that patronising the poor through welfare over work is a good thing."

I take the view that the people who know best about how to solve the problems of poverty are the ones who have direct experience of it (rather than, say, Polly Toynbee).  One of the things that I find saddest about this whole thing is that Caroline Flint attended the first ever UK conference which brought together people living in poverty with politicians and civil servants to work out what should be done to tackle poverty, she seemed really interested and to really value what people had to say, and then went away and came up with nonsense like this instead.  If you want to see some of the ideas for tackling poverty that people taking part in participative projects have come up with, have a look at www.ukcap.org/getheard for some examples.


[ Parent ]

Re: Our social recession... (#3)

by Al on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 08:11:21 PM GMT

Whatever flint meant she seems to have mightily pee'd off every single charity related to homelessness and poverty. It doesn't seem to have been interpreted very well, Shelter says its a return to victorian england.

I think some of the proposals are good but I'm not sure making someone homeless if they don't look for work is going to help much - although the idea of pressuring them into it makes sense.


Re: Our social recession... (#4)

by doctordunc on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 08:31:06 PM GMT

I'm sorry but I think Zoe has been quite restrained in her language.  These proposals are disgusting.

If they're NOT disgusting (i.e. if we're not meant to take them seriously) then they are headlining grabbing inanities of the most desperately pointless kind.  If there's the faintest possibility that this nasty gimmick might translate into actual policy then I want to see Flint out of her job.  Now. 

The idea that a Labour government - a LABOUR government - would throw the unemployed out of their homes because they don't fit into their definition of the 'deserving poor' sickens me to my stomach.  Who will be arbiter of whether people are seeking employment in Flint's world?  Could someone discover on the same day that they've lost their incapacity benefit AND their home?  Will we throw children into the arms of private landlords and loan sharks (or worse, the streets) because of their parents' approach to job seeking?  Either we will and we don't deserve to be in government, or we won't and Caroline Flint should shut up.  I trust it's the latter.


[ Parent ]

Re: Our social recession... (#7)

by jkitleft on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 09:23:12 PM GMT

I'm quite positive about Flint, despite being sceptical of New Labour. Do you not think there is a point Duncan, that if you can't be BOTHERED to find work, then you don't deserve to be on welfare? Or council housing? You may disagree with it, but it's not disgusting. Disgusting would be if Caroline Flint had said that we should abolish unemployment benefits, or incapacity benefits.

When people think of why they support Socialism (which I don't necessarily adhere to, in purist terms), they may think back to grainy 30's images of the Spanish Civil war, but also the Jarrow marchers etc. The Jarrow marchers NEEDED benefits. They could not find work. They had conviction, and protested to the government about the state of employment. They deserve benefits.

If you can't be bothered to even look for work, why do you think taking away their council housing would be disgusting?


[ Parent ]

Re: Our social recession... (#8)

by doctordunc on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 09:31:11 PM GMT

Who will decide who "can't be bothered" and who just can't?

Even those who genuinely "can't be bothered" do not live in a vacuum.  They have dependents, etc.  But this punitive measure would hurt more than the "offender".

Putting it bluntly, I don't believe governments should be in the business of throwing poor people out of their houses.  No housing charities have welcomed these anouncements.  It is not a helpful or effective way to get people into work (the proposals do not create a single job, they do not provide a single bit of training, they do not support employers nor give them incentives to take on 'difficult' employees): it is at best a cheap and unpleasant headline and at worst a disgusting - and I don't retreat from the word for a moment - a disgusting attack on the most vulnerable in our society from a government that should be seeking to represent them.  Subsequently, I am not remotely positive about Flint.


[ Parent ]

Re: Our social recession... (#10)

by donpaskini on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 09:39:52 PM GMT

While there are some people who would rather stay on benefit than work, the reasons why most people in social housing aren't in work isn't to do with their personal behaviour, but due to the lack of jobs, lack of childcare, and the fact that many employers won't hire someone with a mental health problem or addiction.

It's easy to get fixated by this idea of people who can't be bothered to work, but all the research shows that using threats to get people into work is ineffective (and it has been tried not just here in the UK but elsewhere).  For example, unemployment benefits in the USA are time-limited, and this year 2 million people are about to see their benefits run up just as unemployment is rising and the economy enters recession.  The same arguments were used about people being lazy and so on, and the result is millions left with no support at all.


[ Parent ]

Re: Our social recession... (#12)

by HenryG on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:10:39 PM GMT

If the Tories had introduced this we'd all be demonstrating against it. The sad fact is that is a Labour Minister using Thatcherite language to kick the most vulnerable in society. She may not think that many of that demographic vote in the marginals of middle england, but I tell you what, there are plenty of Labour supporters who do care. They will be shuddering at this debate and where this is going.

I'll be honest, I read her interview and I felt sick. I saw her on TV and I saw a chilling expressionless manicured face.  Brown should have given Housing to Jon Cruddas.


[ Parent ]

Work or homelessness (#13)

by rwendland on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:31:40 PM GMT

The ECHR says:

  • Everyone has the right to respect for his ... family life, his home (Art 8.1)
  • No one shall be required to perform ... compulsory labour (Art 4.2)

This proposal isn't breaching this, but morally it is skirting toward the edges. What a dreadful proposal, making people homeless when they are able to pay the rent (maybe ex-partner, adult children or parents are helping pay the rent).

Any such incentives/pressure to look for work should be attached to claiming benefits, not your and your children's home. 


Re: Our social recession can't be solved by (#14)

by JM on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:00:28 AM GMT

This thread shows the absolute worst of the left.

"Who will decide who "can't be bothered" and who just can't?"

For god's sake man! Do people really have to explain to you what a ridiculous arguement this is? 


Re: Our social recession can't be solved by (#15)

by NorthernMonkey on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 06:15:06 AM GMT

I have to agree - I cannot understand the logic of some people. And to say that watching Caroline Flint made you feel sick is just ridiculous.


[ Parent ]

Re: Our social recession can't be solved by (#19)

by doctordunc on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:34:54 AM GMT

I might add that, as you say above:

That does not include those with mental health problems. Of course, if there are children involved then that makes the matter more complicated - you can't withdraw welfare from children because it's not their fault if their parents refuse to work.

you would appear to be agreeing with Caroline Flint only in the case of single, childless people of working age (and then only if they do not have mental health problems).  This is not, shall we say, one of the larger categories of new council house tenant.  But of course, it's my logic that's hard to follow.


[ Parent ]

Re: Our social recession can't be solved by (#17)

by doctordunc on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:54:07 AM GMT

Apparently so.  Please explain.


[ Parent ]

Re: Our social recession can't be solved by (#18)

by doctordunc on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:00:35 AM GMT

Actually on second thoughts don't bother.  If people really can't follow the logic that Labour Party members/supporter don't want their government to bring in legislation that could increase homelessness then there is no point us trying to find common ground.

I get letters from people who've had their benefits stopped but still cannot find work (generally people on incapicity benefit) - and there are many others who are terrified that they are going to be next in that sweep; and it is quite apparent that this is inconsistent around the country.  If they have their benefits stopped are they also going to be made homeless?  That is the question that hundreds of people in genuine need are asking because of Caroline Flint's anouncement.

You and I know that the government will not enact this policy.  It is kite-flying; it is unworkable; it doesn't stand up to even a second's scrutiny.  So why say it and frighten people?  And why defend it in such a rude and discourteous manner?


[ Parent ]

What exactly is the proposal? (#20)

by rwendland on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:32:16 AM GMT

I cannot work out what exactly Flint's proposal is, from the original Guardian article.

People on Job Seeker's Allowance already have a duty to seek work (and I think something like a skills audit), so she obviously means a wider group of people than this.

Is she proposing that those claiming Housing Benefit (or Council Tax rebate) for council housing should also have a similar obligation to seek work? If so the obvious incentive is to withdraw the benefit/rebate rather than homelessness, so I think she must mean something more than this. [This proposal also raises such questions like which people in the houshold does it apply to; if father works need 22 year-old-son/daughter look for work? What if son/daughter is caring for infirm gran who otherwise would need a council care package?]

So it seems Flint may be proposing this applies to people not even claiming benefit. But then consider case where daughter moves to council flat to be close to infirm elderly parent(s) to look after them, and they pay for her rent etc rather than pay £400+/week for care home. Daughter does not claim JSA or benefits - should she be forced to look for work and parents go to care home?

It's no wonder Gordon Brown has rapidly backed away from such an ill-thought through proposal (by the Housing Minister?) I suspect this was just a media ploy to shift popular attention away from the bugging story.


Re: What exactly is the proposal? (#21)

by doctordunc on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:56:19 AM GMT

The proposal (on inspection I think it's rather generous to give it such a grand name) is that part of the council housing contract will be that you will actively seek employment - i.e. if you are deemed not to be actively seeking employment (presumably by the job centre, so therefore at the point when your benefits will be stopped) you will be evicted.  Losing your income and your home is not normally a very pleasant combination.

Fortunately, this will not be happening, because it is such a ludicrous proposal.


[ Parent ]

Re: What exactly is the proposal? (#22)

by rwendland on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:47:29 PM GMT

Yes, which seems to mean single-carers of employment age need not apply for local authority housing - be that caring for nearby elderly relatives, mentally unwell siblings or full-time for their children, even if they are fully financially supported by family or ex-partners to do so. Flint's proposal would seem to need some worthiness-police to judge if your form of lack-of-employment is morally good. Let's not go here.


[ Parent ]

Re: What exactly is the proposal? (#23)

by JM on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:35:51 PM GMT

Sorry, but that's nonsense.

Nobody here think that full-time carers or single parents looking after small children should be looking for work. And nowhere has Flint said or implied that she does.

Jobseekers allowance is conditional on looking for work while not forcing any of the above to work - why should this proposal be any different?


[ Parent ]

Re: What exactly is the proposal? (#24)

by rwendland on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:55:53 PM GMT

That's roughly my point - why not simply leave the incentives/pressure contingent on benefits like JSA (or other individual benefits)?

I'd like to see an implementation outline for Flint's rough-proposal which doesn't run into these problems of  deciding good/bad lack-of-employment in households. Look at my first post in this "What exactly is the proposal?" thread which explores a few implentation options, all problematic.

Please offer another implementation outline if you have a good one.


[ Parent ]

Re: What exactly is the proposal? (#25)

by JM on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:04:04 PM GMT

As Dunc pointed out on the other thread, much of welfare reform is about changing culture or ethos. Currently, social housing is about rights with little corresponding responsibilities. By attaching a responsibility to look for work (even if failure to comply with that responsibility results in something other than eviction), doesn't that remove an ethos of something-for-nothing in housing?

In fact, I think that a change from a something-for-nothing ethos was specifically mention in Flint's speech (or was it the interview)


[ Parent ]

Re: What exactly is the proposal? (#28)

by donpaskini on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:38:08 PM GMT

There are plenty of responsibilities for social housing tenants, that's why they sign a contract when they move in.  Responsibilities range from, for example, paying the rent to not making neighbours' lives a misery through anti-social behaviour.  Failure to comply with these responsibilities lead to sanctions.  So social housing certainly isn't a 'something for nothing' deal, and never has been.

Just to check where I think we've got to with this discussion (which is going on over a number of different threads now):

Your interpretation of Flint's policy is that it is about some unspecified sanctions to people who are able to work but aren't doing so.  These people (some do exist, but not nearly as many as folklore has it, and they don't by and large get caught by these sorts of crackdowns) aren't actually the ones who get allocated social housing.  I think we've agreed that the people who do get allocated social housing are in fact going to be exempt from any of these responsibilities to look for work, because of their health problems or caring responsibilities.

One alternative idea which you've suggested to eviction is to put the rent up if people don't look for work.  Rent is in nearly all cases covered by housing benefit/local housing allowance, so threatening to put the rent up isn't likely to impress people.  I guess you could reduce their housing benefit, in which case what you've done is essentially to repeat the Jobseekers' Allowance scheme, but with the clever twist that someone in social housing gets sanctioned twice whereas someone in private housing gets sanctioned once.

These are all to a greater or lesser degree technical issues of implementation, but one of the main objections to Flint's scheme is that housing and employment policy are quite technical, and if you start messing about without understanding what the implications are, then you end up with unintended consequences.

An infinitely better alternative would be if instead of government ministers announcing stunts off the top of their heads and then supporters of the government try to puzzle out how they could be adapted into something which isn't completely daft in forums such as this, the government involved people who live in social housing in developing policies to tackle unemployment and poverty amongst social housing tenants.  Caroline Flint, for one, has seen this approach in action, and how successful it can be.


[ Parent ]

Re: COMPASS: Attacking the easiest targets (#26)

by yozza on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:11:34 PM GMT

There are already sanctions for people claiming jobseekers allowance who fail to look for work.The fact that Flint's idea is probably illegal and certainly unworkable raises some very important questions about Flint.She is either completely incompetent or on a deliberate trawl for tabloid headlines in the full knowledge her proposals will never happen.I happen to think it is the latter.It takes a special talent to unite housing and poverty charities AND the Tories against us on a single issue,well done Flint.On a more basic and fundamental level I didn't join the Labour Party to kick poor people out of council houses-call me old fashioned.

As local authorities would have to re house the evicted people, probably in private accomdation at a higher cost, it doesn't even work as a sop to the right.


Re: COMPASS: Attacking the easiest targets (#27)

by JM on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:17:30 PM GMT

Again, Flint never talked about eviction as a punishment


[ Parent ]

Re: COMPASS: Attacking the easiest targets (#30)

by yozza on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:46:50 PM GMT

"Again, Flint never talked about eviction as a punishment"
 
That's interesting.The Guardian,who spoke to her, thinks she did.Do you have a link to Flint's denial/backtrack or whatever?


[ Parent ]

Re: COMPASS: Attacking the easiest targets (#31)

by JM on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:49:16 PM GMT

I've read her speech and the Guardian article and she nowhere mentions what punishment she envisages for breaking the "committment contract"

You can read it here:
http://www.communities.gov.uk/speeches/corporate/fabiansocietyaddress


[ Parent ]

Re: COMPASS: Attacking the easiest targets (#32)

by JM on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:54:14 PM GMT

Also, you say that the Guardian thinks that Flint said that eviction would be the punishment for not looking for a job. I'm unable to find a Guardian article that implies that is their belief.

Could you link the one you're referencing?


[ Parent ]

Re: COMPASS: Attacking the easiest targets (#37)

by yozza on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 05:53:15 PM GMT

The Guardian never mentioned the Fabian Speech.The Guardian mentioned "in an interview with the Guardian yesterday".Furthermore, the Guardian stated "the defiant Flint" was standing firm today despite the uproar she had caused.I'd also add that Flint failed to take the chance to 'clarify' any misunderstanding in media interviews yesterday.I can only conclude the impression Flint has left is the impression Flint intended to make.


[ Parent ]

Re: COMPASS: Attacking the easiest targets (#39)

by JM on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 06:33:02 PM GMT

So, I'll take from that that you can't point to anything from the Guardian or the speech implying eviction.


[ Parent ]

Re: COMPASS: Attacking the easiest targets (#38)

by yozza on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 05:56:05 PM GMT

and neither did I join the party to have a pop at immigrants.You Tory tosspot.


[ Parent ]

Re: COMPASS: Attacking the easiest targets (#43)

by doctordunc on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:26:06 PM GMT

Can we get rid of this tosser?


[ Parent ]

Re: COMPASS: Attacking the easiest targets (#44)

by TonyHannon on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:59:51 AM GMT

It's clear that the "Huge Organ" he's talking out of with his fake name is his arse.

Looks like something you'd read on Guido. Ban the idiot.


[ Parent ]

Re: COMPASS: Attacking the easiest targets (#50)

by TonyHannon on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:09:15 PM GMT

Not at all.

It the response of an adult to a moronic, right-wing simpleton who thinks debate involves calling Caroline Flint a MILF.

You'll see there are plenty of Conservatives who post heere and have good debates. They have brains - you don't (or don't appear to).

Your method and language are beneath contempt and are more suitable of gutter websites like The Sun.

Go and play there with your "Hugh Jorgan" - you're wasting space here.


[ Parent ]

Re: COMPASS: Attacking the easiest targets (#29)

by yozza on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:39:10 PM GMT

"I get the feeling that those who oppose this measure are generally people who have never stepped foot on a council estate in their lives and think that by patronising the poor, you are actually helping them"

oh please, I grew up on a council estate and lived in a council house until my late 20s.My son and his wife have been lucky enough to get a housing assocation house on a large estate on Merseyside despite the obvious handicap (according to Flint) of both being in full time employment.Spare us the claptrap, we've had enough of that from Flint already. 


Re: COMPASS: Attacking the easiest targets (#40)

by writingwrongs on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:38:35 PM GMT

Right, so if Flint isn't saying that eviction is the ultimate stick to council tenants who don't look for work, then what, exactly, IS the substance to the proposals? We're going to tell social housing tenants to look for work, but if they don't, we'll do nothing anyway? There's clearly a punitive element to the proposals and they are the ones that have rightly enraged people.

As others have said, we have the JSA and benefits system to monitor people's job-seeking efforts (for good or ill). There are already punitive sanctions in place at that level. It's hard to see how tying it to place of residence, Victorian tied cottages styleee, is going to help.

Can those who support these proposals, or changing the law to (presumably) end councils' statutory duty to house the homeless, explain what will be done with those people who DON'T look for work and lose their homes? Will their hopes of finding work, or any sort of decent life, improve or decrease when they have an NFA address. Will life on those estates be more or less stable? Will there in fact be lots of flare-ups as harassed council workers/coppers (who's gonna do the evicting?) come to turf people out?

And given that there's a recession possibly coming, isn't it going to be that much harder to FIND work, let alone prove you're trying to find it.


[ Parent ]

Re: COMPASS: Attacking the easiest targets (#45)

by JM on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:13:00 AM GMT

1. You admit that there's no evidence that Flint's proposals included anything to do with eviction as a punishment and yet go on to write a whole post about how eviction is wrong.

2. The punishment (if there is any) could be something else like upping your rent etc.

3. There doesn't neccessarily need to be a punishment - simply asking people to sign the contract does two things. One, lays down an idea that that the right to help from governnment sits alongside responsibilities; and two, there's a lot of research that shows that writing a promise down makes it harder to break - psychologically, it's difficult to go back on something you've said if someone can show it to you (this is an excellent book to learn more: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Influence-Psychology-Persuasion-R-B-Cialdini/dp/0688128165)

4. Your final point makes no sense - of course it's easier to prove you're trying to find work than it is to actually find it. Just show someone all the job application forms you've sent - along with numbers for the H.R. departments you've sent them to so that they can confirm receipt of application.


[ Parent ]

Re: COMPASS: Attacking the easiest targets (#36)

by spiderlounge on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 05:47:29 PM GMT

I find this proposal absolutely bizarre.

Imagine what will happen when the sort of people this is designed to hit can't get a house because they won't work, but meanwhile legal asylum claimants, who are barred from work even if they are willing, are given housing because they would otherwise be homeless...

This policy is the BNP's wet dream!


Re: COMPASS: Attacking the easiest targets (#41)

by louis on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:10:42 PM GMT

I do wonder if some of Caroline Flint's critics have ever been anywhere near a council estate, let alone canvassed one and listened to what hard working Labour supporters in low paid jobs have to say about people who can't be bothered to work.


Re: COMPASS: Attacking the easiest targets (#42)

by writingwrongs on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:16:37 PM GMT

I wonder if any of Caroline Flint's supporters are at any point going to answer any of the practical queries raised about her proposals. Or are they instead going to stick to making unfounded, inaccurate, snide and irrelevant speculative criticisms about the personal circumstances of other posters?


Re: COMPASS: Attacking the easiest targets (#46)

by JM on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:16:57 AM GMT

I believe that, if you look at my posts on this thread and on the Compass one on this topic, you'll find that I've tried to do exactly that.

I think even DocDunc would admit that, although we disagree, I've got reasonable points. 


[ Parent ]

Re: COMPASS: Attacking the easiest targets (#47)

by JM on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:19:03 AM GMT

Sorry, meant the Free Socialist one. This is the Compass one.

Doh! 


[ Parent ]

Re: COMPASS: Attacking the easiest targets (#51)

by doctordunc on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:23:33 PM GMT

To be fair, despite being initially rather dismissive of people's concerns, you have engaged in the debate perfectly reasonably.  I guess you would have to admit that others (saying that people who disagree with Caroline Flint are all middle-class and haven't been to council estates, etc.) are not really engaging reasonably themselves?


[ Parent ]

Re: COMPASS: Attacking the easiest targets (#54)

by JM on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:47:41 PM GMT

I agree and haven't used that arguement.


[ Parent ]

Re: COMPASS: Attacking the easiest targets (#52)

by doctordunc on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:23:57 PM GMT

What do you mean 'even'!?


[ Parent ]

Re: COMPASS: Attacking the easiest targets (#53)

by JM on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:43:15 PM GMT

:)

No offence meant. I just meant that 'even' someone who strongly disagrees with me the topic would agree that I'm presenting a reasonable perspective.


[ Parent ]

Re: COMPASS: Attacking the easiest targets (#55)

by doctordunc on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 12:32:43 PM GMT

No offence taken!  Just thought it was funny!


[ Parent ]

COMPASS: Attacking the easiest targets | 50 comments (50 topical)