Thursday, 28 October 2010

Labour "Debate"

Tory suggestion that perhaps we shouldn't be subsidising people to live in the smartest parts of town (perhaps aware that such subsidies create artificial demand and therefore keeps the rent/house-price artificially high to everyone's detriment) and set a limit of £400 a week on rent which is MORE THAN MOST WORKING PEOPLE, whether renting or mortgaging spend on their housing.

Labour calls this "social cleansing" of the poor, likening it to the "final solution" and threatening millions of homeless. And they're not joking. They Actually think this is evil.

Why should I or someone who's earning minimum wage and living in a studio in Hearne Hill, commuting into the centre for the job be subsidising someone to live in Knightsbridge, when neither of us can afford to live there?

Why? Can you explain why suggesting the non-working poor move to join the working poor in a grottier suburb, one perhaps less convenient for the central business district, is like the holocaust? Can you imagine anyone of the right suggesting that welfare slavery promoted by Labour is like the gulags without being accused of Hysteria. Can you explain to the cleaner why someone who's not working should live somewhere the cleaner would NEVER be able to afford?

Dan Hannan has it right. The left really does think the right is evil. I, however think leftism is a mental illness, part self-loathing, part fear and the rest a Stockholm syndrome about wishing to pay more tax. Leftism is ambivalece towards the poor: I think the left despise the poor, and don't believe the poor are capable, which is why the policies espoused to solve the problem of poverty will always be PEOPLE LIKE THEM forcing the poor to mend their ways and be grateful for the hand-outs good people deign to give them. I think the left is fearful of competition, what might be proved better, which is why the free-market is an anathema. If a free market gives freedom to demonstrate preferences of which the Lefty disapproves (smoking, drinking, low-brow culture, home-ownership etc...) then that would challenge his world-view, which is that everyone SHOULD be like him. The lefty, when challenged always retreats into THATCHER, EVIL,CUTS, JOB-LOSSES, whilst the righty is calmly pointing out that every job saved through "social protection" costs at least one not made in the first place. The Lefty won't, can't listen, because he's on a 2-minute hate, motivated by fear, a lack of confidence and self-loathing springing from distaste at his emotions towards the people he claims to be trying to help.

I don't hate lefties, (some of my best friends are lefties) but I do hate the way they do business, and I do think they're deeply, pathetically wrong. The right may not be OF the poor, though many of us are, but we are FOR the poor, those who want to be free, anyway.



8 comments:

DC said...

How about a tax on the Guardian to fund an increase in the £400 housing benefit. Then the lefties can feel good about helping people whilst the rest of us get on with it. Simples

DC said...

Of course with the circulation of the Guardian this would either make the paper very expensive or the subsidy would go up by about 0.05p per household.

Anonymous said...

What I don’t understand is the complete logical inconsistencies of their arguments and why they have such a blind eye for them.

For example “you will move these people out of the rich areas , it’s social cleansing and will create ghettos”.

Right, so where is it they will actually move to?

Existing lower income areas, which brings two contradictions from them.

A. These areas are already slums, in which case why are they not demanding something is done about this, instead of demanding that these slum households provide financial support for people living in richer areas.
B. These areas are not slums, so they are basically saying these people are scum and will ruin the area, as opposed to just getting along like everyone else.

I just find it lulzy that labour, the supposed party of the working class, are arguing that people should be given more in benefits than some people can even earn.

Umbongo said...

Jackart

I agree with every word in your post. Unfortunately Shapps, Cameron and Osborne are preparing to buckle under the BBC/Guardianista onslaught. Already, per this morning's BBC Today "discussion" between Shapps on one side and the Today interviewer and (as part of the BBC campaign to get him re-elected mayor) Ken Livingstone on the other, the policy is being bent to allow benefiterati with children at school in up- or middle-market areas to be insulated from this policy.

Mitch said...

How about a tax code you can volunteer for which increases your income tax by 10% to fund rubbish like that? see who applies.

Polly Toynbee springs to mind.

North Briton 45 said...

On the issue itself, there are very many problems with the policy. I do not know of a London MP of any party who thinks it is remotely possible to shift tens of thousands of families out of the capital to outlying boroughs and to the coast. Apart from anything else, many of the people on housing benefit do actually have jobs.

As for the language used, it's not just a problem of the left, shown when Boris Johnson yesterday who said he would not allow 'Kosovo-style cleansing' under his watch. Yes, he did go around bleating he had been quoted 'out of context', but that was rubbish; everyone had quoted him precisely in context, often at great length, because what he said was so funny.

For the record, Polly Toynbee has apologised and withdrawn her 'final solution' problem.

Use of the two phrases above and even 'social cleansing', as employed by the egregious Chris Bryant, are utterly stupid as they do distract from the issue and provide the perfect opportunity for the government to feign outrage and avoid talking about the utter impracticality of their proposals.

Jackart said...

OK. So do you think it reasonable to pay someone not working £20k per year to rent somewhere which costs more than most people earn? £400 per person, per month gets you somewhere to live, yeah even in london.

A 20k limit is a vast disincentive to ever get off benefits. A 5k limit per person/10k per household would be more reasonable.

You use words like "impracticality" which is your way of defending a broken status quo, and the reason the public finances are utterly fucked.

The fact is the Coalition's limits have caused most people to say WHAT! You can get 20k in HB? FUCK THAT.

The coalition are being very, very generous. The previous government was Absurdly disgustiingly profligate with tax-payers money.

Try defending a 20k HB bill?

Go On. Try it.

Anonymous said...

"tens of thousands of families"

Are there 10s of thousands of families being given over 20k in housing benifit?

There was an error in this gadget