Wednesday 27 October 2010

I'm afraid that 80,000 people in London alone being effectively evicted and therefore forced to move away from their friends, their relatives, their schools and their communities does have striking parallels to "ethnic cleansing" which cannot be blustered away by Clegg or Cameron.

But I'd propose a new definition that reflects the parallels but ditches the racial/cultural element - the poor/unemployed aren't all from the same background, even if ghettoising them in the south coast B&B workless world may well produce exactly the level of alienation and detachment from society that Iain Duncan Smith has highlighted and claims to be trying to change...

ECONOMIC CLEANSING seems a fair way to define this policy - "the systematic exclusion of people from whole areas of the country by removing their entitlement to housing welfare support regardless of the cost of living in their current community."

This will also have very significant impact on low paid jobs in rich areas - there will be a point at which the cost of travel makes commuting to work from the lower rent areas to the high rent ones uneconomic for low paid people - this will drive up the costs for businesses that off low wages - and create substantial wage inflation, as employers are forced to offer higher wages to fill vacancies - if they can find anyone willing to travel for 4 hours every day on the overcrowded and very expensive trains.

It wil also gut quite a number of state schools in these areas, as the demand for places drops dramatically as parents take their children away with them, creating a similaraly sharp rise in demand in schools where they will move to - this itself will waste millions of pounds invested in schools, healthcare etc in London and force significant additional spending to expand places elsewhere.

The bottom line on this policy is that it bears a striking similarity to the Poll Tax debacle of the Thatcher years - another radical Tory government that brought in a scheme that was ill-judged and not properly thought through, which caused innocent low paid groups such as student nurses or low paid cleaning workers to be faced with bills they literally could not pay, so were left with no choice but the loudly voice their anger.

The Poll Tax was also dreamed up by the "Eton Toffs" in Mrs T's back office who took a naive view of what was practical or desirable based on a narrow ideological view of the world that was completely out of touch with ordinary peoples' lives.

The Poll Tax was Mrs. Thatcher's nemisis - the Tory Party realised she was a liability and that even though their supporters cheered her to the rafters, she tried to ride roughshod over a large swathe of the poorest people in Britain and this so offended the liberal British tradition of fairness and social responsibility that in the end cost her the premiership.

Will Economic Cleansing cause Clegg & Cameron so much political damage that it willl be their own supporters who put the knife in? I'd say the LibDem backbenchers must be getting pretty close to breaking point fairly soon, wouldn't you?

I sent the below to Mr Clegg and have asked the Guardian to print it as an open letter. It very much reflects Richard's view above.

Dear Mr Clegg,

I am concerned by your recent comments as reported in the Daily Mail (no doubt cut for extra impact but nonetheless - concerning). As a life long Labour supporter it probably goes without saying that I have no truck with the current round of benefit cuts nor the coalition's attitude of portraying benefit claimants as 'scroungers'. Objectifying the poor is never a pretty ideological trait.

I understand that it must rankle to pay money to private housing landlords. Indeed I find the whole thing sickening too. The process is fundamental to the current cost of private property and the shortage in affordable housing (to rent or buy). Government benefits help to bolster money hungry landlords and extortionate rents. However, you cannot cap housing benefit without tackling the problem of unfair high rents. If you wish to have an unfettered market then you can not curb benefits without forcing those on benefits from the poorest housing in the most expensive areas. If you do so then you make areas of Britain posh ghettos. You will go down in history as the man (along with your cohort) who killed social diversity and put the nail in the coffin of social mobility (what remains of it).

These areas will also be posh ghettos without the services of the working poor who service the rich - the cleaners, waiters, waitresses, nannies, care assistants etc.

To pursue a capping of housing benefit you would have to simultaneously introduce a fair (a watch word of your administration) rent policy. In addition you would have to embark on a radical and ambitious social housing building programme - or a compulsory purchase of large swathes of British housing in diverse locations to rent at realistic amounts. This last policy may provide (finally) a housing market that is realistically priced - and would probably save money in the long term.

Considering the banking bail out and the amount of mortgages that are held by these banks - the British public are now the largest owner of housing in Britain. As such I would suspect we have some under utilised power over these larger social processes for the first time in a generation. Clearly, some radical rethinking needs to occur before you become the man who cleansed British cities of social diversity.

One final point it would do you well to remember that it is not just those who are 'benefit scroungers' or as I prefer to call them - the poor - who claim housing benefit but also the working and as you like to put it - law abiding - citizens. For the increasing number of 'working poor' the need for such benefits will only increase over the next five years.

With a great sadness in my heart that you could objectify people to such a degree.

Dr A Brunton

1 in 12 social houses occupied by foreign nationals, perhaps that's why we have a housing shortage?

https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/

We don't have a housing shortage. We have plenty of housing in the wrong locations. We also do not have sufficient social housing because it was sold off for votes under the Thatcher Government in the 80s and only about 20 houses were built by local councils under the Labour government. When we rely on an unfettered public sector to provide guidance over rent we will always be in trouble and have an economy which is subject to the vagaries of the housing market.

why not cap rents rather than housing benefit?
since 1989 when many rents controls were scrapped HB has quadrupled to pay so called 'market' rents
high housing costs also make UK based businesses less competitive because their effect on the cost of living here pushes up wage rates, so that people can afford somewhere to live, but this higher wage does not increase employees real standard of living. hence jobs are lost overseas to lower wage economies (where the cost of living -and housing are lower)
China experienced house price inflation and this lead to an increase in the cost of their products
also rent levels in housing association properties are linked to start up grants, this used to be 100%, when this was cut, rents went up and there may have being an overall rise in public expenditure because the intial grant was cut
perhaps a research orgnisation interested in housing may have some up to date stats on this?

4. At 4:18pm on 27 Oct 2010, AnneB wrote:
We don't have a housing shortage. We have plenty of housing in the wrong locations.

The population is changing dysgenically, and dramatically so, and especially in inner cities. These are not attractive places to live, but only those who are bright and able can move out, which risks creating a Gary Indiana syndrome almost everywhere.

Take on board these important functional relationships:

1) Intelligence (skills/employability/educability) high positive correlation with income

2) Intelligence and birth rate - a high negative correlation.

"The number of dwellings in Great Britain increased dramatically over the last century, from 7.7 million in 1901 to 25.9 million in 2007.
Although the stock of dwellings increased in every decade from 1900, the increase was slower between 1911 and 1921 and in the 1920s."

This is when the birth rate problem became clear to politicians.
.
"The housing stock has almost doubled since 1951, reflecting the greater demand for homes caused by the growing population "

Bit it stopped by the late 60s and this led to mass immigration. Sadly, it was largely low skilled (ability).

"During the period 1971 to 2007 the number of dwellings increased by
38 per cent, from 18.8 million to 25.9 million, which exceeded the 31 per cent increase in the number of households in Great Britain, from 18.6 million to 24.4 million. Over the same period the population increased much less: by 9 per cent from 54.3 million to 59.2 million.

More recently, between 2006 and 2007, there was a 1 per cent increase in both the number of dwellings (from 25.7 million to 25.9 million) and number of households (from 24.2 million to 24.4 million) and a 0.5 per cent increase in the population (58.9 million to 59.2 million)."

The population growth is largely in immigrant sub-populations which are of low average ability. These demand social services. The cost has risen astronomically. In 2008/9 prices:

Social security benefit expenditure in real terms (bear in mind that Inland Revenue tax receipts are only £140 billion, 50% of which comes from 10% of the population).
£billion
1978/79 68.6
1988/89 92.6
1998/99 125.6
2008/09 152.4

We can't afford it.

Most people don't/won't see the scale of the problem they create through their naive equalitarianism (which has no evidence to support/justify) it. Just how equalitarian is Nigeria, Pakistan and Bangladesh? Each has a population now which is 3x that of the UK, having tripled in size in the last 50 years.

The huge growth in housing benefit only reflects the huge disparity between wages and hiouse prices and rentals.

This has to be blamed on a government that allowed house prices to soar at a time when wages more or less stood still.

There has never been a time when someone who works and is on a low income had to rely on a state subsidy to afford somewhere to live until the last few years.

Affordable homes were snapped up by unscrupulous speculators leaving them unavailable and unaffordable for young people who are now forced to rent at ridiculous rates so their landlords can pay back all the debt they were allowed to borrow in the gearing process.

The sooner house prices fall to a sane level the sooner these amateur by to let spivs will fall by the wayside and rents will fall to a more realistic level and leave more properties for the first time buyers.

Although London may be a special case wharever happened to the Labour governments plans to provide affordable homes for essential workers like teachers and nurses etc?

It really is pathetic to hear some defending a housing benefit which is more per week than someone earns on just over the minimum wage.

The government has been going round for the past week making the argument that 'It isn't fair that taxpayers have to pay for people to live in homes that they themselves could only dream about living in'. Well if that is true then what about all those homes that low paid taxpayers are paying the mortgage interest payments on for unemployed/wage reduced homeowners? Homes that again they could only dream of being able to afford. We don't hear anything about them do we?
But then again when it is home-owners faced with repossession the politicians are lining up to tell us just how harrowing being made homeless is. Strange that. You'd be forgiven for thinking there was one rule or set of standards for the well-to-do and another one all together for the poor.
Also the suddenness of the change will wrong foot much of the social care system that sets up young disabled people in their own flats and enables them to live a secure, independent life. Many of these young people, and there are some that live in the flats around me, are between the ages of 25-35, work part-time and rely on housing benefit to top up the difference on their rents. Will housing associations now have to move to evict these vulnerable people when housing benefit is withdrawn to that age group?
Finally, the politicians like to keep this argument firmly on the ground of 'scroungers living in 10 bedroom mansions in the centre of London', when the reality is its tens of thousands of ordinary people, many of them low-paid workers, who will be uprooted. I wish the media would reflect this a bit more in its questioning of the policy.

it is not the poor that have made this crisis in housing benefit it is the catasrophic rise in rents by greedy landlords, they will be horrendous scenes of forced evictions in the London area that will make the worst of Dickens look like a tea party....the words, 'are there no workhouses' will return as fact...

There is another problem with house building here, lack of land space. If we are going to be able to feed ourselves we need land to grow food. Whenever there is a discussion on house building here, no one mentions that we are a small island, with a great many areas it is impossible to build on, i.e. marshland, flood plains, difficult hills or mountains. I wish I knew what landmass was available to built on, we appear to have plenty of land, but we will starve instead.

In the south east I have watched the land disappearing under houses and roads and shopping centres for years now. Most of the south east is Grade 1 agricultural land, I think the day will come when we bitterly regret our concreting.

When you say "..how people on the ground - particularly in expensive city centre areas - are likely to be affected...." are you talking about private landlords who will have to lower their inflated rents? or council tenants who have sub-let their council flat/house and moved abroad or into their second homes? or aspiring home-owners who might see the price of property fall to a level they can afford?

And Boris believes our population is going to increase by 10 million in the next 20 years. And how do we house them?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/borisjohnson/8070153/The-Coalition-must-tackle-the-shortage-of-new-homes.html

Didn't Nick Clegg complain about people on HB and in Social Housing being able to live in parts of town where few others could afford to live?

Perhaps I got it wrong. Is he suggesting that social housing should be sold off when it is in a nice part of town and could command higher rents if open to the commercial market? Are the people who are in low paid jobs (it isn't just the unemployed who get HB) expected to pay large bus or train fares to get to their places of work? After all even posh areas need cleaners, shop workers etc.

Though Nick might be trying to meet people's aspirations. I was talking to someone who wanted to swap flats. She wanted to move to a purpose built flat about a mile away from the centre of Bath. She didn't like her social housing in a Grade II listed Georgian crescent in the centre of the city. It was something to do with the high ceilings making heating costs too high and poor levels of sound insulation.

It is odd isn't it that home-owners and buy-to-let landlords get all the help with no questions asked.
I'd like to see landlords given the ultimatum of signing a contract for say 10 years to keep their rents within an affordable price band set by the local authority or face a sales tax of 50% on their asset, with the carrot of a negligible tax bill if they do.
It is not right to heap the whole burden of this on the tenant and just hope for the best. It just needs some 'joined up thinking' really.

Sometimes I guess you just have to shake things up to deal with something that is not working and deal with the fallout when it comes.

It is probably the only immediate thing they could do, building affordable descent quality sustainable social housing, thanks to the burden of 'non job' beaurocracy take years (lirterally) before so much as a spade breaks ground or an existing building is demolished... and we dont have the money to do it now.

I would prefer to see investment in new affordable, energy efficient and good quality social housing, which would assist to contol the property market, rejuvinate our cities and provide a sustainable legacy for our future.

Cant see it happening though, too much vested interest in the status quo.

EVEN IF WESTMINSTER HAD THE SKILL, PARTY POLITICS LACKS THE WILL

We are at war with adversity. Britain has been invaded by slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, but the political generals fight, outrageously, between themselves. There is no place for party politics in times of such overwhelming assault.

SPOILPARTYGAMES

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

#14 Muggwhump

"....It is odd isn't it that home-owners and buy-to-let landlords get all the help with no questions asked."

Not sure what 'help' it is you are describing that is so easy to come by for home owners. I don't like using single personal responses as they serve little purpose than to make the writer feel less aggrieved and are far from representative, BUT.......In recent years we (home owners) have spent many £,000's and £0,000's to shore up all sorts of leaks, roofs, windows, replace rotten wood, re point, insulate........ a privately owned home. Often to do so we went without holidays, whilst neighbours in good jobs in council houses have them maintained, renovated at no cost to them selves.

It might not seem fair to some, but I acknowledge needs of lesser/poorer need to be met.

I do not suggest either or - merely question your broad brush strokes dismissing all owners. I would be interested in your explanation of the support offered to these groups by the government/tax payers.

Miliband's New Labour are hypocrites to try to alleged " social cleansing " when they under ( apparently not allowed to name for some spurious reason well know minister now in the lords ) practiced Corporate Ethnic Cleansing over the past ten years with his alleged " Pathfinder " scheme. The Pathfinder scheme was far worse than the proposed housing benefit cuts in that it targeted low income people who had been financially responsible enough to buy their house outright. It would appear that the whole object of the Pathfinder Scheme was to remove the pool of low cost housing in areas of mill towns etc and inflate property prices for the whole area. No wonder that the government is now faced with massive bills for housing benefit due to the false economic growth in average house prices, particularly smaller properties.

I suspect that when the housing benefit limits come into effect many private landlords and particularly housing associations will be forced to take the hit on annual rent. Of course many private landlords may be forced to sell as they paid far too much for the property when they purchased it in the first instance. Some families may find themselves temporarily " homeless ", but new investors will move in and fill the gap when property prices fall to a reasonable level. That could involve the widely projected average 40% fall in property prices, and of course many greedy private landlords will get their fingers burnt, perhaps even to the point of bankruptcy. Long term landlords who bought property to let from the early 1990s should remain OK, many of their long term tenants are still on their original rent which falls below the new limits. Therefore the proposed housing benefit cuts can not really be classed as ethnic cleansing, unlike the Pathfinder scheme which economically cleansed long term residents specifically.

I wonder whether they have got Lord John Prescott on the programme tonight, he seems to pop up regularly allegedly in the defence of the " poor " ?

#18 LC2

Home-owners who are unfortunate enough to lose their jobs or are forced to take a drop in wages can get their mortgage interest payments covered in a scheme set up under the previous government, it was extended by Alistair Darling in his final budget and extended again last week by George Osborne up to 2013.
Buy-to-let landlords and home-owners as well come to that are benefiting from the rock bottom interest rates. There was a short series on the BBC earlier this year dealing with the impact of the recession on ordinary people. In one of the reports Andy Verity visited a buy-to-let landlord who despite only earning £20,000 a year had somehow amassed a portfolio of 100 properties. Due to the low interest rate his mortgage payments were £40 per property per month. I wonder how much of that saving he passes on to his tenants in the form of lower rents? Without a doubt he is making far more money now than if there had never been a credit crunch.
Your point about the repair costs to home-owners seems to ignore the fact that tenants don't earn equity in the properties they rent, home-owners/landlords do.

15. At 6:44pm on 27 Oct 2010, Jericoa wrote:

"I would prefer to see investment in new affordable, energy efficient and good quality social housing, which would assist to contol the property market, rejuvinate our cities and provide a sustainable legacy for our future."

So, instead of writing socially desirable writing, why don't you explain why urban regeneration has not worked in Lagos etc?

I'm being serious. If what you (and others) are writing is representative of this generation's analytical and social engineering skills given what has been explained to you, we have no future. Can you see why? Too many people have been taught to write desirably rather than accurately.

Jake the Pegg throws a hissy because the proposed housing benefit changes are described as a form of cleansing. He extrapolates to ethnic cleansing. Hisses more.

As I’ve mentioned before ‘Social Cleansing’ is the most likely intent, but now there is ‘talk’ of flexibility in it’s ‘application’ ( For a flexible approach read 'selection,') and back room deals to avoid a media massacre but ....

.... How much of the new policy is based on the potential for ....

Gerrymandering?

"1. At 2:43pm on 27 Oct 2010, richard bunning wrote:
I'm afraid that 80,000 people in London alone being effectively evicted and therefore forced to move away from their friends, their relatives, their schools and their communities does have striking parallels to "ethnic cleansing" which cannot be blustered away by Clegg or Cameron."

If you look at the ONS data which I have referenced elsewhere, and do the numbers, you'll see that the 2.3 million earning over 50K a year (left off the histogram of the income up to 1000 pw in one of the
graphs) contribute £70 billion of the Inland Revenue's income tax, whilst the other 27 million earning under £1000 pw contribute the other half. That's 10% (2.x million) vs 90% 927 million).

Just bear in mind that income is a proxy for intelligence and the latter is fixed and genetic once matured (except for senile decline), and that with ability comes infertility (low birth rate). If you punish the 10% (which don't make much use of the NHS or state education and resent funding the 90% upon whom much of it is wasted in their view), one disproportionately hit the national revenue if they migrate. What many don't grasp or accept is that if we keep breeding and importing more people with low cognitive ability, in the end we will find ourselves up to our ****** in crocodiles which can't feed themselves and which can't be helped. See Lagos, etc. Saying nice things for social approval won't stop it happening note.

The concerns over the proposed housing benefits cap are pure scaremongering.

Huge govt subsidy of housing benefits is most unfair for those who are low paid and trying to pay their private rented sector rents from low paid jobs, even though some of these may also be receiving housing benfit monies alongside their low level wages.

The massive govt housing benefit subsidy distorts housing rental levels and makes them artificially high for the main benefit of BTL vultures. The Coalition govt have got the proposed housing benefit cap absolutely right as is not, in any case, due to take effect until 2013.

The housing benefit cap will have the overall effect of lowering the prevailing housing rent levels ... BY 2013 ... and will create a more level playing field between private self financing tenants and govt subsidised welfare tenants as the higher level inflationery subsidies will be removed and the greedy landlords will be forced to accept generally lower rent levels, through the forces of supply and demand as some of the higher rent level artificial rent subsidies will have been removed.

This is in everyone's interests ... except the greedy landlords ... I like it a lot and it is long over-due and brings a degree of sanity and fairness to our low paid workers in the private rented sector.

#22

Sorry table02, you are quite right, I forgot to mention that anyone with an IQ less than 120 should not be allowed to reproduce for 2 generations before we bother building anything nice.

Happy now?

This is the first time I have been driven to comment on BBC i-player. What a joke, the very "hard up" family who cannot afford to live in social housing (as interviewed on newsnight) can afford a large flat screen TV and a DS lite for their kids???? Get real, there are so many real people in poverty who cannot afford these niceties. Max support at £400 per week and get a job !!!

The reason I live in London is because it is a diverse wonderful community that educates my son and myself everyday. There should be rich, poor, black, white, young, old in every town. Even considering these policies means you have to consider the issues of the Paris surburbs model or the "Plastic" gated community US models. It's just not right and it is just not British. Perhaps affordable housing, without the right to buy, or the part buy /part own model that key workers have might be a better routes. I really question the true motives behind these ideas... We have biger fish to fry. UK Tax evasion and avoidance in the past year could clear the deficit, yet they consistantly focus on the poorest, single parents and mid/low income earners.
Appalling.

What will the impact of the new policy be on the overall rental market, and on property prices?

I just spent around 90 seconds on a well known property website and found a 4 bed in Southwark at £420 a week. So, for the guest on tonight, sorry if you have to move but to claim that there is nowhere in Southwark that you could afford is patently untrue. Hopefully kicking in £20 a week towards your housing would be affordable.

For once it seems that Labour hasn't done it's focus group work. Even in London the overwhelming public opinion is in favour of this cap. I can't imagine how Labour trying to justify HB of over £400 a week plays out in the North East, North West, Wales or the West Midlands.

Regarding comment on newsnight that the current HB system is inflating the market because landlords are targeting people on HB, I have never heard so much rubbish as to say that housing benefit is responsible for inflation in housing. The reality is that it is impossible to find a landlord that is happy with you using the toilet in your "own", rent paid house, never mind claim housing benefit! Ads for renting include no pets, no children no DHS, no putting picture on the walls etc etc this shows how far removed from reality MPs are! The reality is, like the bankers creating the collapse, the wealthy with multiple property's have got richer on the back of the poor tenant by pushing the market to its limit.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

If good working people cannot afford to pay their mortgage or rent then they are faced with 3 options:

1. Work more hours
2. Find a better paid job
3. Move!

So why should it be any different for those on benefits? For once I think the Torys have made the right decision, although in my opinion £400 a wk is too much, its more than many people in a week. Hey, I wish I could afford to live in Chelsea but its never going to happen even though I've worked since leaving school AND been to university to try and get better jobs.

If housing shortage is the prob people are shouting about then its the banks who need to be attacked for not lending money to buy. I know many people renting who would like to buy but as they are working find it hard to save the crazy deposits that are expected.

By the way I work in the public sector and my job is at risk because of the Torys cuts so I'm definetly not a fan, but I'm 110% in agreement with the benefit and housing caps, it should have been done a long time ago.

£400-£500 a week rent! jesus, You could rent a house for a month in manchester for less than that. It would appear the landlords and property munchers have been fleeching the tax payers for way too long, and not just in london - which is a dump-hole of a city anyway -but else where as well. The end of rip-off landlords is on the horizon then, don't you think...its just been one big rent racket eh. And its coming to an end ...good! (not unless your lifestyle is governed by collecting high rents from tenents mind you) The consequece of this will be a further drop in house prices, so i wonder what that'll do to the economy that is already weak?

Just watched the programme - the truth is there are many schools in the country where children with ADDH are looked after and the woman ( I am sorry I forget her name) on the programme could look after her disabled mother anywhere in the country!

It is interesting that she did not make any comment on any desire or plan to work herself out of the social housing!

The couple shown who are both unemployed were giving the fact that they had lived their for so long as an excuse to stay in the same place!

I work in public service - I have moved with my family 7 times in the past 20 years, gone to places where I got a good job and where the schools were good for the children. My two sons share a room. They are good boys - well behaved teenagers who do not get drunk and do well at school. They understand we are not wealthy and do not ask for fancy clothes.

Yet, I could not afford a two bedroom house in southwark! Or Islington! I do not qualify for housing benefit. I would love for my children to grow up in those lovely places too!

Yet, I am working hard, as my wife, to pay for the woman and the couple on your programme and many many like them. There are more like me and that is why these people are able to live on our taxes.

They do not teach their children the value and respect in being self sufficient - it is better to have less of your own than more from others

That is what stops the social moblity! The chap from the big issue is so right! And that is why the woman next to him did not say anything to what he said!!

I say, limit the benefit for those who are genuinely unfortunate - even most disabled people can work - I do and I am disabled genuinely with paralysed leg.
Then more people will pay taxes and take less from the pot and the genuinely unfortunate and those who have temporary misfortune will have more from the pot to be treated well

Stop the poor attitude we have in this country - encourage people to becoe self sufficient and get some self respect

Hate saying this - but all three people in social housing in your programme and film were overweight too!!!

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Watching Newsnight tonight re housing benefit it seems that the three against the capping of housing benefit to £20800 per year live on a different planet, some folk I know don't earn that much. The woman on the show is getting £26000+ (plus other benefits I guess) and she doesn't want to move because her children will have to go to another school if she's forced to move. Come into the real world girl we all have to cut our cloth to suit our pocket; except those on benefit it would appear. The Labour councillor was predictable, let those on benefit live where they choose and the size of the tab, which the rest of us pick up, is irrelevant I paraphrase but that is essentially what he meant. These socialists think that people will thank you for hand-outs, they won't, they'll ask for more; the woman on the show is a prime example.

I felt that the discussion on tonight's programme, re housing benefit, presented a very narrow view of the type of people in receipt of this type of benefit. The Conservative Minister talked about such people as those in social housing; the poor; the uneducated and those not working. This is often the case, but by no means everyone: I am a single mother with one daughter at school. I receive housing benefit, however I work full-time in education; have a first class-honours degree and do my best to provide for both of us. However, I live in a town in Bucks where private rentals are very high. My rent is £750 per month for a 2-up, 2-down terraced cottage. My salary does not enable me to pay the full amount and pay bills and living costs as well, therefore housing benefit enables me to live in this property. I am not sure how the cuts will affect me personally. I do not feel it is my "right" to have this benefit and very much appreciate it. One day I would like to earn enough so that I dont actually receive the benefit, but it is a constant struggle.

given that Mr Shaps claims that housing benefit has pushed up rents, what would he suggest has pushed up house prices?
In 1989 the Conservative Government scrapped many rent controls as they felt market rents would lead to more rental accomodation becoming available to meet the homelessness problem.

restoring rent controls would reduce the housing benefit bill surely?

I felt you might have had a spokesperson from a housing charity on tonight?

There are weaknesses in society, not least selfishness, but this is most clearly seen in the City of London

if people like David Cameron had 10% of what they have now they would surely have more than they need? He and his friends have pots of money, their health, careers, privileged backgrounds and education, why do they need to keep hamering the weakest of society who lack much of this?

if it is carrot or the stick, is real leadership waving the big stick around and stoking up bad feeling against many who cannot protect themselves,

what sort of dark society are we heading into?

Some people are being really harsh - I thought that this site was moderated but I cannot understand why being "overweight" has anything to do with the topic on this site!(Simon) By the way - how trim are you, or is it ok to be overweight if you are not in receipt of benefits?! Let's not get cliched about those in social housing. I agree that there will always be those that abuse a system - housing benefit included - and I also think that our system does not necessarily encourage those to improve their situation; it may be easier to sit at home. I am not including the people interviewed on tonight's programme though. Why shouldn't people live in "nice" areas? Are they undeserved? Perhaps they grew up in the area; maybe they would like to stay near friends and relatives - just like the well-off can. Sometimes life circumstances remove choices and opportunities. How about those that lose their homes due to unpaid mortgage payments? Home "owners" should not feel too smug about living in their "own" home until the mortgage is paid off. Until then, they are borrowing money from the bank. I hope every smug person reading this can do a little empathising and a little less preaching to the "poor". Thanks!

Mod. Me at 36. and whilst making you collective mind up.
Regarding Obamas comments about Rebuplicans "sitting at back" of Bus

You'll find it on Fox:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/25/obama-tells-republicans-sit/

Did you think i was joking moddy?

I have to say that I fully agree with the new capped housing benefit. Firstly I managed to buy a terraced but have now lost my job. As I was stupid enough to buy my house by working hard and paying taxes I now find myself in the situation where the Government will not pay me any housing benefit as I do not live in rented accommodation.

I am being penalised twice - I have to pay taxes so that people can live in much larger houses and much better areas yet when I need help I am told unlucky take a minium wage job. I now run the risk of losing my house.

There is no incentive to buy anymore as no job is safe so what is the point of buying and struggling to keep my head above water and pay a mortgage when all I need to do is let the bank take my house and then find rented accommodation and let other tax payers pay my rent!!!

Please tell me why I should carry on trying to make a half decent life when at the time I most need help I am turned away and told to get on with it yourself???

The controversial radical reforms to Housing Benefit that this Con-Lib Coalition Government wants to impose on us are deeply disturbing from a social policy and social cohesion perpsective, and the reforms will undoubtedly be regressive in their impact upon both the poor, especially the unemployed.

The Newsnight item tonight scarcely focused at all on perhaps the most worrying element of the Housing Benefit reform package, namely, the intention to reduce a claimant’s Housing Benefit by 1/10 if they have been unemployed for over a year. In social policy terms, this proposal is unbelievably harsh and vindictive against unemployed people. In any civilized society, the last thing that should be happening to any person who has unfortunately lost their job is that the indignity and poverty they already suffer on account of their unemployment is then compounded by the even greater catastrophe of being evicted from their rented premises because of rent arrears. An arbitrary cut of 1/10 in their Housing Benefit rent rebate will have a devastating impact on the financial ability of the typical unemployed tenant to stave off the scourge of homelessness and possible destitution, through their efforts to ensure that they do not fall into rent arrears. By bringing in such a draconian change, our Government is sending out a clear message to society that it views unemployed people as the undeserving poor, and that if you are unemployed and you are not able to find work within 1 year, then you also deserve to lose your rented home as well. Many of those who are unemployed and living in privately rented accommodation, if evicted because of rent arrears that have been caused by a sudden reduction in Housing Benefit entitlement, will not qualify for any emergency Housing from their Local Authority. Thus, when they eventually lose their rented home due to Housing Benefit cuts, they are likely to become destitute if they cannot find another private landlord who is willing to rent a room to them. This is all on top of much anecdotal evidence that many lanlords are prejudiced against unemployed people abd are often therefore unwilling to rent out their premises to any tenant who is already, or who is likely to become, dependant upon Housing Benefit. Are such regressive changes to benefit rules therefore the hallmark of a civilized society? Is this what the Government meant when they dishonestly assured all of us that they would ensure that in tackling the deficit the poor and the vulnerable in our society would not be targeted?

Something that is frequently overlooked by those who routinely misinform the public about Housing Benefit is that probably the majority of its recipients are actually in work. The problem for these claimants is that their low earnings mean that they are unable to afford to pay their contractual rent in full without the additional support of this benefit. It may well be the case that the annual cost of Housing Benefit is something in the region of 20 Billion Pounds. But in a country in which virtually no affordable new social housing is being built; in which the scandal of homelessness is still prevalent; and in which there are no legal controls on the exorbitant market rents that some private landlords are allowed to charge for often sub-standard premises, this is surely one welfare bill that is well worth paying if it means that homelessness and destitution can be reduced?

It should also be noted that even before this Government’s plan ruthlessly to axe the Housing Benefit budget will reap its terrible social consequences for the poor and the unemployed, many of those who are currently in receipt of this benefit find that the amount they actually receive does not cover their contractual rent in full. For a number of reasons relating to how this benefit is calculated and its eligibility rules, there are already some significant reductions in the amount of Housing Benefit that many claimants currently receive. So many of these claimants are already having to raid their diminished savings, go into debt with credit cards, or use the other welfare benefits that they and their families receive in order to make up the shortfall that often exists between their contractual rent and the amount of Housing Benefit to which they are entitled.

This type of iniquitous policy change on Housing Benefits is just one element of a much more disturbing broader cynical political strategy that seems to be emerging from this Coalition Government. Under this cynical and divisive strategy, those elements of the population that the Government has ideologically deemed to be the “undeserving poor”, a well as the unemployed and those on welfare benefits, are being targeted and demonized as the scapegoats for the country’s enormous deficit. We now constantly witness Government ministers (and their rabidly anti-welfare state friends in the right-wing tabloid press) ruthlessly exploiting the public’s ignorance and prejudices about welfare benefits and those who are legitimately claiming these benefits, by creating an artificial wedge between those of us who are fortunate to be in work (the hard working, worthy majority) and those others in our society who are either unemployed or otherwise reliant upon a disability welfare benefit or some other welfare benefit (the lazy, work-shy scum). This wicked Government is whipping up a climate of hatred and contempt against the poor and benefit claimants, whilst also engendering a climate of fear, uncertainty and anxiety amongst those who, mainly through no fault of their own, have come to depend upon this or that welfare benefit in order to make ends meet and survive. This strategy of scapegoating the poor and the unemployed is morally repugnant.

Anyone who know anything about the ideology of the modern post-Thatcherite Conservative Party will appreciate that, for them, the financial deficit has presented the perfect opportunity to carry out their cherished ambition of dismantling the welfare state and reduce the size and social functions of the state. This anti-welfare state ideology, for different reasons, also appeals to certain free market elements within the Liberal Democrats too. So we should not be too surprised that the deficit is now being exploited by the ideologically distasteful alliance between these two parties as a smokescreen to launch what will probably be the most vicious and iniquitous assault of welfare provision in this country for a generation. My only hope is that enough left-leaning Liberal Democrat MPs who still believe in the virtues of a welfare state and the social cohesion that this brings to wider society will combine in parliament with similarly progressive elements in the Labour Party to defeat these outrageous cuts to a worthwhile benefit that is there principally to ensure that ordinary people can keep their rented homes and do not end up becoming destitute through homelessness.

As we can't afford the £152 billion social security bill (as well as everything else) one has to ask why New labour and others kept importing more people into the country which they knew were a disproportionate drain on it. Unless of course those angling for the Ks and Ps a few years ago (a New Labour Lavender List?) had been pressing for more immigrants knowing full well that a) this would push the welfare state to breaking point leading to the death of Fabian Socialism and regulation of business and financial services and b) provide lots of grateful (or the freebies) people in the inner cities thus ensuring even more years of New Labour and filling the cash registers at Tesco, Top Shop etc? They are not nationalists, they only cared about short-term profit, not communities.

"26. At 10:08pm on 27 Oct 2010, Jericoa wrote:
#22

Sorry table02, you are quite right, I forgot to mention that anyone with an IQ less than 120 should not be allowed to reproduce for 2 generations before we bother building anything nice.

Happy now? "

You clearly don't understand any of this do you? You can't sneer your way out of this. Up until the 70s, professional psychologists spent most of their time assessing people and allocating people to jobs on the basis of their abilities. From decades of data it was known what people in different band could effectively do, what was required for certain jobs

We are not talking of IQ=120 here (less than 15% of the population), we are talking below 100, and we are talking about a much higher birth rate well below 100 than that above.. If somewhere like Nigeria has a mean of 70, and Pakistan 85, can you do the Gaussian calculations? Why do you think Third Word countries are as they are? Why do you think their economies don't work? Why do they have such poor GINI coefficients and high 'corruption'?

John Bird and the Roddicks.....- the big issue is that all their cosmetic claptrap exploits populism/emotion, which actually subverts.

Try to see through the sugar. Such people get off on narcissistic supply, regardless of whether what they do is any good at all (in fact, in the end, it's harmful, they just don't see how).

This is what it comes to (and it did in Russia in the C19th and in Europe in the C20h): Bright people don't have many if any kids because they can't afford to, whilst not very bright people feel entitled to benefits from others so they can have large families. Consequence, insidious urban blight, and in the end, economic collapse. See Gary Indiana.

That's the modus operandi of subversion. That many can't see this is a function of poor intelligence and disturbed (arrested) personalities..

"40. At 11:47pm on 27 Oct 2010, Sarah wrote:
Some people are being really harsh - I thought that this site was moderated but I cannot understand why being "overweight" has anything to do with the topic on this site!(Simon) By the way - how trim are you, or is it ok to be overweight if you are not in receipt of benefits?!"

Since you brought it up, what's your 1st Class degree in, and when did you get it?

#47

What has a 1st class degree to do with real life intelligence and talent in particular, table? Can you sing like any of the three tenors or compose, write lyrics to and play and sing them like Mr Pete Seegar? Can you twirl like I do? Can you write like Mr Shakespeare did? Can you paint and build innovations like Leonardo da Vinci did? Can you sculpt like Michelangelo or Rodin did? Can you sing and write songs like Mr Cohen does? And, above all, are as amazing like Mr Cohen seems to be with women and who seems to have as well an understanding of what real love means and realisation of his weaknesses and honesty about 'things'?

And anyway, where are you? Hiding in a hole, in prison, at home with the woman you married and had children with?

#43 I have a different take on this Ben what was In social policy terms, this proposal is unbelievably harsh and vindictive against unemployed people. was the mass immigration that we didn't need. Jobs, houses, healthcare, classrooms taken from the British people. If we hadn't had this mass influx of people there would be more houses available, and less cost to the taxpayer. And don't tell me we needed them, we have 8 million people not working who could be, so why did we need several million more here. Oh and yes 17% of our IT graduates without work as it's been taken by immigrants or off shored.

£400 a week is far above the minimum wage for an awful lot of people in this country. So you are suggesting that poor people should pay for others to recieve the extraodinary sum of £400 a week in housing benefit. Just think how much money this is, where I live that would get you a two bed house for a month. Apparently it costs the country 20 billion a year, and then the socialist were laughing when 1 billion was taken from the rich in child benefits, everybody has to share the cost of the reckless mistakes by labour and the bankers.

Perhaps people will begin to see a house as a home and not a get rich quick investment, or is it the BTL having to sell up? But can't. With the unemployment that's coming down the track, can you blame anyone for not buying a house.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/houseprices/8092028/House-prices-are-still-falling-says-Nationwide.html

And does this explain our high unemployment in low skilled jobs?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/8090774/Just-one-in-four-highly-skilled-migrants-in-skilled-jobs.html

I suppose if I were an employer, I would prefer a highly intelligent person on a low wage to help my business cheaply.

I honestly, genuinely, completely fail to see what most of the Posters above are moaning about .....

Are you so blinded by your ideology that you cannot see ....

Dim Con Coalition Ministers have taken a 5 per cent pay cut and inmates of the upper house are only taking £300 per day in allowances!

Isn’t that enough?

Just what - exactly - do you want?

Get real!

We are all in this together, aren’t we?

Knuckle down, put your bikes on the buses and stop moaning!

Otherwise you’ll wear yourselves out ....

.... moaning about all the bad things dat a gonna ‘appen ova da next four yeaz!


In the best interest of the nation ............

Say it loud, and say it proud .....

Yes! .... We can!

And whilst you are being hypnotised by this endearing chant ....


Just remember ....

If you had read the Lib Dim and Big Con Manifestoes properly you would have seen all this coming, wouldn’t you!

You have no-one to blame but yourselves!

Doh!





#48 Mimpromtu
"....What has a 1st class degree to do with real life intelligence and talent in particular, table?"

I may be mistaken, but haven't you just accidentally paraphrased what Tabb02 was saying, in a roundabout way.

Sarah #36 very clearly, albeit in a 'nice' well meaning sort of way, indicated the sort of society we are continuing to generate. Initially in adding her own very narrow personal view to a criticism of the slightly different, celverly 'managed/manipulated' view put out by NN. She then compounded it #38 by crying 'it's not fair - you're not nice - I'm going to tell my dad/teacher...... ‘ Sorry Sarah, but there is probably a clear reason staring you in the face why future generations don’t stand a chance.

We are continuing to breed generation after generation of people who 'can't cope' with Real Life, which is not all soft and cuddly and designed to fulfil each individuals every whim. It's tough, and mostly grey, and grim and most of us have to spend a lot of time trying to do what's right even when it isn't nice, or easy, or pleasant and then get called all sorts of names for trying. Too many expect a hand out, when what they need is an arm up.

We have a big problem with a top heavy poorly targeted welfare system. At its inception it was a much needed safety net to prevent children walking the streets with no shoes or dying of malnutrition. Now, it provides an easy way out for those who ‘want’ to partake of all of the niceties of modern life but are unable to unwilling for a wide range of reasons to earn the ability to buy them.

Too many fail to understand that compassion and support should more often come in a hard square unwrapped box, not a glittering parcel with a bow.
Last night, some very odd (or perhaps not) examples, in the studio and on VT, of those concerned about, but clearly not understanding the capping of HB.

NN Scotland. Now here is NOT how to manage a debate and NOT get too deeply entrenched with the ‘woe is me – it’s not fair brigade’. See here:
https://bbc.kongjiang.org/www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00vn558/Newsnight_Scotland_27_10_2010/

Reasons to be cheerful? NO!

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/jeremy-warner/8090590/The-Fed-is-fuelling-the-catastrophe-of-fast-rising-raw-material-prices.html

I know I keep banging on about food shortages etc, but it is going to happen, especially with the fiasco of biofuels.

Does anyone ask the children?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/women_shealth/8091893/Freeze-ovaries-for-childbirth-in-later-life.html

My daughter constantly berates me for being old! (I'm not that old!) She often said in her teens I wish you were younger when you had me, then you would go shopping and do more with me. And now she worries about me dying sooner than she would wish. Out of the mouths of babes?

Isn't it about time we considered what the child needs and not the selfish women, who must have it all????

#53

By all means, talk to your dad but you know what Philip Larkin's view was on mums and dads though I'm sure it does not apply to all of them, thank goodness. Your teacher? Please do until all the cows come home.

#52

Blame?? What a shame.

#55

Beautiully and honestly considered, Ecolizzy.

mim

#55 EcoLizzy
"... Isn't it about time we considered what the child needs and not the selfish women, who must have it all????"

Yes! But will they? part of the problem lies with the scientists and doctors who invest their lives in 'finding' cures and improvements to things that nature was managing perfectly well for very good reasons. Then they want to reap the rewards. He who shouts loudest.......

A pro argument is that as we live longer we should be able to reproduce longer/later. Nature clearly does not agree if intervention is required. And nature does not gift us with the good health/energy to deal with it either. Why don't we respect nature any more?

I was 'old enough' when I had my children to have made some tough decisions and understood what it would mean. I was young enough to have the energy and health (OK there is some luck there) to care for them. I am still young enough to enjoy a fantastic adult relationship with my sons - both physically and intellectually. Long may it continue.

Your coverage of the housing benefit issue was disappointing in that it failed to concentrate on the largest groups that will be affected by the changes, low paid workers and the disabled.
Housing is a con in this country, when it comes to the banks mortgage books and therefore house prices, our politicians abandon the 'free market' without a care in the world. Yet when its private rents and buy-to-let landlords the 'free market' is allowed to reign supreme. Why is this never pointed out?
It is relevant because most people out there who agree with the governments housing benefit policy would blush if they knew the scale of public money being used to put a 'glass floor' under house prices and thereby providing 'stability' in the housing market, underpinning the over inflated equity they are luck enough to enjoy, is being funded by the taxpayer.
I feel you didn't do the subject justice last night and today the news agenda will be different and an opportunity has been missed.

43. At 01:39am on 28 Oct 2010, ben66 wrote:

"the reforms will undoubtedly be regressive in their impact upon both the poor, especially the unemployed"

Have you considered the possibility that regressive policies may be necessary to even halt the dysgenic problem which we are now dealing with? Unless this is done, there will be no viable future for most in our inner cities. The problem with the SE in recent decades has been that this is where low skilled immigrants have settled but have not dispersed (same in Midlands and NW). If financial services have been the indirect hub of employment in the SE and these have reduced lending so that ultimately less public money is available to support a massive social welfare budget, these people will have to move out of the cities, or leave altogether as their way of life is otherwise unsustainable.
Elsewhere, Welsh people are being told to 'get on the bus' to find work, why not in London, with the suggestion they live elsewhere too.

The reality is that to do this proactively and to regulate it usually requires Big Government (as in China where there's effectively an internal passport system, in Russia too). Here we just have cutting off public money as a tool. What we saw in microcosm last night is in reality representative. The current system encourages more to come to Britain and Britain can't afford it. The effect is the destruction of the inner cities in ways which bombs never did. See Gary Indiana or Detroit.

Regressive polices here are a necessary evil. Rawlsian Social Justice is not just dysgenic, it also feeds off people's irrational short-term sentiment, not their objective analysis, which necessarily has to take the longer view. Some people can't do that sort of thinking. These people are not very bright. They are like children. Lots of children with no parents to supervise invariably ends in tears. Lord of The Flies is a warning of what DOES happen in life. See autocratic states.

Bear in mind UK population ageing (growth decline) and see:

Nigeria in the same period (Mean IQ of Nigeria around 70, two SD's below European mean)

When you think of how we abolished child labour, ask yourself why chronological age is the key to being a child and not mental age.

Next, Pakistan

Next, Bangladesh

Look at the ONS statistics for demand on social benefits and unemployment by group. What do you see? Look at educational attainment by group - what do you see?

Those who react emotionally to such facts need to consider how cognitively 'resilient' they are, as we can not correct ability through education, all education does is select skills which are emerging as people mature, and provide opportunities i.e shape them, hopefully in directions which are socially productive.

The big issue is that most people STILL do not understand how education works. Their beliefs mislead them into thinking that disadvantage is something which can been ameliorated through providing money and educational opportunity. But the reality is that social mobility largely completed decades ago as state education and scholarships etc allowed many who had the ability to emerge and benefit, and subsequently move.

They then bred with others like them The myth that one can take anyone from any deprived group and turn them into gold is a (vulgar Marxist) myth.

Importing and breeding more people of low ability is just national, economic suicide, or subversion. Those who have encouraged this have a view on one thing. The cash registers at Tesco, Sainsbury etc. That's where most benefits go. It is VENAL.

"49. At 09:40am on 28 Oct 2010, ecolizzy wrote:
If we hadn't had this mass influx of people there would be more houses available, and less cost to the taxpayer. And don't tell me we needed them"

As I keep saying, think about who WE refers to as these indicatives are as treacherous as the psychological verbs.

Tesco, Sainsbury, Arcadia etc shareholders needed these immigrants and their high birth rates as consumers ecolizzy. That's what was driving this. After housing costs, the benefits go in these shops and thus into the profit margins. Falling populations are bad for profits.

They did their projections and argued immigration was good for the economy. But the shareholders don't live where its hits. It's a diffusion of responsibility issue, and that's the venality of the shareholder idea. One can't pin the venality upon one person, or even upon one group. Fairness, don't kid yourself. Look at the histogram I references and look at the tax bandings too. Do the exercise I set out and you'll see the subterfuge. Boycotting programmes like The Apprentice won't work, too many 'like it'. Narcissists are often masochists.

Obfuscation rules. :-(

I've just had a light idea. If a street lamp was installed with a wide panel of glass and a dancer, let's say Angela Rippon, did a number for Comic Relief underneath with the reflections being filmed by a creative cameraman, it might make children and adults look up a bit more, as well as, obviously love the hopefully colourful and entertaining performance. If invited, and permitted, I wouldn't mind joining this wonderful lady with a twirl and so on.

Monika

Some common sense...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/8092249/MI6-chief-Sir-John-Sawers-says-secrecy-is-vital-to-keep-UK-safe.html

#62

Are you indicating, mr table, that Tesco's has now been joined venally by the Lords Sainsbury?

there will be a U turn on the housing benefit debacle...this madness has Andy Coulson's hands all over it and it has been an unmitigated disaster watch out for a megga U TURN....

According to Radio Times only a couple of days ago Paxo was supposed to have been presenting Newsnight on Monday and Tuesday. I hope everything is fine with him.

mim

1) Paul Mason's blog "Gary - City of the century? BBC News Channel/BBC World"

2) ETS (and much posted on in these blogs over three years ago to little avail).

If you can't join up the dots and add to the picture, one shouldn't be watching Newsnight, it's a waste of time. Watch the X Factor or listen to Cheryl Cole talking about her terrible life struggles instead.

LC (53) - excellent post.

Gavin Esler:- will you please stop emoting and getting faux-agitated?
It's isn't edgy, it just puts people on edge which reduces the quality of the discussion.

Shop till you're dropped... Moss reaches sell-by date

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/fashion/news/shop-till-youre-dropped-moss-reaches-sellby-date-2118449.html

For three years she was Sir Philip Green's darling. But the model's new Topshop collection is also her last

-----------------------------------

These profit worshiping free-market anarchists can be quite uncaring, especially when business is at stake.

Watch out Cheryl Cole!

@ Mim #68 - Jeremy was on this Tuesday! He probably didn't do the Monday night because he had to do an extended Newsnight the week before.

#71

Oh yes, so he was, but how about last night?

#69

Oh no, I'd rather stick to Newsnight and having seen the introduction to tonight's programme am now considering watching the programme with Kirsty in the chair to hear and see what Mr S. and Mr U. have to say a out the current policies of the MI6. If I don"t manage that tonight, I shall definitely watch it on the iPlayer tomorrow.

mim

P.S, I have both read the book and seen the film 'Lady's Chatterly's Lover' and remember in particular the tree scene. By the way, were there any dogs present?

'sorry' bloggers but I do not read much of what you write about these days as I do not feel like it.

IGNORANCE IS.....???

#74 Mimpromptu

In strongly suspect the compliment is returned.

Interestingly reading and writing (as with speaking and listening) are often linked together as if they are complimentary activities. It can help to separate them and see them as opposites.

For when we speak and write, we are mostly merely repeating what we already believe to be so.

When we listen and read, we may, just may, learn something new. Always worth a try.

'Tonight, we examine the impact of the proposed cap on housing benefit.'

I could watch iPlayer and find out, but might one presume the 'examination' mainly comprises NN somehow 'hearing the views' of a succession of folk who don't like traveling far but like living in nice places, and somehow see the disconnect between their employability and income potential being made up by folk who do have to travel very far, and often, to make ends meet. Often to pay taxes to keep others in styles most could find amenable.

I thought this was a nice articulation, and as it only refers to a mindset at Ch4 cannot cause any discomfort in this posh neighbourhood:

https://rantingstan.blogspot.com/2010/10/fighting-our-corner.html

As for tonight, why do I feel Boris will, for now, be back in favour chez Aunty? Attack, attack... attack!!! https://bbc.kongjiang.org/www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11640219 'Johnson benefit comments attacked' on home page link.

Not sure Ken will be thrilled, mind.

Can't please all your mates, all the time.