London's Burning

[DanaC]

What really pisses me off abot these evictions and benefit penalties, is this: many of the rioters are young, many are still children. So, they're saying that if such children have rioted then their families will be evicted from their social housing. Why? Because they've proved themselves unworthy of that social housing. Since they have acted in such a way, why should tax payers in these communities foot the bill for their housing?

Trouble is, that if there are children in the family (and in most of these cases it appears to be the case) then the local authority has a statutary duty to ensure the safety and security of those children and to assist any struggling families in building that safe and secure family environment. All kicking them out of council houses will do, is force a bunch of families into expensive private accomodation that will make it een harder for them to survive as a family, or simply onto the street or friend's floors.

The local authority will then have to deal with that situation as part of its 'corporate parent' responsibility, and the whole exercise will end up costing the counil, and therefore the council tax payers of that area several times more than the cost of allowing them to stay in their council/social rent house.

Whilst one part of the council authority is exercising its right to evict, a different part of the same council will be left to try and deal with the family in whatever context that ends up being. It is just a way of looking tough and decisive, that solves absolutely nothing, and exacerbates problems in families that are already probably struggling for internal cohesion against a range of negative pressures.

To me this just seems bizarre and retrograde. What makes more sense, as far as i can see, is yes to prosecute those caught in criminal acts. And also to censure the parents who allowed their children to become involved. But censure really is only part of the answer when dealing with families. Those who became involved need educating and working with, to help them become part of a community they apparently feel apart from. I have no problem with short prison sentencnes for the worst offenders, but most of these youngsters could be best dealt with by enforcing some kind of community service, possibly helping in the clean up and repair task in the areas where rioting occurred.

This knee-jerk response is ridiculous and actively works against resolving the core problems at play.

There are all sorts of reasons why I object to this stuff that are more political in nature. The fact that only one class of the multi-tiered rioting crowd can actually face this kind of penalty for instance, but there are also very real pragmatic concerns with this. Bearing in mind the potential ramifications of eviction and benefit sanctions, it is even more disturbing to consider the speed with which these people are being tried and sentenced. Courts running all night, solicitors pulling 14 hour shifts. speedy decisions are not necessarily the best decisions. And conveyor belt justice may not be robust.

[Undertoad]

In the US public housing goes to shit every single time, and we have given up on the idea. After a while it became obvious that putting people there was just about the worst thing you could do for them. We tear 'em down and don't rebuild anything, and people find somewhere to live.

And the neighborhood improves dramatically.

[DanaC]

Ours have always been a mixed bag. There are nice estates, and not so nice estates. Estates in areas where there' s lots of work, and easy access to services and where the atmosphere is not materially different to any private estate, and there are sink estates on the bitter edge of nowhere, with few transport links, fewer jobs and a pervading sense of violence and hopelessness. And inner-city collections of estates that live cheek by jowl with some of the wealthiest communities in the world.

And there are slighgtly downtrodden but scraping by estates where some of the families are in crisis and some of the kids are running amok, but most are just living a 'normal' life, with a job they quite like, and their kids doing well at the local school.

What made housing estates worse, in my opinion, was the change to social housing laws under the Thatcher government. Council tenants were given the right to buy their houses from the council, and encouraged to do so with easy to get mortgages, partial equity schemes, and the fact that they were valued at considerably less than a house which had started out private.

So lots of people bought their council houses and flats, and then eagle eyed developers started buying them up for a low price (which was still mad profit for the seller). Where the bought properties were flats, they usually ended up as developed executive apartments, walled and fenced with security gates and guards (I lived in one such at the edges of a Salford estate in the early 90s). Where they were houses, many ended up as private sector rentals competing with the council for tenants and often resulting in a transient and troubled populationg moving through the estates.

Councils were barred by law from investing the money from the sale of council houses back into the social housing stock. It sat, cordoned off and unable to be spent for years. So, housing stock began to shrink. At the same time, the constant message being put out in government and in the media, was that being a proper adult citizen effectively meant being a home owner. Renting a council house became highly stigmatised and working families who'd once been quite happy to rent a house in an estate, because it was the next best thing to buying in terms of security, were suddenly taking up any assistance scheme they could to get out of social housing and buy a house.

When I was a kid, one of the first things you did when you came of age was get your name on the council house waiting list. It was just a part of becoming an adult if you were from a working-class background. And by the far the majority of us were. Now, it comes with a bunch of baggage and most of it has been farmed out to the private sector, or to arms length not for profits.

It was a deliberate strategy to reduce social housing in this country and turn us into a nation of home owners.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

Maybe I should think of a way to improve our lives a little by using the education system (or something like that)", where as a stage 3 might say, "Hmmm, this is not the ideal environment to raise my child in. Who's fault is it?"

So we will fix a parent with arrested cognitive development by throwing them out on the street. By ignoring the problem. Or by blaming low incoming housing. At what point does that become logical?

On the other hand, a parent may not be cognitively retarded. It is just an excuse. The question answered only with speculation. Just another formula for failure. A major reason for social breakdown is so many conclusions without first learning facts. As if more laws, more punishment, and more UG will solve all problems.

Low incoming housing failed due to bad management. It required complex managers who were provided resources. Management that was provided support from their government supervisors. And who could therefore exercise control of that housing complex. Breakdown started when local management did not even have money to repair and repaint apartments as tenants moved out. Budgeting experts who did not see failure that year. Therefore knew further budget cuts were appropriate. Eventually each complex became overrun by squatters and gangs when complex management could not even replace failed refrigerators. Did not know who was living in each apartment. And did not dare evict squatters.

What causes failure of low incoming housing. A bean counter mentality that cost controls so aggressively that an apartment could not even be repainted.

So, how do we know parents have arrested cognitive development? Due to the same popular myths and reasoning that also proved Saddam's WMDs? Or do we just ignore the missing facts? Instead, convert assumptions into proof? Then react to those assumptions?

Asking a kid why he is rioting can only identify his state of mind and maybe his stage of cognitive development. I still do not see any posts that first identify the problem.

[monster]

There are riots everywhere from time to time. All that's required is an excuse. Politics and social circumstances have bollock-all to do with it.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by footfootfoot

While the "rich" may be at fault, these looters fail to make the critical distinction between "richer" and terminally "rich."

It's not the fault of the richer, and if you are not terminally rich then you are unlikely to ever encounter one of them.

People are just knuckleheads. Angry knuckleheads.

Agreed.

[DanaC]

What i really hate, is the way the government is leaping on this as an opportunity to bring in even more anti-civil liberties legislation and police powers.

The idea that at times of 'civil unrest' the state would have the power and right to close down access to social media is a frightening one.

I also don't like the precedent being set here for evicting whole families as a response to the actions of individual members of those families (wtf have the younger or older siblings of a rioter done to deserve eviction as a punishment?). And indeed the precedent of serving eviction notices to those guilty of riot and disorder is itself a dangerous one, even if only aimed at the individuals concerned. There's some talk of extending this to legally enforcable fines levied against homeowners and taken off the equity of their homes.

Setting aside the moral questions of whether or not it is just to punish entire families for the actions of individuals, what about the potential for abusing that precedent? The line between legitimate protest and public disorder is often a fine one, and most riots are more founded in legitimate protest than the recent spate (as has been pointed out by many). The weapon this potentially puts into the hands of the state against dissatisfied and angry sectors of the community is a large one.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by DanaC

The reality is that we have been slowly creeping towards more American style solutions to social problems and this is the result: social dischord.

Do you really believe this? It seems to me that the whole EU and the UK included has the lead in this path to forced reduction of a long term history of expensive social support. Look at Greece, France, Spain, when you peel back the onion of what they have been paying for with from their tax coffers it boggles the mind. No wonder so many are going broke. If there has ever been an argument against "more taxes" will give us more money to take care of the down trodden this should be it. Taxes in the UK are much higher than in the US (I think) and yet they still can't make it and support the systems in place which they have promised the people. Riots aside, you are right the problems are much deeper. I don't have the answers.

[DanaC]

See, the problem with that argument is that it doesn't take account of the many, many times that governments have (and are currently doing again) taken on the mantra of anti-welfare state economists and tried to cut back the system in ways that cut support whilst actually costing more. We've had countless schemes and revamps to the system that have made it less effective at getting help to where help is needed and also more costly to administrate.

What we lose to people playing the benefit system is a drop in the ocean compared to what we lose to the wealthiest tax payers not paying the tax they're supposed to pay. What we recover from the malingerer who's made his back injury stretch three years beyond the actual effects of injury whilst working cash in hand on the side, is as nothing compared to what it cost to root him out.

Much of the worst waste in the NHS, to take an example, has been in the administration layer that had to be added to try and knit together the fragmented health services borne of attempts to bring in the private sector. The fucking scams that came in under the guise of the free market were unbelievable.

Now, I don't actually have an objection to the free market. I see it as basically quite a positive thing for the most part. There are a few areas of life I feel are better served by socialised solutions and healthcare is one of them. But, whatever your view on healthcare, socialised or privatised, what's abosolutely needed is a sense of cohesion and efficiency, and whether it's profits or targets that drive the process, the direction needs to be towards better care and treatment. What doesn't help that is trying to cobble together an unholy mess of private and public where the lines of division are not very clear and where all the money leaks into either governing the meeting points of the two, or through outright scamming of the system.

It wasn't the socialised medicine that cost so much the past twenty years it was the cackhanded attempts to mould it into something it's not.

The changes to benefits are another classic example of British politicians attempting to import US solutions to a British setting and just failing miserably, because what's actually needed are British solutions, tailored to a British setting and culture.

[TheMercenary]

I guess I just don't see how these attempted solutions are "US solutions". If as you say they have been dealing with attempts to revamp the system countless times then the history of dealing with the issues occurred long before our current economic crisis. You socialized system of public support has been around a long time before we began to dabble in it. The attempted solutions are uniquely UK based and as we see the other EU economies unravel it is obvious that the UK is not alone in realizing that the cost of their social systems are breaking the bank and have been doing so for a long time. It is like finding a small bit of rot in a piece of wood, sticking a screwdriver in it and finding your whole house has been eaten by termites.

[Trilby]

Originally Posted by DanaC

See, the problem with that argument is that it doesn't take account of the many, many times that governments have (and are currently doing again) taken on the mantra of anti-welfare state economists and tried to cut back the system in ways that cut support whilst actually costing more. We've had countless schemes and revamps to the system that have made it less effective at getting help to where help is needed and also more costly to administrate.

What we lose to people playing the benefit system is a drop in the ocean compared to what we lose to the wealthiest tax payers not paying the tax they're supposed to pay. What we recover from the malingerer who's made his back injury stretch three years beyond the actual effects of injury whilst working cash in hand on the side, is as nothing compared to what it cost to root him out.

Much of the worst waste in the NHS, to take an example, has been in the administration layer that had to be added to try and knit together the fragmented health services borne of attempts to bring in the private sector. The fucking scams that came in under the guise of the free market were unbelievable.

Now, I don't actually have an objection to the free market. I see it as basically quite a positive thing for the most part. There are a few areas of life I feel are better served by socialised solutions and healthcare is one of them. But, whatever your view on healthcare, socialised or privatised, what's abosolutely needed is a sense of cohesion and efficiency, and whether it's profits or targets that drive the process, the direction needs to be towards better care and treatment. What doesn't help that is trying to cobble together an unholy mess of private and public where the lines of division are not very clear and where all the money leaks into either governing the meeting points of the two, or through outright scamming of the system.

It wasn't the socialised medicine that cost so much the past twenty years it was the cackhanded attempts to mould it into something it's not.

The changes to benefits are another classic example of British politicians attempting to import US solutions to a British setting and just failing miserably, because what's actually needed are British solutions, tailored to a British setting and culture.

Amen, sister. Amen.

[DanaC]

I call them 'American' solutions because they are the product of politicians over here looking to America and borrowing ideas.

[TheMercenary]

Can you give some specific examples? Just trying to understand your point.

[DanaC]

Well, for example, in response to the riots and the 'gang problem' in London and other cities, the government has drafted in an American 'Supercop' to advise them. Seems a reasonable idea in principle, after all, he's had to deal with major gang problems in the US. But the US gang problem is not the same as the UK gang problem. The gangs are not the same, they've taken a different form. And policing here is different. The range of strategies on offer is different. The problems, though similar in some respects are different. But the Conservatives, and even the last Labour government, have such a love affair with American political solutions and philosophies that they just try and transplant it right across, ignoring calls from the police to draw from more culturally similar situations (as in with the gangs in some European cities).

They did the same with the education system. The Labour government brought in a bunch of ideas drawn from American educationalists to solve problems in our schools. Not that there's anything wrong with seeking expertise from American educationalists, or other professionals, just that they seem to be wedded to American solutions above all else, even where it is not appropriate.

Most of the attempts to bring in free market mechanics to the NHS, along with ideas like 'welfare to work' programmes and a bunch of other stuff were based on US strategies and programmes running during the 90s, often involving US firms in assisting in both devising and delivering them. Most of the prominent politicians in recent years have voiced their admiration for US economic and political philosophers.

The political elite have had a love affair with US thinking and strategy for two generations, and it's the first place they look for ideas. The problem is they don;t seem to hold those ideas to the same level of scrutiny as ideas from other places. They just take it as a good thing because it's what worked in the States. Sometimes they're right, and what they've done is adopt best practice as it appears in the US, but often they've just adopted the knee-jerk responses of the US political system as their own and the solution fails.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Well, for example, in response to the riots and the 'gang problem' in London and other cities, the government has drafted in an American 'Supercop' to advise them. Seems a reasonable idea in principle, after all, he's had to deal with major gang problems in the US. But the US gang problem is not the same as the UK gang problem. The gangs are not the same, they've taken a different form. And policing here is different. The range of strategies on offer is different. The problems, though similar in some respects are different. But the Conservatives, and even the last Labour government, have such a love affair with American political solutions and philosophies that they just try and transplant it right across, ignoring calls from the police to draw from more culturally similar situations (as in with the gangs in some European cities).

I can understand you point here, good points.

They did the same with the education system. The Labour government brought in a bunch of ideas drawn from American educationalists to solve problems in our schools. Not that there's anything wrong with seeking expertise from American educationalists, or other professionals, just that they seem to be wedded to American solutions above all else, even where it is not appropriate.

Well don't copy us, our system of public education has been failing the nation for a long time in many places of the US. Granted you can get through it and get a good education, but the costs are completely inefficient. Don't copy our system. The UK education system has a reputation, in my experience, as being one of the best in the world. Although I may be leaning to much on the Uni system in my statement.

Most of the attempts to bring in free market mechanics to the NHS, along with ideas like 'welfare to work' programmes and a bunch of other stuff were based on US strategies and programmes running during the 90s, often involving US firms in assisting in both devising and delivering them. Most of the prominent politicians in recent years have voiced their admiration for US economic and political philosophers.

But that actually did work for us, at least partially but the system has been re-bloated for lots of unforeseen reasons I think.

The political elite have had a love affair with US thinking and strategy for two generations, and it's the first place they look for ideas. The problem is they don;t seem to hold those ideas to the same level of scrutiny as ideas from other places. They just take it as a good thing because it's what worked in the States. Sometimes they're right, and what they've done is adopt best practice as it appears in the US, but often they've just adopted the knee-jerk responses of the US political system as their own and the solution fails.

Thanks. I understand better now where you are coming from.