Here is something we all should not forget in a hurry:
Forgive me for being an old fart and a so-called loony left-wing which so people who may think I am which is very far from the truth. What annoys me more is that we have all witnessed successful governments come into power all claiming that they will address the root causes of homelessness and they fail to grasp the nettle of how serious the problem is and would rather brush it under the carpet.
Let’s us all go back in time to the year of 4 May 1979 and 28 November 1990, when a woman called Maggie Thatcher who led a Conservative Government came to power she made claims There is no such thing as a society here is the full interview dated on 30 October 1987 with the Women’s Own Magazine:
“I think we’ve been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it’s the government’s job to cope with it.’I have a problem, I’ll get a grant.’ ‘I’m homeless, the government must house me.’ They’re casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It’s our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There’s no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation.”
See link below:
The reason why I and many others refer to this interview on the grounds it fundamentally changed UK with the housing, NHS policies in regards to the way how they housed people based on their income and not really taking into account people with disabilities which included mental health, alcoholism. Thatcherism basically caused the coal mining, manufacturing, housing, and hospitals to close on a full scale and start to thinking of rebranding the market which left many to be made homeless and jobless to the extent the then conservatives could not give a flying monkeys as long as you are a millionaire then it was a case of welcome to Britain if you have money in your pocket jingling.
Thirty years later we have seen a Labour, Coalition, and Conservative government with a society still being discontent to see increase in foodbanks, soup kitchens, high unemployment, homelessness which is endemic and not withstanding zero hour contracts. All incumbent governments use language to hookwink the so called intellect challenged into believing they will build more house, hospitals, and create more jobs. Voters and non-voters are seeking answers to where are the new houses and jobs. If they build houses it is not affordable rent and the prices for the new homes are unaffordable to the average Joe Blog unless they have rich parents who will help them on to the ladder to buy their first property.
So it comes as to no surprise when Local authorities are unlawfully resettling homeless families in temporary housing far away from their local area, forcing them to spend hours travelling to schools and health services, a study has found.
The housing charity Shelter says some council are guilty of unsafe practices by pressurising homeless families into accepting unsuitable housing up to 100 miles from where they live, causing them unnecessary hardship.
It is alleged in one case, a woman made homeless in West London who was told relocation to Hastings on the south coast would keep her “close to London”, had to make seven-hour round trips back to the capital to take her ill baby to weekly hospital appointments.
Other cases include relocated families who arranged for their children to stay with grandparents or friends during the week so that they could remain at their old school. Other reported embarking on school runs lasting up to two hours.
Despite official guidance requiring councils to place families where practical in the borough in which they are resident, Shelter says authorities in London are now moving households out of area “as a matter of course”.
Campbell Robb, chief executive of Shelter, said: “Faced with severe budget cuts and overwhelming numbers of homeless families coming to them for help, it’s sadly not surprising that overstretched councils in London are failing to meet their current legal responsibilities.”
Latest official figures show that 17,150 households were temporarily housed out of area in 2015, up from 5,330 in 2010. Over 90% of placements were made by London authorities, who say their hand is forced by high rents, housing benefit caps and affordable housing shortages.
Oh let’s not forget that Homeless disabled people are increasingly being turned away by cash-strapped councils as officials find reasons to avoid treating them as a priority, according to lawyers mounting a potentially landmark legal challenge.
The Supreme Court will consider decisions by local authorities to deny housing to a man with learning difficulties and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), another with mental and physical health problems and a drug addict who has been homeless since 2005.
One activist condemned the current system, saying it allowed councils to abandon people to a life on the streets, where the average life expectancy is just 47.
Housing applicants are considered to have a priority need if they are vulnerable, for example because of old age, a mental health problem or a physical disability. Local authorities test vulnerability by comparing applicants with “an ordinary homeless person” and considering whether they would be less able to fend for themselves.
The three-day Supreme Court hearing, will examine the way this is done and any change could have nationwide implications.
In one case, Southwark Council in south London decided Sifatullah Hotak was not a priority despite his PTSD, learning difficulties and symptoms of depression. They agreed he was vulnerable but said his brother Ezatullah Hotak, also homeless, was able to look after him. Mr Hotak, an Afghan national in the UK legally, relies on his brother to wash and dress him and make sure he goes to medical appointments. Both men live in a hostel but the council decided Ezatullah would be able to cope even if they were on the streets. In 2011, the council said: “On his own and street homeless, Mr Hotak may also be at risk of harm insofar as it may have an impact on his health. However, we are satisfied that his brother is capable of providing continued housing and support if they were street homeless together.”
Mr Hotak’s solicitor Pat Wilkins said her client’s situation was part of an increasing trend.
She said: “It’s getting more difficult for [vulnerable] people to get housed. I think there is a general shortage of housing and therefore local authorities have had to become much tougher about their decisions on how that housing is allocated.
“The most vulnerable people tend to be those who [do not] have the loudest voice, who aren’t able to make the case that others can.”
In a second Southwark case, Patrick Kanu was refused housing despite having a mental health disorder and a number of physical problems. In 2012, the council argued his conditions could be controlled by medication and his wife and grown-up son could help him.
Mr Kanu’s solicitor, Stuart Hearne of Cambridge House Law Centre, echoed Ms Wilkins’s comments. “There has become a noticeable increase in local authorities refusing to accept people with significant mental health problems [as a] priority need,” he said.
In a third case, Solihull council decided that Craig Johnson, who has a history of drug use and has been convicted of 50 offences, mainly petty theft, was not vulnerable enough to receive priority housing even though he has been homeless since 2005.
Jon Sparkes, of homelessness charity Crisis, said the current system was “unfair and wrong” and a “long-standing injustice”, arguing all homeless people were vulnerable.
“The resource level of the local authority shouldn’t be material in the decision about how vulnerable someone is,” he said. “While I can see some logic in there being priority and lower priority, having a system which enables a local authority to turn someone away to a [place] where their life expectancy is 30 years lower than the general population, I can’t see how that person is not a priority.”
Southwark’s housing spokesman, Richard Livingstone, said in both of its cases the Court of Appeal had found that the authority acted correctly.
“If a different view is taken by the Supreme Court, then this will be taken into account,” he said. “This is a much wider issue than decisions made by individual councils and we welcome the focus Crisis and Shelter are bringing to the national legislation and the questions raised.”
Solihull council declined to comment until after the hearing.
A Department for Communities and Local Government spokesman said: “Housing authorities must ensure that suitable accommodation is available for people who have priority need.”
What the then Labour Government want us to believe:
What the then Conservatives and Libdem Coalition Government want us all to believe:
Now that we have a Conservative from 2010 –to present they say that they are introducing housing benefit caps and suppose to build more houses: