Wednesday, 27 October 2010
Some Are More Equal Than Others
The idea that poorer families might have to move out of high income areas is "tantamount to social cleansing", we are told. People will have to choose where they live now on the basis of what they can afford. Holy shit! Sound familiar, oh yes, that's what people not on housing benefits do anyway.
The oblivious, self righteous arrogance, nay temerity of these socio-economic dunderheads (Miliband, Hughes et al) is quite unbelievable. I'm all for helping the poorest and neediest. I'm not, though, all for handing them a far better life than people who are working their cotton socks off could ever dream of. Not only is it economically unviable, it is morally wrong.
Why should someone have the right to live in an area they can't afford? I can't afford to live in Mayfair. Can I have a top-up? Most people would probably like to live somewhere better than they do, but they have to make grown-up decisions about it because they pay the bill. Supposedly because they don't pay the bill, it is unfair to housing benefit recipients for them to not be able to live in houses vastly out of their wage bracket.
This doesn't just stop at houses. People apparently have 'rights' to telephones, cable tv, yearly overseas holidays, you name it. Yet many people with all these things, the things even our parents, let alone grandparents would call luxuries are still claiming benefits because they need them for their essentials. It is not everyone, but it's a massive share of them - ask a social worker or a policeman how many council houses they have visited that are without flat screen tvs. The welfare state started spiralling out of control the day Britain decided it is ok to pay for your own luxuries because the state will pick up the rest.
So, let's not get too upset for the displaced people of SW6 when they have to move out of houses that most people couldn't afford.