Housing has once more become a major political issue, repoliticised in areas where the supply is limited and the allocation methods are leaving an increasing number of people feeling disenfranchised and angry – areas like Barking and Dagenham, where the BNP picked up 11 seats in last week’s local elections, and Birkenhead, Frank Field’s constituency. A Labour MP of the traditional sort, Field wrote an excellent article in the Daily Telegraph, ‘Why Labour is losing the working class’, which went some way to identifying the key causes of resentment. Of support for the BNP, he said:
“It represents a clash between people's sense of fairness, grounded in a collective social ethic, and what they see as the foreign idea of individualised rights. Housing remains a flash point. The working-class sense of fairness is mocked by allocation policies that put at the top of the list groups who, in the local community's eye, have less claim than other groups. A policy of housing the homeless is noble. It is the way it is carried out which is so objectionable.I have never heard a constituent - even one who has waited in the housing queue for decades - argue against a policy that looks after the homeless. What so many of my constituents object to, as I do, is the way the homeless jump to the top of the queue and are able to choose the best homes. This policy strikes at the very sense of fairness that working people hold. Fairness demands that those who have striven longest should rise to the top of the queue and take the best housing. The accommodation they vacate should then be offered to the homeless.”
His conclusion is along the lines of old working class values: those who have contributed to the community should be rewarded. That would indeed be a fairer allocation policy.
This came up in two discussions on the Today programme yesterday. They can both be listened to on the Today website, at 07.35 and 08.10. In the first, there was a quotation from a Barking & Dagenham voter who, expressing the frustrating of the poor working class in Britain, said that “the professional people are always putting us down, calling us racist and that, but, well, you know, we can’t afford to escape like them…” In the second, in direct contrast, Ruth Kelly, egregiously ignoring the wisdom of her fellow Labour MP, exhibited herself unable or unwilling truly to address this problem. Until she does so, Labour’s share of the vote will only continue slipping.
Comments (1)
Nick I agree and Id di read the original piece by Field. Similar comments were made by John Denham in his report on the riots in Northern towns. But neither of them did anything about it when they were ministers.
The welfare state was created with the self reliant working class in mind. It has now been captured by the middle class.
Housing in Barkiing etc is demand led with an endless supply of inward settlers seekign social rights.
The only people who opposed this were the Liberals in Tower Hamlets in the early 80s. THey categorised the newly arrived Bangladeshis as 'intentionally homeless. They were right but the Thatcher government took them to court to force them to offer housing. The Tories did not want inward migrants coming to Tory borughs like Westminster or Wandsworth.
They also sought to destroy the welfare state by discrediting it. ANd they have largely succeeded. If anybody is entitled to everything as soon as they reach Britain, then ultimately nobody will be entitled to anything.
COnservatives adn LIberals said nothign because they were afraid to be called 'racist'.
The idea of a total package given to inward migrants on arrival is madness and quite unsustainable.
But where does Civitas stand on the welfare state? Does it or does it not support the principle of a welfare state.?
Clealry sucha formof welfare will have to be limited in one formor another. Either time limited, or geographically limited or limited by entitlement with strict enforcement.
Where does Civitas stand on this issue. LIke a number of other issues it is never clear.
Over to you Nick. Do you think that Bangladeshis who have come to Britain (usallly via an arranged or forced marriage) should be entiled to the full range of benefits?
And how woudl you set up about curtailing this?
I agree that Labours inability to deal with this will mean that it is losing it score vote. Because Labour created the welfare state ( although the originator was a Liberal) and it is now destroying it.
Posted by Angela Pinter | May 10, 2006 5:24 PM
Posted on May 10, 2006 17:24