It's Quite Simple, Harker: I Don't Want To Pay For You To Have Kids...

At a time of austerity, there was little sympathy for those who could be called better off, and polls showed that 85% of voters were in favour. I have five kids myself, and when I wrote that £43k is not a lot of money when you have a lot of mouths to feed, it's fair to say that I didn't get a lot of love in return.

...no, not just you personally (though I don't think we need more of you, frankly, but there's always the slim chance the kids will turn out not to be race-hustling socialists with enormous chips on their shoulders).

I don't want to pay - via tax - huge sums in child benefit to large families wherever they are and whatever they do. Simples!

And I don't want to pay for small ones either. Like this one:

I'm one of the people that will be affected by the child benefit cuts, because I earn more than £50,000 a year. I know this might sound like a large salary on its own but that is without context, and that is what this argument is missing – context. I'm a single mother and I work full-time, meaning that I am reliant on childcare. My son has Asperger's syndrome and getting him the care he needs is costly; little support is available via the NHS. In order to achieve that salary I have to live in one of the most expensive areas of the country and therefore pay a significantly high rent (buying a house is an unachievable dream).

You see, she just has to live in a nice area in London. And I just have to be taxed to pay for it.

No more. The money tap's being turned off. It's about bloody time.

"Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!"

And as David Blunkett warns, the worst thing of all:

Councils are reaching the point where they will only be able to carry out their most basic statutory duties.

O....M....G!!!!!

WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE DIVERSITY CO-ORDINATORS AND THE FIVE-A-DAY CONSULTANTS!!!

Zoe Williams Asks The Wrong Questions Again…

On ‘poverty’ in the UK:

Whose work is it to make sure children in the UK aren't hungry? That they have shoes, that they're not sleeping with their cots jammed up against a mouldy wall, or in a house infested with rats?

It’s the work of their parents, Zoe. You’re welcome.

She isn’t finished, though:

The charity Action for Children published figures showing that two thirds of their centre managers were seeing children without enough to eat. Its chief executive, Helen Donohoe, spoke to Radio 4's Woman's Hour about the pressures families were under, giving the example of a rat-infested house – the children couldn't sleep, the father was so sleep-deprived that he lost his job, the mother had mental health problems anyway, and "we enabled them, through housing support and advocacy, to get rehoused". That's great, but I'm left with unanswered questions: who thought that was appropriate housing for a family?

Surely a better question would be ‘who thought it appropriate to start a family under those conditions?’..? Zoe, however, thinks the problem is with…charities!

Really?

There are three problems. First, charities need access to ministers; if they alienate them, they won't even get into the room, and that is more important than worrying about what concessions you've exacted before you leave.

Charities don’t seem particularly bothered about alienating the government; they are always issuing scathing press releases and commissioning reports claiming that the government isn’t doing enough.

The government never seems to mind, either. It never blacklists any particular charity. No CEO has to stand in the cold with his nose pressed up against the window on No 10 Downing Street, watching forlornly as all the other charity bigwigs tuck in to champagne and canapés.

One might almost conclude from this that it’s all a game they play…

Second, charities are legally excluded from party politics, and in the more consensual age just passed, this meant avoiding saying anything directly critical of the government. This message got so deep into the political bloodstream that when Save the Children launched its campaign in September, to help UK children who were going hungry and without shoes, it was slated in right-wing circles for "politicising" the issue, even though to avoid politics would have meant avoiding poverty altogether.

Yes, I’m sure the ‘Guardian’ would happily sit by and refuse to criticise a charity which, say, pointed out that unrestricted immigration was putting pressure on our infrastructure…

Third, the relationship between government and larger charities has been compromised by the fact that charities run so many services. Barnardo's gets around three quarters of its income from commissions to run services, and only a quarter from fundraising. The Children's Society only gets a third of its budget from government, but that's enough to make an adversarial position impossible.

Ah, now you’re talking! Good idea, Zoe, let’s immediately abolish government funding for charities! Let ‘em stand on their own two feet with the donations from the public, hmm?

Who's opposing the benefit cap? Who's calling for a ringfence of council tax benefits for families in need? Who's arguing to maintain the child tax credit threshold? Who's fighting against families being rehoused miles away from their children's school? Who's calling for more social housing?

Looks like it’s just….well, you, Zoe. And the rest of the progressives. Judging by the comments, though, the rest of us are finally getting a bit hacked off with it all...

Humans Are Not Bees Or Ants, Owen, That’s Why…

Owen Hatherley again. This time extolling the virtues of communal living:

Communes are not, as a rule, taken particularly seriously as possible living arrangements for the majority of the population. For some reason, it is still considered common sense for housing, irrespective of its quality, to be as private as possible.

Well, yes. Just as the privately-owned car will always be superior to public transport.

It’s a bit of a no-brainer really.

But in practice, especially in larger cities, housing is collective by accident. It's not just students – the housing crisis is pushing people into flatsharing into their 30s and beyond.

Ah, yes, the ‘housing crisis’, or rather more accurately, the ‘housing (where houses are too expensive where the jobs are) crisis’…

But luxury flats rented to groups of aspirant junior clerks or sold-off council housing and private rented accommodation subdivided into multiple profitably lettable units both ensure that basic facilities – such as toilets and kitchens – have to be shared, without the space or the design being prepared for that. Could collective housing, where the sharing of communal spaces is assumed from the outset, be the answer?

Probably not, no.

But little Owen’s off to find an example that works, which can then be used to prove the same thing will work in a different country with a different social history:

Berlin's Lebensort Vielfalt (Diverse Living Space) is the kind of housing project that no developer or municipality in the UK would consider for a split second. An LGBT housing scheme, with 60% allocated to older tenants, it's the kind of quietly successful project that undemonstratively shows other ways of living are possible.

In what way is it ‘diverse’ if it only caters to LGBT people?

Meanwhile, squats, long the major laboratory of experiments in group living, are being criminalised, not coincidentally at the time when they're most needed. Squatting is usually – and especially now – a response to emergency, a matter of improvisation, taking somewhere dilapidated, removing the trees growing into the floorboards and getting electricity and drainage working.

But as we’ve seen before, squatting is not – and rarely has been – ‘a response to emergency’. And it rarely results in an improvement to the building, in fact, quite the opposite.

… collective living no longer needs to be attached to a "lifestyle" or an easily parodied stereotype. As the crisis of private housing rages, it looks increasingly sensible.

Then, as I asked before, Owen, where do you live?

Why You Are Wrong To Put Your Faith In Councils...

Alison Benjamin (editor of the Guardian's Society section and co-author of A World Without Bees and Keeping Bees and Making Honey) thinks parks are the bee’s knees:

More adults want councils to protect spending on green spaces, including parks and playgrounds, than spending on libraries, youth clubs and helping people find work. Nine out of 10 adults in the Ipsos Mori poll commissioned by environmental charity Groundwork said green spaces are an important factor in making somewhere a good place to live or work.

Yes, well, that’s the problem with surveys – they tend to provide the answer the people running them seek.

It's all in the way you phrase the questions, as S Weasel shows us.

I'm pretty sure if the libraries people ran a survey, or the association of youth club leaders, it’d miraculously find a quite different answer!

… a range of environmental bodies will argue in Manchester on Wednesday that failure to maintain investment in green space is a false economy.

Well, yes. Of course they will.

Green spaces near our homes give us valuable places to get to know our neighbours, and build the social glue that reduces crime, says a report on the benefits of green space.

"High-quality, well-maintained parks and green spaces make a significant contribution to the establishment and retention of stable and law-abiding communities," it says.

It also states that if everyone had easy access to green spaces, obesity costs to the NHS could be reduced by up to £2bn, and that the calming effect of green spaces has been shown to reduce hospital admissions for mental illness in deprived urban areas in the US.

Far-fetched claims?

Well, almost certainly, but that doesn't usually stop people, does it?

Not if we remember the origins of public parks. The first official acknowledgment of the need for my local park in east London came in the 1839 annual report of the registrar general of births, deaths and marriages.

Recording a mortality rate far higher than the rest of London, brought about by overcrowding, insanitary conditions and polluted air, he wrote: "A park in the East End of London would probably diminish the annual deaths by several thousands … and add several years to the lives of the entire population."

And in 1839 it was indeed a good idea, but then, in 1839 we were a vastly different society to the one we have now, weren't we?

I rather doubt that in 1839 they had gangs of disaffected youth, muggers, drugs dealing, litter, dangerous dogs, disrespect for property… all things which plague modern day parks.

Today in the UK we don't need parks to prevent diseases spreading, but they still provide a range of vital benefits. So how can we pay for them? The majority of those polled want councils to pay for their upkeep.

But 40% said money from sponsorship by local companies should foot the bill. In Manchester, MPs worked closely with major industrialists to bring parks to cities.

Is that the way forward 150 years on?

Well, as a commenter points out, it better not be left solely to the public sector!

Agir

I have been waiting 10 years for this article: I worked as a ranger in Ealing (2nd greenest borough in London) and was shocked at the sheer incompetence of the management, not only in wasting money but also in a complete lack of environmental or social knowledge. A few examples : A fountain in Walpole park used mains water pressure (i.e. was simply a large bore tap) running all day, all year because there was no budget for installing a motor or simply even putting a timer on it. Grass cutting contracts were so badly managed and written that in a particularly sunny wet year the grass that had been cut was longer than that that had been left (grass grows until it seeds and then grows much much less - apparently not one contracts manager was aware of this fact of nature) that was a waste in excess of £1 million each year, plus all the unnecessary noise and air pollution from the grass cutters. We couldn't take a deposit from contractors wanting to put a temporary access road across a park because the accounts were zeroed each year and thus we couldn't hold the funds. The contractors were paid to do a variety of things but the actual completion rate was below 40% i.e paid to fertilise raised beds but never did (nor even had the equipment to do so - despite being paid for the job. All tree work was done on a job basis regardless of the amount of work involved, felling 6 trees cost the same as removing one limb from each tree. Several members of staff did zero work but couldn't be sacked as the process would take so much work effectively you would need to hire someone to watch the person every day for a year to see that they had done nothing. The vehicle maintenance (not fuel) contract cost £7,000 per vehicle each year (the vehicles weren't even worth that). Play parks were overhauled without any research into user needs (and there is no point building a BMX track if no one on the estate has access to a BMX. By now you have got the picture. Lessons learned: I could have saved at least half the budget just by not cutting the majority of the grass and then by removing rose bushes, enforcing the contracts that were already signed, sacking the bad staff and a few things could have delivered better service for 20% of the cost. Also the guy whose kid was injured in the foot by a roundabout in Acton would probably like to know that yes we knew about the potential danger (it had happened before and was highlighted every year by external auditors, and by me every month) and was not a non-preventable accident, and yes the management lied utterly and destroyed evidence to hide this..

Is anyone surprised by this? I'm not.

Call A Whole Fleet Of Whaaaaambulances….

‘Frank’ an anonymous social worker, gets a column in ‘CiF’ to bleat about his job and how the politicians are ruining it:

In my nearly 30 years of practice as a social worker, I can say that the situation on the ground for social workers is worse than it has ever been.

Oh, here we go, hankies at the ready…

Social workers dedicate their lives to preventing the abuse of children, and sometimes, sadly, this is not possible. Child protection is an extremely complicated process – not only does it require very finely tuned and skilled decisions to be made, they have to be made within a detailed legislative framework. Contrary to the portrayal of social work in EastEnders, social workers do not simply pop by and check that everything is all right within a household, and whisk a child away at the drop of a hat if it isn't.

And some would say that that’s part of the problem. If there’s a more dysfunctional family than the one prortayed in ‘Eastenders’ I’d hate to see it. The poor (fictional) sprog would stand a better chance if it were raised by wolves…

Social workers spend the majority of their time navigating laborious and unwieldy data-collection systems… Most people would be astonished to see the amount of paperwork and form-filling we do.

Not really, no. They passed ‘astonishment’ long ago when looking at the police service’s paperwork burden.

And what caused both of these? Well, you seem to have hit the nail on the head, inadvertently:

Social work often feels like a virtual computer game where you have to complete stage 1 to move to stage 2. You are no longer able to use your own professional judgment.

That’s because so many of you have been found to have none!

You've ignored obvious cases of cruelty, either because you gave too much credence to ‘cultural issues’ or because you were incompetent or lazy. You've persecuted the innocent while ignoring the evil. The ‘unnecessary form filling’ that you complain about is part of your job because you are granted enormous power, and you must be accountable for its use.

Just like the police.

What’s the alternative?

The police probably hold more information pertinent to child protection than any other agency as they attend more out-of-hours incidents concerning a family, but their information sharing can be patchy. Police can be reluctant to share information concerning children for a number of reasons: criminal proceedings may be ongoing, they may have "soft" evidence garnered from intelligence rather than hard facts, there may be a surveillance operation under way.

And note, this is all one way. Do YOU share information with the police?

Or do you hide it from them, as you do when you are seeking to foster damaged children?

Cases such as Rochdale show what can happen when police and social services do not properly share information about children.

No, cases such as Rochdale show what happens when everyone’s too deathly afraid of ‘cultural issues’ and stirring up the Muslim 'community' to intervene. It has nothing to do with information sharing at all.

While I welcome attention being focused on tackling problems within our child protection system, the impetus for change will lead to little positive improvement if social workers who act day to day to protect children and help improve their lives are not listened to.

But we've listened to you. You've whined that you think it’s ‘unfair’ that you should be held accountable when you foul up. You've shown little shame when caught bang to rights, simply returning again and again to argue that, despite a child dying, you’re the ‘victim’ here.

We've listened. We just reject what you have to say.

“Look, It’s OK When We Do It!” (Part 459)

Mark Brown on Ed Milliband’s declaration of war on the belittling of mental health issues:

Perhaps unwittingly, Miliband has managed to get to the heart of a gnarly problem when he mentioned privilege – the perceived right enjoyed by people without mental health difficulties to speak with authority about those who do.

The ‘perceived right’? It’s no such thing.

I have an absolute right to speak as I please.

People can disagree, even point to my lack of experience on that particular issue to scorn my words, but there’s no doubt I have that right, no matter how people like Brown wishes it weren't so…

But he’s singing from a very, very familiar hymn sheet here:

I'm sure some of the comments on this article will say: "Why are you pesky people with mental health difficulties always looking to get offended? A joke's a joke!" But gags about people with mental health difficulties are different, because of where the power lies; they too often come from people who are reconfirming the status quo, defending attitudes and structures that prevent people with mental health difficulties achieving our potential. In other words, they are jokes and ideas that help "keep us in our place", out of sight and unheard.

On the other hand, jokes by people with mental health difficulties about mental health are often about the gap between outmoded ideas and lived experience, or about reclaiming common experiences from prejudiced interpretation. Sometimes, the comedy itself is directly confrontational: the live comedy nights May Contain Nuts and US comedian Rob Delaney being brilliant ambassadors of the genre.

Ahhh, yes. We've seen this argument before, haven’t we?

This is a good beginning; I now hope that Labour will continue to pay such attention to who is speaking about mental health and where their privilege lies as their policy development continues.

It seems to me that a lot of the ‘privilege’ now lies with the offence-takers.

So…can we start to ignore them?

More Calls For Application Of The 'Pussy Pass'

Eric Allison (the ‘Guardian’ prison correspondent, and career criminal) on women in prison. He thinks it’s a bad thing.

Well, he would, wouldn't he?

Those familiar with the issue of women behind bars know the female prison estate contains many damaged and vulnerable women, most of whom have been victims themselves, one way or another.

Ah, yes. Of course. The age-old excuse…

So, what horrors have been visited on these fragile flowers of femininity?

Inspectors found responses to women whose behaviour caused concern were "excessively punitive", with too little attempt to tackle the underlying causes of their behaviour. They found women being forcibly strip-searched and having their clothing cut off.

One woman arrived in clothes that were not allowed at New Hall. She refused to hand them over and was held down while the offending garments were sliced off her.

The report says there was "no attempt to resolve the issue in other ways".

Such as..? Should they have asked ‘Pretty please, with sprinkles on top’?

It’s a prison, Eric. You do as you are told, or else. You, of all people, ought to know that…

Women arriving at New Hall travelled in "sweat boxes" (cellular vehicles) shared with male prisoners. As a serving prisoner, I travelled in sweat boxes containing women and heard the obscenities hurled at them by the men. Hardly the ideal way to prepare women for incarceration.

And avoidable, except to give them separate transport would trim the profits of the private companies that ferry women prisoners around.

Prison separatism? I'm sure it’d please the Muslims, at least.

Another depressing feature, not confined to New Hall, was that inspectors said "as we have found elsewhere, at night, one male member of staff was in sole charge of the mother and baby unit". The watchdogs found that "unacceptable".

I find it gross, uncaring mismanagement.

Why? Are you implying that males should have no role in this? That’s a bit sexist for a ‘Guardian’ contributor…

Visits are especially important in a women's prison, where many inmates are held long distances from their homes and have been the primary carers of their children prior to custody. Inspectors found visits often started late and finished early.

Shockingly and inexcusably, they found "separation visits" – where women say farewell to their children before they are taken for adoption – sometimes took place in the main visiting hall.

Are they not entitled to respect and dignity at such a traumatic time?

Given the reasons they are behind bars….no. They aren't  It’s a consequence of them being considered so bad that they cannot be allowed to mingle with the rest of the public.

That this affects their children is sad, but really, they only have themselves to blame, don’t they?

Last month, a study found that many coroners' recommendations, following deaths in custody, have negligible impact because there is no authority charged with ensuring compliance. Clearly, the Ministry of Justice is not dedicated to learning lessons.

In the case of New Hall, it should act now to prevent further tragedies. The criticisms in this report tick all the boxes that, history tells us, led towards almost every death of a disturbed woman in the MoJ's care.

They are disturbed women, by your own definition. Preventing them from harming themselves is going to require herculean methods, and will require – of necessity – restrictions on their liberty. And it still may not be enough.

As ever, the perfect is the enemy of the good.

Call The Whaaaaambulance!

Anna Chen sulks and pouts and whines (in an inscrutable fashion):

It's no fun being bred out of the cultural gene pool.

Eh..?!?

Watching TV, theatre or film, I'm on constant alert for a glimpse of someone who looks Chinese, for the slightest resemblance to an estimated 499,999 others like me living in the UK.

Blimey! Can’t you just relax and watch the programme, like other pe…

Oh. Right. I forgot. This is Grievance Land.

Barring Gok Wan, scientist Kevin Fong and the odd TV chef, UK Chinese are virtually absent from mainstream media.

Well, you must be ecstatic about the new 'Sherlock Holmes' adaptation, then! But a word of warning - don't discuss it at the 'Guardian' watercooler with some of your colleagues, eh?

So it was with a sense of "here we go again" that we learned that the esteemed Royal Shakespeare Company (RSC) is mounting the classic play The Orphan of Zhao in the way prize trophies usually get mounted: gutted and stuffed. This 13th-century Yuan-dynasty masterpiece may be the first Chinese play, to make it to the hallowed RSC, but the only parts given to actors of east Asian heritage are two dogs. And a maid-servant. Who dies. Tragically.

OUTRAGE BUS!!!! ALL ABOARD!!

All director Gregory Doran came up with is that the blizzard of complaints is a case of "sour grapes", and that the critics should "get real"; not the most eloquent response you might expect from the intellectual heavyweight described as "one of the finest Shakespeareans of his generation".

Maybe he just feels it’s all you deserve? I mean, why waste any effort on such a pathetic attack?

Playwright David Henry Hwang of the Asian American Performers Action Coalition which fought in the Nightingale battle, says: "By producing The Orphan of Zhao, the RSC seeks to exploit the public's growing interest in China; through its casting choices, the company reveals that its commitment to Asia is self-serving, and only skin-deep."

Waah, boo hoo, etc *repeat ad infinitum*

Clearly, Anna feels only the nuclear option will do:

The RSC casting is something of a litmus test, indicating how a failing superpower asserts its cultural dominance when its economic base is disintegrating.

Ummm, what? Is the 'failing superpower' the RSC? Or the British Empire?

Such minds are hard-wired to eliminate an entire group's cultural representation, and they don't even realise it. Amanda Rogers of Swansea University, says: "As a national company they have a responsibility to represent all sectors of British society. There is a real paucity of east Asian representation in this country, and when we do see it, it is usually confined to minor or stereotypical roles."

Victimhood Poker is in play, folks!

Yes, The Cuts Will Be Painful – But Consider The Alternative…

The ‘Guardian’ is in one of its fits of supercilious moralising, holding up a litany of hard-luck cases and inviting us to consider their plight before we go too far down the route of those awful, terrible Tory-led cuts. 

They know full well how it’s going to be received, even by their own readers, mind you:

Housing is an emotive subject because most people are struggling to pay rent, or a mortgage, making life-altering decisions about where to live based on how much they can afford to spend – so making the case for the state to be subsidising large chunks of rent for other people to live in London does not instantly elicit sympathy.

If you're in any doubt about this, just glance below to read the comments that inevitably follow pieces on this theme.

Yes, this is all about the effect on low-income families of the benefit cap, which numerous charities and pressure groups fear will remove their client base from comfortable walking distance from their cosy London offices…

So let’s have a look at the examples quoted, shall we?

Rana and Mina (who, like most people interviewed for this piece, asked for their real names not to be printed in case any suggestion that they might be complaining rebounds on them in the council's housing office) are living in this bed and breakfast, as a direct result of changes to the housing benefit system.

The precise thinking of Mina's previous landlord is not clear, but she was charging £500 a week for the two-bedroom flat in St John's Wood in north London, paid for by housing benefit, when a new housing benefit cap was introduced, which would have reduced the maximum payment available to Mina to £290. Rather than waiting for her tenant to fall into arrears, the landlord gave her notice to leave earlier this year.

Ah. See, according to the ‘Guardian’, this was a dreadful miscalculation by the ConDems when they put the benefit cap in place:

The coalition's introduction of a housing allowance cap was based on the theory that by capping the amount available to housing benefit recipients, landlords would drop their rents and renegotiate lower contracts with tenants.

But because the rental market in the capital remains so buoyant, what appears to have happened instead is that families like Mina's have been evicted and made homeless.

Mmm, yes, expecting the landlords to take a loss on the chin was rather daft, come to think of it.

So, how did Mina wind up in this situation where she required benefits?

A refugee from Iran who has lived in London for many years, Mina used to work in a cafe but now has arthritis in both knees; she walks with difficulty and does not work. There was nowhere else she could afford to move to in the vicinity of her daughter's school…

Ah. Ok. Stop right there. People have to live according to their means.

And the ‘Guardian’ is quite right when they assume that all those others living within their means aren't going to be too happy. Even Mina herself sort of gets it. She just thinks she should be exempt.

Mina understands that the government has to save money, but wonders if they need to target people like her, who have long-term roots in the area. "I've had the same GP for 20 years, the same hospital. All my daughter's friends are here. Are we meant to change all these things? " she asks.

"Suddenly they've changed all the rules. They are playing with people. They are messing around with people's lives. It's a lot of stress for a single mother."

Guess what? Recessions are ‘a lot of stress’ for everyone. And yes, you are meant to change all those things if they will no longer support you – haven’t you already changed Iran for the UK when things became untenable? So swapping one part of the UK for another should be a breeze!

They desperately try to find a more ‘worthy’ example. They fail. Miserably:

This housing crisis affects people who are working, as well as those who are not. Helena Carroll, who works in accounts, spent two nights in a bed and breakfast in west London last month with her seven-year-old daughter…

She was evicted from her flat in Hammersmith in August, probably also the victim of the incoming benefit cap. She works 25 hours a week, earning around £800 a month, and paid part of her own rent, but is unable to afford to live in the part of London where she grew up, and where her daughter has always lived, without state support.

Ah, but see, she only paid ‘part of her own rent’. Those paying ALL of their own rent are quite entitled to think ‘Hey! Hang on a minute here…’

And she can’t live in the part of London where she grew up without state support? So what? I can’t live in Mayfair without state support, so where’s my flat, then?

Got anything else, ‘Guardian’?

Meanwhile Abdul has been living in a string of bed and breakfasts with his wife and 18-month-old son since June 11, when they were evicted from their home in Maida Vale, north London, where he has lived for 11 years since he arrived as a refugee from Syria.

*throws PC out of the window*

Last one. Make it good!

Grace, a mental health nurse, has been living in a room with her 16-year-old son, in a white stucco-fronted hotel in west London for five months…She became homeless when she and her son were thrown out of the flat they were sharing with friends. Her son is at school nearby, but as a newly-qualified nurse earning a salary of £21,000, Grace, who moved from Nigeria over a decade ago, is unable to afford to rent in this part of central London, where she wants to be so that her son can stay in the school where he has begun his A-levels, and so she can easily travel to the hospital where she often works nights and early morning shifts.

Ah, so, we’re back to the Mina situation. With the added fillip that she’s a public sector worker. You know, I'm not sure that’ll be the argument-swayer that you fondly imagine it to be…

Romin Sutherland of the NextDoor project, a charity helping people affected by housing benefit cuts believes the system of benefits will not be fairer and argues that capping the housing benefit "is driving a huge rise in homelessness, which is itself costing the taxpayer many millions. And this doesn't account for the longer term costs of uprooting established communities and dumping them without support in unfamiliar areas that are unable to provide for their needs.

"Instead of capping housing benefit, perhaps the government should be focusing on providing low-cost housing that gives back to the taxpayer over generations, rather than squandering our money on exorbitant rents," he says.

The comments, as you can imagine, soon descend into a screaming rabble demanding rent controls, more council housing, higher benefits, the immediate execution of the Housing Minister (in fact, all the Tory cabinet), government-mandated social mixing for areas, you name it.

And no-one, not one that I can see, seems to have asked the question; If these are the people that the ‘Guardian’ chooses as the most sympathetic, what must the rest be like?