What's the biggest social problem in Britain today? Well, fortunately there are very few people who starve, and we don't live in a war zone - but we do have a shameful number of people who are forced to live on the streets. So surely tackling homelessness should be pretty near the top of the priorities list for the government?

Oh yes! Here's our beloved Leader Dave, speaking this summer: "I am committed to helping homeless people play a full role in society, ensuring they have secure homes and good health and can progress towards stable jobs." (source).

Note the offer of help for getting jobs at the end of that quote there - all very laudable, but it all gets rather sinister when that message is twisted around and we end up with a situation where only people with jobs are thought worthy of having somewhere to live.

Two London boroughs (Westminster and Newnham) are introducing policies whereby the jobless would be passed over by those in work in the allocation of social housing.

And before someone jumps in and blames the Tories, consider the point of view of the Labour opposition. When David Miliband delivered his speech to the Labour conference a couple of weeks ago, he said, "when we have a housing shortage, choices have to be made. Do we treat the person who contributes to their community the same as the person who doesn't? My answer is no."

He also said, "I believe in a benefits system with values. And I believe in the value of work. Labour. Think about that word. The party of work."

At the moment, people are given social housing largely (although there are other factors like local residence requirements) in accordance with their need for it. For example, if you're pregnant, elderly or disabled and homeless, the assumption is that you're in greater need of a roof over your head than someone to whom those things don't apply. Putting aside the scandal that we don't seem to have enough houses to offer everyone a home, that seems fairly reasonable.

But giving people priority on the basis of their employment status would be to replace assistance on the basis of need with assistance on the basis of who toes the line, meekly puts their head down and does what they're told.

Supporting people in getting jobs is one thing, but have these people thought about the consequences of allowing the dogma of work to pervade your thinking so much that they're obviously deriving satisfaction from the idea of threatening non-workers with homelessness? Have they ever known anyone who was homeless? Have they ever considered what it's like? I doubt it.

Truly revolting.

Here's a Grauniad article about worker priority for social housing.

Yep, I read about this the other day and thought about posting it here. I couldn't bear to in the end; thought it might depress everyone.

The idea of giving housing priority to people in work (from the Labour camp) was first wheeled out by Caroline Flint; the then Labour housing minister. I think she thought of it before the Tories actually. Now she's in opposition she's horrified by what the Tories are up to. Naturally, she would change her tune if she returned to office. Career politicians are good at crying crocodile tears; but their real goal is power.

This country will never get to grips with the current housing crisis, because (despite all the talk) there is no consensus about how to go about it. Social housing tenants are being villified (funny how they were blamed for the riots... despite a total lack of evidence).

Now I hear talk about new build housing acting as a route out of our current problems. Dogma suggests that once more people are in work, they will buy homes and revitalise the economy. I wonder how they'll do this, given that they have no money? Wait a minute... didn't the last crisis stem from sub-prime mortage lending in the US?! Well, well. So much for originality.

It's not just houses being thrown up but office blocks (when there are empty ones nearby), shopping malls and extensions to colleges and community halls. This is why there is a double dip recession. The building boom that never ended is going to ensure this.

It is another way of stigmatising and controlling another 'out' group.

Labour these days are just Tories clothed in a diaphanous cloak of social conscience which no longer fools people.

It breaks my heart, but I don't suppose I'll ever find refuge in mainstream politics again. I'm too left wing to be a Labour supporter, and not left wing enough to fly a black flag out of my window.

If change is going to happen it has to come from ordinary people, from the ground up. We can never rely on politicians to drive change from the top down; they are too self-interested for that.

Most of the people I meet 'on the street' aren't interested in politics anyway. They have ideas and opinions, but there's a lot of apathy and / or disillusionment. I don't blame them, but I want to see some social justice, instead of the shite that passes for a society these days.

Imagine waking up one morning and thinking, 'I don't like this society. I don't support the views and prejudices I hear every day. There's nothing left in mainstream culture that I can agree with or support.' That was me this morning. I have a funny feeling that I'm not the only one.

Jeez, it's breathtakingly depressing...interesting how there's rarely any scrutiny of bureaucrats junkets, lavish expense accounts for those in public office, no ejections of corpulent arses from the gravy train, on the contrary in fact, always room for another twitching snout of yet another grunting swine at the trough...these fucking vile parasitical bores make me sick to the pit of my stomach...

*salutes Sir Wallace again*

Is the problem though that if you want a community that is inclusive of everybody then social housing shouldn't be given only to those with the greatest need. I think some of the problems in housing and in areas with large social housing is because there is no belonging to that area which is something that can only be attained if more than one generation live in that area.

Heard on the radio this morning that there's new employment legislation being discussed - can't be certain I heard correctly but I THINK the idea was that 'unproductive' workers could be sacked 'without explanation'. These are the words I think I heard. And if nobody's entitled to an explanation, that's the end, innit? How do you even start to argue that you weren't unproductive but the company didn't like you trying to start a union, asking for basic safety gear, being the wrong colour or just having the wrong shaped nose? Of course, if you're sacked, you'll have to explain that at the benefit office....but you won't have an explanation. Somebody please tell me I've got this wrong! It was on the Today programme, about 8am. Actually, even if I've got the details wrong, one thing's clear: more sh*t on the way.

^ Yes, something I'm actively furious about in fact. Vince Cable (a so-called liberal) is pushing for this. He reasons that loosening up employment rights will make small businesses more productive, and save 'the public purse' X millions per. year.

It will also pave the way for widespread abuse, pre-Victorian levels of forelock tugging and (ironically) it won't make things better for employers... It will simply cause misery.

Vince Cable is a self-regarding, puffed up fathead. To call him a fool would be doing fools a severe disservice. If he's what passes for a wise politician these days then we are truly kerturpulled, banjaxed and mullered.