A divided society-what can be done?

Communism? As in all the other failed communist countries. Corbyn set Venezuela up as his idea of utopia.

Let's not confuse socialism with communism .

Great post? State the Bl--ding obvious. None of us want to penalise the middle class (some of us are middle class own our houses and have children who own theirs).
We simply want to provide a standard of living for the poorest which is appropriate for the rich country we are. This will not interfere with us being a property owning democracy, it will however stop people who would utilise our freedoms purely for the purpose of profiteering from doing so, by making others lives worse. It will provide decent housing and cities which are places for everyone to live and work.
It was an ideal which underpinned socialist policy after WW2 when there was a greater need for accommodation than there is now and when housing standards were higher and people were treated better.

Sad as it is trisher, the man to which you refer chooses to sleep in a graveyard . Not sure what you can do about that. It's s bit like the man who sleeps rough in our town. So many people have tried to help him. He's been offered a room in a shared house, a room in a hostel and even just a bed for the night . The police say short of arresting him ( he's harmless ) they are powerless .

Communism might...

Day6, the thread is titled A divided society - What can be done?
The whole point of the thread is to discuss what changes we need to stop it being divided.
A shame you missed that.
Yes, socialism would help.

Yes he was there last year dj and it seems to be his place. Perfectly nice chap, moved his bedding and his cardboard boxes out of the way when we let visitors in. The tombs have evidence of people living in them and the council have tried to stop it by locking the gate but there is access to the graveyard from the other side.
gillybob as Shelter says
You don't have to be sleeping on the streets to be considered homeless.

Great post Day6.

I am taking about the homeless who do not have a roof over their heads at night trisher as I think you knew. Not a particular kind of roof. The people to which you refer could have a bed tonight if they chose to . That is what I'm saying . I agree that living in a hostel does not in any way compare with having a secure tenancy etc. I am saying there is no need for anyone to sleep in a graveyard or shop doorway in Newcastle .

DJ - Oh, I forgot, we like being a divided society.

Society will always be divided. It always has been. There have always been haves and have-nots.

How do you address that?

Do you suggest the 'haves' are somehow the enemy?

Do you want to penalise the 'haves', many of whom are working class people who have faced struggle and hardship and gone without to 'better themselves' and become 'haves'?

I'd bet that most grandparents here have a darn sight better standard of living than their own parents and grandparents and they saw their much poorer families over the ages do all they could to better themselves.

The Socialist politics of envy despises wealth, even if it's been hard won.

Most people who have a comfortable lifestyle now should feel guilty? We are better off than the poor, the homeless after all?

How should we atone DJ?

Should we sell up, redistribute our wealth, donate it all to homeless charities???

Of course we are divided and the wealth gap grows but tell me just how we stop being a divided society?

Would you be happy if we all made ourselves homeless and invested in sleeping bags? Do we all need to fight the fight against the wealthy from our cardboard shelters in shop doorways?

Most of us sympathise with the plight of the homeless, and poorer people in society who struggle, but only the completely selfless are likely to make themselves poorer in order to close the gap between the very rich and the very poor.

In truth most UK society is living in that middle ground. They are neither rich nor poor, but they survive and can just about make ends meet. Most people from humble backgrounds, like me, thank their lucky stars they can enjoy a fairly decent standard of living. There is not loads of disposable income sloshing around.

We have another strata I'd suggest - the mega rich, the oligarchs, the billionaires and celebrities.

How do they do more to help if (yes IF) they already pay their taxes? I believe tax loop holes could be closed but I also suspect most of us would jump at the chance of a massive lottery win - so whilst we might envy their obscene wealth, should they be hounded for having more? Cardboard shelters and sleeping bags for them too?

The divided society is a left wing smear. Society has ALWAYS been divided.

Tell us how we stop being divided and I'll listen. If you want to level everything down with socialism, history tells us that won't work and it's a political system open to corruption and division too.

I find it laughable that some people still blame Margaret Thatcher for anything and everything . As Jalima pointed out it's almost 30 years since she was in power ! (well 27 anyway) . Whilst I don't have a lot of good to say about the woman's policies she did give a lot of people the chance to become homeowners who would never have had that chance. The problems that arise from this is the failure to build more homes with the money from those that were sold. Having said that we should bear in mind that many of those who bought council houses were the ones who moved up the ladder to the next house and the next one after that etc. Helping to fuel the market as we know it .

Do you know that for a fact, trisher?

Come to All Saints Church at the bottom of Pilgrim street gillybob there are people living in the graveyard there and one man in the entrance, who moved his stuff when we opened it to the public last HODs day, and assured us, as he picked up the rubbish blowing around, that he tried to keep the place tidy. He wasn't begging and he followed the bloke who was cutting the grass around asking if he could help.
Homelessness is not even necessarily living on the streets you know. It is not having a place to live where you can close the door and have your own space and your own possessions. So all those people living in hostels etc are homeless along with all the sofa-surfers and young people in temporary accommodation or staying with friends.

I suspect the houses they own were built to flaunt wealth tbh trisher The ultra wealthy have rarely built a property simply as a functional place to live in.

This is the trouble Durhamjen

"It worked in Vancouver" becomes "middle eastern princes" and "conjecture" so quickly.

If a property is empty for more than a year it is usually a sign that no-one is living there. As I have said it would be easy enough to alter the planning laws, to apply taxes, to compulsory purchase properties that remained empty. After all if the government wants to build a railway, or the local authority a road, they can compulsorily purchase anyone's property. So it seems the real objection to this is that property might be used for its real purpose i.e for people to live in. Seems a bizarre situation to me. That anyone would support the rights of rich Russian oligarchs and middle eastern sheiks to own property purely for gain rather than use the houses for the purpose they were built for.

your dates and statistics are way out btw.

Actually trisher there are only a handful of people in Newcastle who are genuinely homeless and there are beds for them in various hostels but they choose not to take them . The police constantly warn people in Newcastle not to give to beggars as they are either known to have an address or else they have been brought in to beg . And I know that for a fact ! Over 95% of those taken to court have addresses too . In my town there is one ( yes one) genuinely homeless man . Various charities ( inc one I am very familiar with) have tried to help him but he refuses.

The reason we haven't got more social housing is because since Thatcher started selling off council houses, the councils were not allowed to build replacements
Um, it is now 27 (*twenty seven*) years since Margaret Thatcher was in power.
It is 20 (*twenty*) years since Labour won an election and were in power for 13 (*thirteen*) years.

I didn't realise that Margaret Thatcher's policies were set in stone for 100 years.
Most of the people who would be first-time buyers, would-be social housing tenants were not born twenty seven years ago. Plenty of time for things to change I would have thought.

Trisher, I do agree with you that it seems iniquitous in this day and age to leave a property standing empty. There are those who can afford to do this and who look to benefit from the increasing value of bricks and mortar. It does seem wrong.

However, we go down a very dangerous road if we commandeer such properties and start telling people what they can and cannot invest in. If we are lucky enough to have disposable income we should be able to spend it as we see fit. I know the mega-wealthy see acquiring property as a bit of a game of monopoly.

It's a bit of a cleft stick.

Sorry, Primrose, I can't tell you what I think of your post of 15;42.
I'd be kicked off GN.
I'll leave you to guess.

Sounds a good idea, actually charging 1% of the value of the property for every six months it is left empty.

Lots of those properties in Kensington could be turned into flats for people in need of a home, once the oligarchs have sold up.

Primrose, the deadline for renting out empty houses was only 1st July this year.
There hasn't been enough time for anything other than conjecture. The agent is someone who deals with middle eastern princes, not ordinary people.

Rich people ......Thatcher ....... [yawn]
Maybe all the people who bought their council houses should be the first to give their property back to the state. They could be paid exactly what they paid for it. Would that help durhamjen ?

Primrose - There's such a difference between homelessness and the frustration of not being able to save for a deposit when renting. Looking at the Shelter website, there are so many personal or structural causes of homelessness, I don't think simply putting people from the street into empty homes would solve anything.

You are absolutely right Primrose. People use the emotive 'homeless people' as though they've had a desperate struggle to find a home. Most haven't. Many cannot cope with the social responsibilities that come with renting, or even taking a bed in a hostel.

The rules cause them problems. Many cannot live side by side with others because of drug, alcohol, anti-social or mental health problems. There are so many reasons why people are on the street and it's very sad but advocates galore have tried to get a roof over the head of several of the homeless locally, and not one of them wanted the 'ties' and responsibilities that came with being a tenant and their anti-social behaviour and lack of care for boundaries and rules saw them leave their base or be evicted because of the trouble they caused. Some people do reject society and it's conventions. I cannot see that homelessness will ever be a way of life that is eradicated. We are not supposed to mention this, but it's what happens.

I would hope that we continue to have advocates who can intervene and help those on the streets, and that those who do need and long for a secure base are found one.

The building of hostels, community centres and social housing is much needed imo, not the vilification of those who buy property. Property owners strive and struggle too. Life isn't a piece of cake for those who work hard and budget, go without etc to try and secure a future for themselves and their children. Most are not greedy or wealthy.

ALL sectors of society need consideration and the thought of left wing social draconian measures to 'level it all out' (as if that is ever fair!) makes me cross.

The reason we haven't got more social housing is because since Thatcher started selling off council houses, the councils were not allowed to build replacements. They still are not, despite what May said in the election manifesto. They are allowed to sell large expensive ones.