ChatterBank0 min ago
Are The Homeless Too Comfortable?
54 Answers
https:/
https:/
Kit Malthouse, the new housing minister, believes that "life was too comfortable on the street" and is proud of his record as a Westminster council leader making life "more uncomfortable" for the homeless in the hope (allegedly) of encouraging them into shelters.
Malthouse also supported an initiative between Westminster council and the police, in which some 30 rough sleepers were arrested in one night.
He gave this answer as a response to a question about whether he had supported "hosing homeless people out of doorways", as some of his former colleagues had suggested.
Do you think life is too comfortable for the homeless?
https:/
Kit Malthouse, the new housing minister, believes that "life was too comfortable on the street" and is proud of his record as a Westminster council leader making life "more uncomfortable" for the homeless in the hope (allegedly) of encouraging them into shelters.
Malthouse also supported an initiative between Westminster council and the police, in which some 30 rough sleepers were arrested in one night.
He gave this answer as a response to a question about whether he had supported "hosing homeless people out of doorways", as some of his former colleagues had suggested.
Do you think life is too comfortable for the homeless?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Kromovaracun. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Because the shelters are all in other boroughs, and Mr. Malthouse's council never showed any interest in building new ones or expanding facilities to help the homeless. His policy was just to attack them so they had to move on elsewhere. I don't think that's a coincidence. Deliberately making life hard for the homeless (which is what you and he are defending here) is not a normal thing that councils do.
Obviously, though, he's not going to stand up in the London Assembly and admit to that. So he just came up with some half-*** rubbish about how it's really in their best interests and very compassionate to do this.
Also, he couldn't just say 'No, I never supported that' to the question about whether he supported hosing them out of doorways. Why do you think that is?
Obviously, though, he's not going to stand up in the London Assembly and admit to that. So he just came up with some half-*** rubbish about how it's really in their best interests and very compassionate to do this.
Also, he couldn't just say 'No, I never supported that' to the question about whether he supported hosing them out of doorways. Why do you think that is?
It is blatantly what the policy is intended to do.
Westminster has very little overnight shelter space for the homeless, and the council does nothing to build anymore. So you (ahem) "make life uncomfortable for the homeless", so they go to Clapham or somewhere else. Where the shelter is full, because in addition to the local homeless you also have homeless people coming in from Westminster. So now you're homeless in Clapham, and Mr. Malthouse doesn't need to worry about you!
What do you think "making life uncomfortable" might look like, Naomi? Here's some examples of what happened when other councils enacted similar policies. This is what you're supporting:
https:/
http://
https:/
http://
Westminster has very little overnight shelter space for the homeless, and the council does nothing to build anymore. So you (ahem) "make life uncomfortable for the homeless", so they go to Clapham or somewhere else. Where the shelter is full, because in addition to the local homeless you also have homeless people coming in from Westminster. So now you're homeless in Clapham, and Mr. Malthouse doesn't need to worry about you!
What do you think "making life uncomfortable" might look like, Naomi? Here's some examples of what happened when other councils enacted similar policies. This is what you're supporting:
https:/
http://
https:/
http://
Which, as already established, often stems from having mental health problems.
Using such vicious means to "get the homeless off the streets" suggests that you're doing it for the sake of the streets rather than the human beings who end up living there. Unless you're willing to actually solve the problem, it's a soundbite and nothing more.
Using such vicious means to "get the homeless off the streets" suggests that you're doing it for the sake of the streets rather than the human beings who end up living there. Unless you're willing to actually solve the problem, it's a soundbite and nothing more.
If people who are refusing accommodation are doing so because they are suffering from mental health problems, how do you solve it? Offer them treatment while they’re living on the streets because that’s where they want to be? Would they accept treatment? Would they turn up to keep appointments or would they have to be taken into some sort of care against their will? I mean, seriously, how do you solve that? It's very easy to say 'solve the problem', but how?
Removing policies specifically designed to victimise the homeless (like the one in the OP) would be an excellent start. As would funding/managing social care properly and using staff who are adequately trained to deal with people who have mental health problems, rather than tearing away their sleeping bags and food parcels by force (which if you support 'making life uncomfortable' for those on the street is indeed what you are supporting). There are plenty such people around, but gutting of council budgets over the last few years has made it difficult to hire them or keep them on. Reinstating some of the mental health trusts that have been unnecessarily closed down over the last eight years would, obviously, be of great help in alleviating a problem that closely dovetails with mental health.
A more difficult problem are those in shelters, which I think pasta described earlier in the thread. 'Difficult' does not mean 'insurmountable' though, and a lot of those problems exist because small charities have largely been left to deal with the problem on their own.
If you're interested in more specific policy details (and have time/inclination to read through a large report on this), there are some excellent suggestions in this report by Crisis:
(Link goes to a PDF, FYI)
https:/
A more difficult problem are those in shelters, which I think pasta described earlier in the thread. 'Difficult' does not mean 'insurmountable' though, and a lot of those problems exist because small charities have largely been left to deal with the problem on their own.
If you're interested in more specific policy details (and have time/inclination to read through a large report on this), there are some excellent suggestions in this report by Crisis:
(Link goes to a PDF, FYI)
https:/
As effective as your suggestions may be they don’t address or solve the immediate problem and therefore the issue remains. It seems to me that more urgent action is vital, but short of forcing unwilling people to accept help, I have no idea what action could be taken. Incidentally, I’ll say again, I don’t condone tearing away sleeping bags and food parcels so I’ll thank you to stop with those accusations.
Thanks for the link. I’ll have a look later when I have more time.
Thanks for the link. I’ll have a look later when I have more time.
The underlying problem is that rents have on average gone up something like 13% in the last 10 years, earnings have barely gone up at all since 2008, and housing benefit has been cut in such a way that many people simply get trapped.
It's not a coincidence that the population of rough sleepers goes down significantly whenever there is a concerted attempt to actually solve the problem. The Rough Sleeping Unit, when it was active, reduced rough sleeping by 70% in just a few years. Rough sleeping remained really quite low until the global crash, and it's been increasing to unprecedented levels ever since.
Even if you look internationally it's clear that the problem is a policy one. Countries like South Korea are significantly poorer than we are but have far, far, far smaller rates of homelessness and rough sleeping. All it takes is effort.
It's not a coincidence that the population of rough sleepers goes down significantly whenever there is a concerted attempt to actually solve the problem. The Rough Sleeping Unit, when it was active, reduced rough sleeping by 70% in just a few years. Rough sleeping remained really quite low until the global crash, and it's been increasing to unprecedented levels ever since.
Even if you look internationally it's clear that the problem is a policy one. Countries like South Korea are significantly poorer than we are but have far, far, far smaller rates of homelessness and rough sleeping. All it takes is effort.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.