You may enter, but only if you're rich

Whilst scanning The Guardian this week in search of something to peruse with interest, I found an article about how the new changes to housing benefit are going to affect people in London. Although it did not rile me up enough to provoke me into an online debate, it did raise a number of concerns. The article, to be found here, is focused rather specifically on how the new restrictions will affect people living in Westminster. Firstly, this came as somewhat of a surprise to me. Considering the expense of renting in Westminster, that people could live there entirely on housing benefit was a rather foreign idea. But this is a very modern outlook. Surely it has not always been the case that the entire City of Westminster, like any other London borough, contained both rich and poor living side my side? Evidently, this is a fantasy notion that is nearing extinction.

The article revolves around mothers who live in Westminster being forced from their homes due to new caps on housing benefit and, most importantly, how this affects the children who will have to suffer moving home and changing schools. My reaction to news is often either fury or complete apathy. But this article left me on the fence. Firstly, why are low income families living in Westminster in the first place? As many people have responded in the comments beneath the article, there are huge numbers of people who earn a respectable wage who cannot afford to live in Westminster. £30,000 per annum is very well paid by many people's standards, including my own, but it is not enough to live in Westminster, where you look at paying upwards of £2000 a month for a studio flat. So how are women working part-time or who are unemployed managing it? The answer must surely be enormous housing benefit payments.

Is this fair? Many people say that it is not. That single unemployed mothers being subsidised by the state to live in central London is unjustified and unfair to the rest of the people who work full-time and have to commute to central London. My housing benefit is capped at £85 per week, which is nowhere near enough to fund my own flat anywhere near central London. So why on earth are these women receiving several times that amount to pay for central London homes? The answer is again an obvious one; because they have children. Which raises even more questions about the fairness of paying millions in benefits to mothers who cannot afford their own children in order that they may live in the most sought after areas in the country, at the expense of taxpayers for whom living in Westminster remains a dream. Simply put, it isn't fair at all.

But a more appropriate response would take into account their individual circumstances and how they have come to live in Westminster, and central London on the whole, in the first place. To return to my original question, clearly there was a time when such class restrictions were not in place, when affordable (council) housing was available in these areas. One notion which is rolling around my head as I write this is the contradictory nature of such acts as these changes to housing benefit. It is the Conservative party who are implementing this wave of what can arguably be called social cleansing. To say that they want rid of the unwashed poor from the Conservative mecca of Westminster is not so farfetched. But it must be taken into account that they are claiming to be solving a problem; a problem which they created in the first place.

The Right to Buy scheme which Thatcher enforced in the 80s sounds like a great idea. Giving council tenants a right to buy their properties at a discounted price. But what does that lead to? To those tenants then selling on their properties to private landlords who hike up rental prices and charge double, triple or more what the original tenants were paying the council. I speak from experience, since both of my parents lived in council properties which they then went on to buy and sell at a profit. And there are countless instances of this happening accross London. Trellick Tower (see image) in the London Borough of Kensington and Chelsea was built in the 60s and consisted entirely of council flats, but due to redevlopment and gentrification schemes many of these are now private flats costing upwards of £1500 a month, which is likely significantly higher than what your neighbour is paying the council for the same apartment. Giving council tenants the choice to buy their homes is a nice idea, but realistically the only thing it serves to achieve is a decline in council housing and a rise in private rentals, which are far more expensive.

The Conservative philosophy is apparently to privatise everything, regardless of the consequences and repercussions (those can be dealt with later). But privatising council properties has led to private landlords charging exorbitant rents which will subsequently lead to the gradual rise in both the number of housing benefit claimants and the amount that they are claiming. And now it is poor tenants who are suffering for the Tories' lack of judgement. Whether or not it is fair that single mothers should enjoy the benefits of living in central London is almost irrelevant when you consider that the properties which they rent are most likely situated in ex-council blocks. Meaning that the rent that they now pay is probably many times what it was originally. How can a flat in Westminster rented out at £200 a week by the council be sold to a private landlord and then rented out at quadruple that price without any changes being made to the property itself? How is that justifiable? When landlords can charge just under £40,000 a year for a tiny damp flat in an ex-council tower block filled with broken furniture, the problem is clear: privatisation. The question of why single mothers are living in central London is no longer the most important.

The article almost makes out that this is only the case in Westminster. That any other London borough would offer an abundance of affordable housing. But this is simply not the case. My current flat is located in Southwark, close to central London, and costs £1000 a month. I would not consider this affordable, but I do live near central London. However, my last flat was in Lambeth, close to the border of Croydon, where inner London becomes outer London, a 90 minute bus journey into the city centre, and yet it cost the same price as my current flat. To say then, that this problem is restricted to Westminster, or even to central London, and that these families could move to another borough and choose from any number of affordable options is overly simplifying the matter, and has little credibility. 

Rent in central London is extortionate, that much is true. But council housing is almost non-existant, meaning that affordable housing in any part of London, or indeed any part of the country, is becoming increasingly difficult to find. There was a Dispatches episode on the affordable housing debate which showed that Manchaster and other large cities in the UK have this problem; masses of private high-end apartments being built but little or no affordable ones. There is very little demand for high-end property at the moment. The new developments being built often remain unfilled for months or years following their completion. And yet continue to be built. On the other hand, the waiting list for council properties getting longer and longer, and yet there doesn't seem to be any inclination to build more of these. Gentrification is nothing more than social cleansing; forcing low-income families out of the cities towards the outskirts. The Conservatives are benefiting twofold from this; saving expense through cuts to housing benefit, and moving the undesirables out of London to make way for the rich. This affinity for wealth and disgust for poverty belongs to the 19th Century and not modern day liberal (supposedly) Britain. But rather than getting better, the situation seems to be worsening. The government should be taking measures to alleviate this dissonance between the classes, but instead they are further widening the gap.

The cause of the problem is being wholeheartedly ignored. What is needed is not a cap on benefits but a cap on rents, as well as the creation of affordable homes. As long as there is such a high demand for council properties, and as long as landlords are free to charge such ludicrously high rents, there is a need for housing benefit. Slashing this will save some money, but it will not fix the problem in the long term.

Saving money is what this is all working towards. The Conservatives say that we must take austerity measures to decrease the deficit, but how much are we hearing about rich families who are struggling to cut down their spending? That's right, zero. The opposite in fact, since bankers are still receiving thousands in bonuses. While the rest of the country is forced to live frugally, the rich are somehow exempt. Every household which is feeling the squeeze of the cuts right now is a poor one. Poor to begin with, and now struggling even more. But how much money is this benefit cap really saving? Skimming off a little from housing benefit payments will not save very much comparatively. But it will ruin people's lives. Greater taxes on the rich could save twice as much, and they would not even notice it.

I am not one to take the side of people with children, and I would mostly agree that people should not have children which they cannot afford. To an extent I disagree with the concept of child benefit, because I think that people should make a responsible decision on whether they can afford to raise a family before they do, rather than relying on the state to support them later.  But however I may feel about people's lifestyle choices is besides the point. "To live in Westminster is a privilege, not a right" is a statement which both angers and saddens me, because I do not believe that any city in the UK should be completely off-limits to anybody but the uber-rich. This is a complacent and conceited remark that condones class segregation.

The women mentioned in the article have the luxury of living in Westminster, and I, like many, am rather envious of that fact. But do I think that they should be forced to move miles away to the outer boroughs? No. They are being treated unfairly by the government, and that is the brunt of the matter. Regardless of circumstances, they are not to blame, and yet they are being punished. It is a cruel irony that the families being forced out of their homes right now are paying the price of Thatcher's failed privatisation schemes of the 80s. The money being saved by these changes does not justify such social cleansing. What we are seeing is a complete denial of the issue at hand; affordable housing. Inevitably, competition between private landlords will always lead to rises in rents, and more people will need to resort to housing benefit, it is that simple. Not to mention the links with rising unemployment and wage cuts and freezes. It would make more sense to buy back these buildings to be used once again as council properties which do not require such heavy subsidies. The benefit cap is merely a placebo. Unless affordable housing is created, the problem will not go away.

Minimum wage reaches a new low of £1.36

On Friday night whilst I was in my favourite London metal bar, The Intrepid Fox, I received a call from someone I (vaguely) work with. Due to high decibel levels, and the fact that it was Friday night, I let it ring through to voicemail. The voicemail said something along the lines of "I need to speak with you urgently, call me back as soon as possible". Not knowing what could possibly be important enough to interrupt normal Friday night drinking, and not keen on standing in the -5 temperatures outside to call back, I totally forgot about it until last night, when I returned the call...

And so (somewhat inevitably) I am once again jobless. The call was in fact to inform me that due to company changes my employer can no longer find a position for me. It seems that I am just not suitable for a role in a fashion company. Which, to be honest, I knew from the start. The news itself wasn't particularly disheartening. My opinions on working for a fashion company with completely different ethics and opinions to myself have been brought up several times (I hate fashion), not to mention the ongoing feeling that the ad hoc nature of part-time work there was generally fucking me around. So in many respects, it is a relief to be free from an uneasy and uncommitted job which has caused more grief and frustration than enjoyment or satisfaction. The only downside would be the timing...

In December (I think), Milo, my boyfriend, got a job which he had been hoping for immensely, and which came with a huge wage increase. He immediately started planning holidays and events which he could now afford us to do. A weekend in Paris and a festival in Germany have already been booked. Two weeks ago, my employer said that in all likelihood, after a few things had been sorted, they would be able to employ me full time. Everything looked great. 2012 might not be so bad after all! That is until Milo's enthusiasm ended with a severely overdrawn account and a number of bank charges which he couldn't afford. And I, from the prospect of progressing from part-time work to full-time work, suddenly have no work at all. How life has a way of baking you a cake, only to take it back, beat the shit out of it, and then throw it at your face. 

To add insult to injury, the Jobcentre informed me at my last meeting that they were looking to put me onto another work placement scheme. Since I was just waiting to hear back from my employer with a start date for full-time work, I managed to postpone this. Ironically, it turns out that the Jobcentre are the very reason my employer couldn't employ me full time. He was looking into getting funding from them to start an apprenticeship of sorts, but due to a number of bureaucratic restrictions, I was not eligible for it. I have now been unemployed long enough to see that not only do the Jobcentre not help people look for work, they actively hinder it.

So now I expect that I will be put on another work placement scheme, which, since my cynicism has been ever increased by the last failed work placement, is sure to be a huge fucking waste of time. Not to mention how completely unfounded and hypocritical are the claims that these work placement schemes are helping people back into work. Not that I am stupid enough to believe anything that the Tories say is actually true, but upon first mention, the idea of work placements does seem like a great idea of getting people back into work. The only problem is, the number of jobs available is going down, as the number unemployed is going up. This discordance  of strategies on the part of the government; to slash the number of jobs whilst forcing the unemployed into unpaid work placements, is simply a way of justifying the former with the latter. And predictably, this is being abused by huge companies to receive free labour. 

To say that the government is adding to the pressure and discontent of a generation of young people unable to find work would be putting it lightly. To say that they are oppressively forcing people to work for their right to receive benefits is more accurate. And the idea that this is actually helping people is uninformed at best and a cruel mockery at worst. How can it possibly help young people, who are looking for work, frustrated at the continual headlines in the news that more job cuts are on the way, to push them into unpaid work, surrounded by people doing exactly the same job for a wage? How can it possibly motivate people when the job they are doing is, for all intents and purposes, unnecessary (and it must be, otherwise a paid position would be in its place)? How is it justified to not only allow, but to actually coerce people into working for £1.35 an hour when the minimum wage (for over 21) is £6.08?

Speaking from experience, this forced labour does not help people into full time work, since employers taking part in it are under no obligation to employ people at the end of their placements, and companies such as Tesco are simply using it as an opportunity to hire extra staff without it affecting their profits. Which means that after the end of the placement, people return to job-seeking, having gained nothing more than 3 months experience stacking shelves, which is hardly an invaluable CV addition. It should be obvious to anyone then that this scheme is not a great motivational tool either. And perhaps worst of all, is the way that it is making young unemployed people feel exploited, constrained and worthless: it is nothing less than draconian.

The disillusionment that I have felt, not only towards the government, but also towards the supposed support that I am due to receive from the Jobcentre, is nothing new. The longer a person is unemployed, the more dejected and apathetic they are bound to feel towards their situation. The situation is bad enough as it is; not having a job is shit, as anyone who has ever been unemployed knows. To be told by some Eton educated toff, who was born into wealth and never had to look for a job in his life, how to find a job, is adding salt to the wound. And the huge government cuts to the benefit system are a slap in the face to go with it. The feeling of disillusionment is nothing new, but now added to it are feelings of persecution. I will most likely be placed on a second work-placement scheme in the coming weeks, at the end of which I will not be guaranteed a full-time job. And what then? The government claims that this is helping me back into full-time employment. But if nothing is guaranteed, if the employers enlisted are under no obligations, if the people on these placements have absolutely no incentive (which they don't, since they are unpaid), if no real, full-time, paid positions are being created, then how can this possibly solve the unemployment problem which this government created?

Aftermath

It has been quite a long time since I last wrote anything here. This is primarily down to laziness, but a lot has changed in this time as well, and I will continue to use this as an excuse for the laziness: My computer died, and then our other computer died (meaning that the hard-drives on both of them ceased to exist, within a few weeks of one another, which was just perfect); I moved house (and had no computer or internet for a few weeks); and I started interning at a small fashion studio in Kennington (later blog entry on this to come). Losing my computer after 5 years was quite sad. Having to sell it because I'm so poor was sadder. Only getting £30 for it was the saddest thing of all. Moving house in London was far more stressful than I first anticipated, and I cannot possibly endure it every July, without fail, anymore. I only started interning about 3 weeks ago, but having spent my days prior to this doing very little of anything, having a job has tired me sufficiently to make me not want to do much of anything when I get home. Thus, blogging has been off my mind for quite a while.

However, I can safely say the transitional stage is over now. I have settled into my new place, settled into my job (even though it may only be until the end of September with no room for a full-time position after that), and bought myself a new computer. The latter is somewhat entangled in another matter which has been going on for the past two weeks and caused me further stress (and again I am using this as an excuse for being too lazy to write anything). This matter would be the deposit from my previous apartment. I bought this computer on finance (6 months interest free, 10% paid up-front), hoping that when I get my deposit back, I will be able to pay it off fully. I have since learnt the lesson that landlords in London (or maybe I was just extremely unlucky) are greedy, extortionist arse-holes, and I am currently taking legal action against my previous gem of a landlord who is trying to pry £915 from us. Now I am just hoping that this is settled within 6 months, so that I can pay for my laptop, otherwise I will once again be considering prostitution to pay the remaining £900. I would like to take this opportunity to further express my opinion that you cannot trust anyone, because everyone is in fact, a cunt.

There have been other, more widely recognised and important occurrences than my deposit that have happened since I last wrote anything though. Amy Winehouse met an untimely death, and good music was dealt a double blow when this was followed by Cher Lloyd's single reaching number 1 in the singles chart. And the event that I feel I should spend the rest of this entry addressing; watching my city burn last week.

The riots that broke out last weekend in London, and which quickly spread across the country, were no surprise, even though I was woken in the middle of the night by my boyfriend showing me a live feed of the fires in Tottenham. At the time I couldn't have cared less. I just wanted to sleep, and wouldn't appreciate being woken from my slumber even if a bomb had just been dropped on the city. But in the light of the next day, and the front page of every newspaper showing images of Tottenham, completely destroyed, I realised that something quite serious was taking place.

Far from being surprised, I accepted that this was going to happen at some point. With the Conservatives raping the country the way they are, fucking the economy; pushing the poor, underprivileged class of society further towards breaking point through brutal and archaic austerity measures, it was only a matter of time (as one youth in Tottenham said himself 2 weeks before the riots actually did break out). Over the next 2 days, I watched as numerous locations of my city were attacked, looted, and burnt to the ground. On Monday I saw all the shops on my street shut up early, and their owners stand around the street looking as though they expected trouble. One or two broken windows and a boarded up Tesco is the only thing I experienced first hand, but elsewhere there were far more serious events and consequences.

Perhaps the most surprising factor that I noticed during these riots, were not the riots themselves, but the responses from almost everyone I know: That these riots are completely meaningless, opportunist violence, from underclass scum who want nothing but to wreak havoc. It wasn't the fires, it wasn't the charred and blackened streets that shocked me the most. It was this over-generalised and frankly ignorant outlook of events. The fact that people refused, point blank, to accept the idea that maybe, just maybe, there could be a larger picture, that maybe there was a reason behind the anger.

The shooting of Mark Duggan aside, it couldn't be perhaps because of the means by which these people have to survive? It couldn't be because they are oppressed and ghettoised by the government, into areas with the highest unemployment rates in the country? Because they have no money for education (now that the EMA has been scrapped and university fees have tripled)? Because their benefits; their only means of survival in a world of no education and no job prospects, have been slashed (and I know first hand just what it is like to live on £20 a week)? Because three quarters of their youth centres were just closed? Because they are completely ostracised by a government formed entirely of people who were born into privilege, and have never had to worry about finding a job, or paying for their education, or just paying the bills? It couldn't possibly be because their lives were pretty shit to begin with, and are even worse now that the Conservatives are in power? No. It must all be down to the way their parents raised them.

Now I am not condoning the riots (cliche of the week), or saying that the above reasons are a good enough motive to destroy local shops and burn down people's homes. All I am saying is, that perhaps there is a larger picture, and to deny that there are a multitude of reasons and catalysts for rioting, is extremely naive. Either that or just plain ignorant. It is exactly what David Cameron wants: for society to agree with him, to deny any reasons behind the riots, to denounce then as pure criminality without any motive other than just violent impulses and bad parenting. Of course he couldn't possibly have his own agenda.

I guess it's easy for people in comfortable £20,000+ jobs to do so. And it's easy to jump on the bandwagon of Facebook pages that popped up such as "Not rioting, because you have a job to go to in the morning". And it's easy to ignore the real reasons, because "pure criminality" is a much simpler one. And it's what Theresa May, that pinnacle of good values said, after all. Unfortunately, not everyone is lucky enough to have such luxuries as an education and a well paid job.

I don't possibly see how we will ever reach an age where riots are a thing of the past, until we accept and analyse the reasons behind them. But as the vast majority of people proved last week, we are very far from that point. It wasn't the anger at the rioters that I fundamentally opposed; obviously, when people start trashing your city; your home, you get pissed off. That's totally understandable. What really bothered me was that it seemed like an extremely small minority of people who actually accepted that there must be some causality between the riots, and the events which preceded them. What really bothered me was that people could be so utterly detached, and ignorant of the class that these people come from; of the way that they are forced to live; of the frustration and anger that they must feel from just trying to get by. This was what really upset me, and frankly, I was more disgusted at some of the labels that the rioters were given than at their actions.

I believe that the last week has been a very sad one. Not only because we saw our society collapsing in on itself, but because the vast majority of people agreed with David Cameron, the man whose actions and decisions led to rioting in the first place. It's never good when your country erupts in mass social unrest, but when the country seems to unanimously agree with a Tory, it is an extremely sad day indeed.