Looking after one's own: isn't than another way of saying something else?

[In Bloom]

This causes resentment amongst honest people who rightly complain that so and so only got their house because they[...]deliberately got pregnant

Oh, come the fuck on, you don't really believe this, do you?

 

[KeyboardJockey]

so where do all the other people in need go? removing need-based allocation in favour of S&D might alleviate bnp voting in some areas, but then you'd have many thousands of people with serious needs living on the streets, or in hostels.

Its a horrible choice but an equally horrible outcome if the 'needs' based system isn't modified.

Its easy to be complacent and say that equality must rule and that the bnp are only in certain areas but the bnp are growing and using the housing allocation system as a major lever to prise people out and get them voting.

The only way I can see this situation being resolved in the medium term while proper housing is being built is for secure and safe hostel accomodation to be made available to some and a return to the building of prefabs where possible for others. I've been homeless and it's shit and horrible and I would n't wish it on anyone else but if it was a choice between saying that person A who has arrived in a borough without connections or family should go to a hostel / prefab or prioritising them for housing at the expense of a local who will become bitter and prey to extremists then I would take that decision.

Not nice but thats reality. Until more properties can be built then it is a case of jugging resorces.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

Oh, come the fuck on, you don't really believe this, do you?

I didn't say I believed it but a lot of people do and this is how the needs based allocations system is percieved. It is seen by many not myself as a system that rewards the feckless and irresponsible and punishes those who are not.

That cycle of action and reaction must be broken.

 

[Fruitloop]

But until we can give people more than scraps then the only way to beat the bnp in places like Dagenham etc is to change the allocation system so that it favours locals. As I said before the key to buying breathing space is to give people a little of what they want so as to prevent a disaster.

No I'm sorry, I think that's a waste of time. Why just shift the aggravation about? Who gains?

 

[KeyboardJockey]

No I'm sorry, I think that's a waste of time. Why just shift the aggravation about? Who gains?

What do you suggest we do? Sit on our hands and impotently bemoan the growth of fash parties? There are a lot of desparate people out there and they are easy meat for those peddling desparate remedies. Housing is the BIG issue with a lot of people who are voting for / considering to vote bnp.

It will take decades of concerted action to reverse the housing disasters of the Thatcher / Blair years. We don't have decades to counter the siren voices of parties like the bnp.

I'm envisaging a short to medium term policy while a future govt can remedy the current situation.

 

[Blagsta]

to some and a return to the building of prefabs where possible for others. I've been homeless and it's shit and horrible and I would n't wish it on anyone else but if it was a choice between saying that person A who has arrived in a borough without connections or family should go to a hostel / prefab or prioritising them for housing at the expense of a local who will become bitter and prey to extremists then I would take that decision.

Some boroughs turn away people without connections. Westminster for example. This then gives rise to the absurd situation whereby people have to spend 6 months on the streets before they are placed in a hostel.

Great huh?

 

[KeyboardJockey]

Some boroughs turn away people without connections. Westminster for example. This then gives rise to the absurd situation whereby people have to spend 6 months on the streets before they are placed in a hostel.

Great huh?

I would say that someone shouldn't be given housing in a borough unless they can show six months of connections either job, family etc. These people should be housed temporarily out of borough while their case is dealt with if safe secure hostel / prefab accomodation within borough wasn't available. It shouldn't be a choice between streets or council house with nothing in between. People must be housed somewhere but the current system isn't working.

 

[ViolentPanda]

What do you suggest we do? Sit on our hands and impotently bemoan the growth of fash parties? There are a lot of desparate people out there and they are easy meat for those peddling desparate remedies. Housing is the BIG issue with a lot of people who are voting for / considering to vote bnp.

It will take decades of concerted action to reverse the housing disasters of the Thatcher / Blair years. We don't have decades to counter the siren voices of parties like the bnp.

I'm envisaging a short to medium term policy while a future govt can remedy the current situation.

There's a massive problem inherent in shifting to a straightforward S & D policy, which is that without a "cushion" of available housing to offer people when you switch over, you have people still caught in the trap of waiting for housing to become available, and figuring "well that changed nothing, lets see what happens if I vote BNP".

There's absolutely no way that this or any other govt is going to allow any medium to large-scale development of social housing in the current neo-liberal economic climate, it's alien to their so-called "what works" ideology their ideology proceeds from a premise that "the market" will provide. Social housing need, however, doesn't have a "market-based" solution by dint of it's nature; to provide housing for those in need.

There are no solutions except to rescind the ban on local authority borrowing and development of social housing. If that happened, we'd probably be looking at social housing development being able to at least keep pace with deman, something the Housing Corporation has failed to do (and fallen massively short of) every single year of it's putrid existence.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

There's a massive problem inherent in shifting to a straightforward S & D policy, which is that without a "cushion" of available housing to offer people when you switch over, you have people still caught in the trap of waiting for housing to become available, and figuring "well that changed nothing, lets see what happens if I vote BNP".

Good point. There would have to be transitional arrangements.

There's absolutely no way that this or any other govt is going to allow any medium to large-scale development of social housing in the current neo-liberal economic climate, it's alien to their so-called "what works" ideology their ideology proceeds from a premise that "the market" will provide. Social housing need, however, doesn't have a "market-based" solution by dint of it's nature; to provide housing for those in need.

I agree with this also. A revolutionary shift in housing provision is not going to come about. However, in the long term taxing and compulsory purchase of unused landbanks from and by private developers might bring more land into social housing use.

There are no solutions except to rescind the ban on local authority borrowing and development of social housing. If that happened, we'd probably be looking at social housing development being able to at least keep pace with deman, something the Housing Corporation has failed to do (and fallen massively short of) every single year of it's putrid existence.

Also a good point. The HC has been a disaster.

 

[nino_savatte]

Looking after one's own: isn't that another way of saying something else?

Is this your way of trying to say durrutti is a racist,nino...Why be so half arsed about it....If you think he's a racist say so....And say why....And say who he's racist against....

You and durutti have a single-minded obsession with immigration, it's only right and proper to ask some pertinent questions regarding the origins of these ideas. I believe that the pair of you are xenophobes but both of you seem unwilling to accept that this is the true basis for your fascination with the subject of immigration. Instead, you skirt and dodge around the issue, often preferring to project and engage in flights of Orwellian logic, rather than actually engage with any counter-argument that anyone has put forward.

 

[nino_savatte]

Having read the thread in question I'd have to agree with you Nino. Time and again I hear the same old, same old "we should be looking after our own people etc etc instead of immigrants/people from other countries".

The argument in itself is highly subjective - who is "our own" and why are they so special? Why are they more important than anyone from outside the island archipelago that just happens to be called the British Isles? Seeing as the great decendants of the vast majority of people living on this island probably migrated from Central Europe after the last ice age, its a wholly flawed argument, stinking to high heaven of xenophobia.

Its a very parochial, regressive attitude and in my opinion one which is holding the human race back.

Quite, "our own" is rather vaguely deployed and it leaves many readers in little doubt as what the person has intended when they used the phrase.

 

[Blagsta]

I would say that someone shouldn't be given housing in a borough unless they can show six months of connections either job, family etc. These people should be housed temporarily out of borough while their case is dealt with if safe secure hostel / prefab accomodation within borough wasn't available.

House them in another borough where they also have no connections?

It shouldn't be a choice between streets or council house with nothing in between.

It isn't. People are often placed in hostels or B&B's. However, Westminster won't put you in a hostel if you have no connections. Plus the hostels are shitholes, with drug dealing and bullying rife.

People must be housed somewhere but the current system isn't working.

The current system is fucked.

 

[durruti02]

Context is everything.

if, by "looking after your own", you mean that you will temporarily put the interests of your own community/get your own community in order before attempting to expand the ambit of your grassroots organising then that could be considered to be sensible, in that you will be pioneering a system you might wish to present as a template for future development.

If, however, you mean "eternal localised self and community-interest, "us" against "them" forever, with no ambition or drive to actually change anything merely to ossify your current situation and defend that situation against any threat to it, then you're a reactionary, and an unimaginative and (small "c") conservative reactionary at that.

good post VP .. i as you well know subsrcribe to the former/first para ..

 

[durruti02]

You and durutti have a single-minded obsession with immigration, it's only right and proper to ask some pertinent questions regarding the origins of these ideas. I believe that the pair of you are xenophobes but both of you seem unwilling to accept that this is the true basis for your fascination with the subject of immigration. Instead, you skirt and dodge around the issue, often preferring to project and engage in flights of Orwellian logic, rather than actually engage with any counter-argument that anyone has put forward.

no not single minded obsession with migration ..

but yes, obsession with the inability of the left to understand what capital/neo liberalism is doing in the current period and at how this has allowed the BNP into the vacuum left by the anger against Labour in many w/c areas

 

[durruti02]

I think, in the context of UK P&P and certain obsessed posters, it means something less benign than taking care of one's family.

What I find so amusing is that one this thread is that the thread starter deliberately uses the phrase to set up another rant on immigration.



The community may be "mixed" but the attitude is decidedly parochial.

you prick ..

you start a thread stating ...
"So can we consider the phrase "Looking after one's own" another way of saying "Send them back"?"

which is obviously essentially an accusation of racism/fascism against me ..

and then decide actually i am 'parochial' .. dear oh dear .. try reading what i wrote for once ..

" ..it is this basic failure of the left to 'look after their own' .. indeed its almost total alienation from 'it's own' that is the root cause of why the left and @ are so small .

you have no understanding of the most basic processes that must be followed if we want the big prize .. of simple combination in the community and workforce ... we must start from the very very bottom .. we must NOT build our castle on sand like has always been done before .. it has been done by m/c revos many times before and it always fails .. and indeed it usually ushers in reaction .. and THIS is what i am afraid of

as i said before .. go and have kids and then tell me you don't understand what it means to look after your own .. it is not exclusive it is not reactionary it is not racist blah blah blah .. it is just simple humanity from which we can ripple out .."

and p.s. b4 anyone (yetagain) says 'this is racist',the community where i live AND and that includes my friends and THEREFORE 'my own', is mixed in race and colour and age and sexual orientation etc etc .."

 

[audiotech]

There is projected an increasing rise of an ageing population, with more and more people suffering dementia related problems (an estimate of 1.7 million in the not too distant future). Then there will not be enough people of working age to 'look after one's own', nor to pay their pensions and related benefits.

This, the BNP fail to mention.

 

[durruti02]

There is projected an increasing rise of an ageing population, with more and more people suffering dementia related problems (an estimate of 1.7 million in the not too distant future). Then there will not be enough people of working age to 'look after one's own', nor to pay their pensions and related benefits.

This, the BNP fail to mention.

good point .. we do need to look at how society is organised .. but the current immigration is nothing to do with this is it ???

p.s.arn't you always saying all the immigrants will go home??

 

[audiotech]

good point .. we do need to look at how society is organised .. but the current immigration is nothing to do with this is it ???

p.s.arn't you always saying all the immigrants will go home??

East Europeans migrants, particularly Polish migrants, with good English language skills are working in the sector. Most work here for a time and return home. Some will come back. Some will stay permanently.

As for all immigrants returning home? Of course not you donut, this country was built on immigrant labour. A lot of my family (Irish) died here, so to return home would be difficult for them.

 

[Knotted]

Context is everything.

if, by "looking after your own", you mean that you will temporarily put the interests of your own community/get your own community in order before attempting to expand the ambit of your grassroots organising then that could be considered to be sensible, in that you will be pioneering a system you might wish to present as a template for future development.

If, however, you mean "eternal localised self and community-interest, "us" against "them" forever, with no ambition or drive to actually change anything merely to ossify your current situation and defend that situation against any threat to it, then you're a reactionary, and an unimaginative and (small "c") conservative reactionary at that.

Good post. I'm just thinking to myself that there are two posters who would not 'look after their own' in the sense of your first paragraph -

Tbaldwin and Jessiedog.

 

[Jessiedog]

Why for example did we take military action to free the Iraqis from Saddam but it appears we would not consider taking military action to free Zimbabweans from Mugabi?

Oil?



Woof

 

[nino_savatte]

you prick ..

you start a thread stating ...
"So can we consider the phrase "Looking after one's own" another way of saying "Send them back"?"

which is obviously essentially an accusation of racism/fascism against me ..

and then decide actually i am 'parochial' .. dear oh dear .. try reading what i wrote for once ..

" ..it is this basic failure of the left to 'look after their own' .. indeed its almost total alienation from 'it's own' that is the root cause of why the left and @ are so small .

you have no understanding of the most basic processes that must be followed if we want the big prize .. of simple combination in the community and workforce ... we must start from the very very bottom .. we must NOT build our castle on sand like has always been done before .. it has been done by m/c revos many times before and it always fails .. and indeed it usually ushers in reaction .. and THIS is what i am afraid of

as i said before .. go and have kids and then tell me you don't understand what it means to look after your own .. it is not exclusive it is not reactionary it is not racist blah blah blah .. it is just simple humanity from which we can ripple out .."

and p.s. b4 anyone (yetagain) says 'this is racist',the community where i live AND and that includes my friends and THEREFORE 'my own', is mixed in race and colour and age and sexual orientation etc etc .."

You're an ignorant cunt, durutti. You and your friends have a single-minded obsession with immigration that borders on the fanatical.

When you use the phrase "looking after one's own", there is little doubt as to what you mean, so stop playing games.

I have a child and I have a grandchild, what the fuck does that have to do with anything? This is fairly standard stuff from you.

which is obviously essentially an accusation of racism/fascism against me

Take it how you like, friend. You constantly crap on about "the Left", so it's only reasonable to assume that you have some sort of ideological axe to grind. But I will say this: you are a xenophobe, that is the only reason you begin threads about immigration.

Oh and you also have a problem with the word "Liberal", particularly the phrase "classical Liberalism". Do you actually know what "classical liberalism" is? Let's put it this way, if you understand what "classical liberalism" is, then you should have no bother with neo-liberalism. But you use the words "Liberal" and "Left" as pejoratives, so it is only fair to surmise that you ally yourself with the Right.

 

[nino_savatte]

good point .. we do need to look at how society is organised .. but the current immigration is nothing to do with this is it ???

p.s.arn't you always saying all the immigrants will go home??

Point well and truly missed. Do you have trouble with reading?

 

[nino_savatte]

no not single minded obsession with migration ..

but yes, obsession with the inability of the left to understand what capital/neo liberalism is doing in the current period and at how this has allowed the BNP into the vacuum left by the anger against Labour in many w/c areas

Really? So how do you explain the many threads that you have started on the subject of immigration? I think anyone would see it as an obsession. For someone who claims that he isn't "obsessed" with immigration, would you care to explain the 16 threads that you started on this subject? This link doesn't lie.
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/search.php?searchid=2622983

You use the BNP as a cover for your own xenophobia, but you are just as bad as they are.

Funny how you use this phrase a lot, isn't it?

inability of the left

I reckon you're on the Right. Please don't tell me that you're some sort of 'socialist' because you're a liar. You use exactly the same language as the BNP and the NF when talking about immigration and the so-called "Left".



And that's only one page. There are probably at least another 60 threads that you've started on immigration. To even a casual observer, that looks like an obsession.

 

[nino_savatte]

good post VP .. i as you well know subsrcribe to the former/first para ..

That isn't the impression that you gave though -was it? Would you care to explain - in your own words - what you mean by "looking after one's own" and how this relates to your position on immigration?

A straight answer would be nice.

 

[Knotted]

That isn't the impression that you gave though -was it? Would you care to explain - in your own words - what you mean by "looking after one's own" and how this relates to your position on immigration?

A straight answer would be nice.

This is one of nino's few honest posts. He admits he is relying on impressions.

I've yet to see any real differences between Panda, durrutti and myself (for that matter) on the this sort of question (including immigration). That's excluding differences of emphasis of course, but surely that can be discussed in a civil manner.

In the grand scheme of things tbaldwin and treelover aren't that distant to us. I've had enough of this bickering, we're in danger of turning into grumpy old men.

 

[nino_savatte]

Do you remember this thread, durutti?
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=175890

This poster agreed with you...then he was banned. Do you know why he was banned?
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=4997861&postcount=17

 

[becky p]

Do you remember this thread, durutti?
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=175890

This poster agreed with you...then he was banned. Do you know why he was banned?
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=4997861&postcount=17

Talking of being banned nino,for your own sake Ii hope you are again soon.
You seem to get more and more hysterical. Accusations of racism are so easy to throw around. But as you throw out more mud than a fleet of tractors,you really can't make any stick.

 

[nino_savatte]

Talking of being banned nino,for your own sake Ii hope you are again soon.
You seem to get more and more hysterical. Accusations of racism are so easy to throw around. But as you throw out more mud than a fleet of tractors,you really can't make any stick.

I would rethink the use of the word "hysterical", if I were you. Besides if anyone is getting "hysterical", it's you and your anti-immigration chums.

I won't get banned for anything that I've said to you, durutti or baldwin and it's just wishful thinking on your part. Quelle surprise, you're all fantasists.

Pity that you don't actually read articles or links that I've posted. Anyone would think that you resented having your views challenged.

 

[becky p]

Have you bothered to properly read the articles from Oxfam or the World Health Organisation that i posted up yet nino?

 

[nino_savatte]

Have you bothered to properly read the articles from Oxfam or the World Health Organisation that i posted up yet nino?

You have the cheek to ask me that question when you don't even bother to read all the articles and links that I've posted? The arrogance!

What I noticed about that article was that you'd constructed your argument around parts of the text, which you had selectivised. I believe your argument was blown out of the water by MC5.