I wrote a bit about this earlier in a blog and am now coming to terms with a more empathic view on this this given that the Government wants to create a 'Big Society' and reduce the role/financial burden of the state as it seeks to address the deficit.
In a sense this is a footnote and a quandary.
If the Government are keen for cost reduction measures across the board, look at the way they are viewing Housing.
If we take their stated intent to reduce costs and for example ensure that Council Houses dont become a life long entitlement, then turning this entitlement into a periodic review, ultimately comes down to a means test for the occupants.
In the long run this means that Capitalism will have to be different as 'ownership' may come under more scrutiny and it's definitions are stretched .
If we take the Council House analogy, the state ultimately owns the property, but latterly had handed over the 'occupancy' or ownership to the long term tenant. This is where the boundaries get blurred and it is the cuckoo in the nest syndrome, just who has what rights under these circumstances?
Altering these rights is philosophically deeply political, on the one hand it is giving the tenant care and compassion, on the other hand it is trying to get the tenant out of the 'learned helplessness' phase ( and presumably 'in work').
Is the ultimate aim of the Government of the day to provide security for it's citizens, or is it to provide circumstances whereby citizens can secure themselves?
Just what is a 'Big Society'? Does this mean that the Capitalist Model as envisaged by this Government means that 'ownership' will be concentrated in fewer individuals and the prevailing economic conditions for the majority means that they will 'rent' rather than own?
struggling with this one.......
No comments:
Post a Comment