Millions of people have been condemned to live under "social apartheid" by 30 years of poor housing policies, a damning report on council estates will say this week.

 

The 107-page report, to be published on Friday, condemns successive governments for pushing poorer people into what it condemns as "social concentration camps" set away from private housing, jobs and shops. Children born on such estates are more likely to end up unemployed, suffer mental health problems and die younger than their counterparts in private housing, says the study by the Fabian Society. Most damningly for the Government, it concludes that pledges by the then Prime Minister Tony Blair to end "no-go areas" and close of the gap between rich and poor have ended in failure.

 

The report, entitled In the Mix, finds that by concentrating council housing in estates set apart from the wider community, successive governments have produced a situation where living in social housing is not just a sign of poverty but a cause in itself. It is blunt in assessing Britain's housing policy as "nothing short of disastrous".

 

According to the Fabians, children bought up in social housing now have far fewer life chances than half a century ago, because they are concentrated on increasingly ghettoised estates. Those born after 1970 in council homes are twice as likely to suffer from mental health problems than those born in 1946 in public housing, 11 times more likely to be unemployed and not in training or education, and nine times more likely to live in a household where nobody has a job.

 

The gulf between those left stranded on these estates and rich or even middle-income families is wider now than it was 30 years ago. In England and Wales, the average electoral ward is 16 per cent public housing, but in the poorest wards that figure rises to 70 per cent or more.

 

See whole article here:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-...ps-1678127.html

 

Are the authors of the report correct to compare council estates to concentration camps?

if council estates are cess pits, concentration camps, full of people who have a bleak outlook on life with little future.... then its THEIR fault! theres utterly no reason why people placed on council estates cannot behave, use their brains, think about bettering their situation and not letting council estates become scum-holes.

 

they tried moving 'rough' families out of rough ares here in derby, placing them in 'nicer' residential areas. result?... their pygmalion experiment failed, they didnt raise their standards to fit in with 'nicer' people, they simply brought down their neighbourhood to their level.

 

scum are scum and will always be scum, decent people (even with no money) are decent people and will always be so.

I would tend to agree with the report tbh.. I dont think it can really be coincidence that when you socially exclude people they become unruly scum or drop-outs..... I think in places like this a "siege mentality" comes into being and basically an attitude of "nobody likes us, but we dont care" becomes commonplace.... I mean, there is, quite literally, NOTHING for people on these hell-hole estates... Very few shops, practically no facilities, no spirit of community.. I mean, they got rid of much of the tenement housing where a strong sense of community DID exist, and then replaced them with these rat-holes and tower blocks in the 60s and 70s... The policies of Thatcher in the 80s hardly helped matters either....

 

 

To be fair certainly in Glasgow a load of European money has gone into the vast housing estates and there's a far better mix of housing and facilities. From the largest council house stock in Europe, and whose maintenance the Council hadn't a hope of keeping on top of, there are now no council houses as such. All of Glasgow's houses are either in private hands or part of housing associations including the ( too large) GHA, which still has the bulk of the council's old stock but is handing them over to smaller local HAs in a rolling programme. There's a huge renovation project in place just now - new roofs, insulation, cladding, rewiring, new kitchens and bathrooms and even new communal digital aerials - doors and windows were replaced in a previous round.

 

Sadly I've seen districts brought up to standard before and then trashed by the anti-social elements in them. Every part of Glasgow is scarred by anti-social behaviour, even the plummiest neighbourhoods.

 

A few people can make life hell for so many but a few decent people standing together can also make a huge difference in their community. I've seen both. authorities can only do so much.

Sorry, but this IS bull$h!t. Anyone can become anything, and there's only so much authorititive figures can do to help. If some kids don't want to learn to their ability (be they from a council estate or an Upper East Side mansion), a teacher won't be able to help them fulfil their potential. Similarly, any kid who does have anything to them and does want to live up to themselves WILL have the opportunity, even at basic levels. I've seen people from dreadful area's shine, not just academically, but also in their personal life, becuase they made it happen for themselves. I'm not talking about becoming millionaires on an Alan Sugar level, but basic civilisation and contentment.

 

If there's no sense of community, what are we supposed to do about that? If they chose to alienate one-another, that's not my problem. I don't see why any MORE of my money should be pumped into desecrated areas when whatever it's spent on will be destroyed by vandalism and theft.

 

I understand that the point you're making, Scott, is that there is vandalism, theft and 'yobbery' because they have nothing else to do. And to a certain extent, I believe that and agree. But, it is just sheer ignorance and unwillingness to even not try and improve oneself IMO. If they don't even want the opportunity to help, they won't get it.

 

ALSO: my lecturer would have a field day with the amount of 'us/them' and 'alientation of the other' in that post :lol: Time to stop revising? Yes.

Sorry, but this IS bull$h!t. Anyone can become anything, and there's only so much authorititive figures can do to help. If some kids don't want to learn to their ability (be they from a council estate or an Upper East Side mansion), a teacher won't be able to help them fulfil their potential. Similarly, any kid who does have anything to them and does want to live up to themselves WILL have the opportunity, even at basic levels. I've seen people from dreadful area's shine, not just academically, but also in their personal life, becuase they made it happen for themselves. I'm not talking about becoming millionaires on an Alan Sugar level, but basic civilisation and contentment.

 

If there's no sense of community, what are we supposed to do about that? If they chose to alienate one-another, that's not my problem. I don't see why any MORE of my money should be pumped into desecrated areas when whatever it's spent on will be destroyed by vandalism and theft.

 

I understand that the point you're making, Scott, is that there is vandalism, theft and 'yobbery' because they have nothing else to do. And to a certain extent, I believe that and agree. But, it is just sheer ignorance and unwillingness to even not try and improve oneself IMO. If they don't even want the opportunity to help, they won't get it.

 

ALSO: my lecturer would have a field day with the amount of 'us/them' and 'alientation of the other' in that post :lol: Time to stop revising? Yes.

 

If you dont believe that "Ghettoisation" is a problem, I suggest you look to examples in New York, LA, the Favellas in Rio and the Banlouies in Paris, these are examples of how things can almost certainly go if we dont stem this particular tide NOW... To say that environment isn't a factor in social problems is sheer ignorance....

 

Sorry, but this IS bull$h!t. Anyone can become anything, and there's only so much authorititive figures can do to help. If some kids don't want to learn to their ability (be they from a council estate or an Upper East Side mansion), a teacher won't be able to help them fulfil their potential. Similarly, any kid who does have anything to them and does want to live up to themselves WILL have the opportunity, even at basic levels. I've seen people from dreadful area's shine, not just academically, but also in their personal life, becuase they made it happen for themselves. I'm not talking about becoming millionaires on an Alan Sugar level, but basic civilisation and contentment.

 

If there's no sense of community, what are we supposed to do about that? If they chose to alienate one-another, that's not my problem. I don't see why any MORE of my money should be pumped into desecrated areas when whatever it's spent on will be destroyed by vandalism and theft.

 

I understand that the point you're making, Scott, is that there is vandalism, theft and 'yobbery' because they have nothing else to do. And to a certain extent, I believe that and agree. But, it is just sheer ignorance and unwillingness to even not try and improve oneself IMO. If they don't even want the opportunity to help, they won't get it.

 

ALSO: my lecturer would have a field day with the amount of 'us/them' and 'alientation of the other' in that post :lol: Time to stop revising? Yes.

 

I agree with this completely

 

Interesting you mention Sugar as he was bought up on a council estate that was as tough if not tougher than anything in existence today, others that were bought up in ultra rough estates were Philip Green, Bernie Ecclestone, Duncan Bannatyne, they all said that their tough upbringing INSPIRED them to claw their way out of the gutter and make something for themselves and any working class person in a ghetto has the chance to do that, someone I went to school with, incredibly tough upbringing that would keep Jeremy Kyle busy for weeks but now he is one of the countries leading scrap metal merchants and has a chain of scrapyards because again his upbringing gave him DRIVE as opposed to the easy way of just sitting on his arse

Alan Sugar is the exception that proves the general rule: people always pinpoint him as an example of someone who became a success despite a rough upbringing, because there are so few other prominent examples.

Alan Sugar is the exception that proves the general rule: people always pinpoint him as an example of someone who became a success despite a rough upbringing, because there are so few other prominent examples.

 

Did you even read my post? I infact said I DIDN'T mean people like Sugar. I'm not talking about rags-to-riches, millionaires and royalty like some fairytale. I'm talking about the people who've I've encountered who have fought their 'concentration camp' upbringing to make something of themselves as a, for want of a better word, 'normal' or 'regular' life. It's not impossible, or even hugely difficult, for the people in these situations to make themselves a comfortable, enjoyable life.

Alan Sugar is the exception that proves the general rule: people always pinpoint him as an example of someone who became a success despite a rough upbringing, because there are so few other prominent examples.

 

I named some others in that post too ;) but you are only focusing on high profile cases, what about the cases that we never hear about in the media or who have a low profile ?

 

Ron Dennis who started off as a mechanic walking 8 miles to work every day who built a 500m empire

Paul Kemsley, working class guy who has probably the biggest property portfolio in the UK after starting with nothing

Frank Williams who lived in a transit van in his early days of business and is now worth some 60m

Alex Ferguson

 

lots of working class guys have made millions in business after tough upbringings, then there is all the city traders on the stock exchange most of which are working class "Essex Boys"

Did you even read my post? I infact said I DIDN'T mean people like Sugar. I'm not talking about rags-to-riches, millionaires and royalty like some fairytale. I'm talking about the people who've I've encountered who have fought their 'concentration camp' upbringing to make something of themselves as a, for want of a better word, 'normal' or 'regular' life. It's not impossible, or even hugely difficult, for the people in these situations to make themselves a comfortable, enjoyable life.

Well, I wasn't actually talking to you, I was talking to BA Baracus who specifically used Sugar as an example. But anyway, you cannot deny that someone born to a couple of middle-class doctors in Cambridgeshire going to a grammar school is likely to have a better start in life than some kid born to a couple of heroin addicts going to some really bad comprehensive. And like it or not, the level of education someone gets in their early years DOES have a huge impact on their career prospects later in life.

Well, I wasn't actually talking to you, I was talking to BA Baracus who specifically used Sugar as an example. But anyway, you cannot deny that someone born to a couple of middle-class doctors in Cambridgeshire going to a grammar school is likely to have a better start in life than some kid born to a couple of heroin addicts going to some really bad comprehensive. And like it or not, the level of education someone gets in their early years DOES have a huge impact on their career prospects later in life.

 

For the professions such as medicine, law, science, accountancy, dentistry and so on you are right but in terms of actutally getting off one's arse and starting a business then education means absolutely nothing, its a level playing field out there, a working class lad with a great idea will do as well if not better than a public schoolboy with a great idea

Well, I wasn't actually talking to you, I was talking to BA Baracus who specifically used Sugar as an example.

 

Sorry - as I had introduced the use of Sugar in my post, I'd assumed you were.

 

Obviously what you conceptualize WILL produce a child with a world of opportunities available to them. BUT, that doesn't mean that someone with less money or obvious opportunity cannot make the best of themselves. I'm a student at University, and a lot of working class people work here alongside middle and upper classes. It's not their background which is important anymore. As much as I hate student loans, they've made higher education available to a new group of people.