I detest local councils, local council ministers, etc. They truly are the scum of the earth.

“People are still becoming homeless, but all that now happens is that they are being forced into accepting rent deposit scheme properties or other housing option schemes, but of course this is what is wanted by central government because they do not count towards the homeless statistics.”

So they ARE homeless in your eyes, but they’re in accommodation? But it’s their only option, so that’s not any option at all, and they’re as good as homeless in their hearts…is that your belief? Can you clarify exactly what you mean by all of this, I’m afraid that for one reason or another you’re not explaining too well why it is that people getting accommodation should still be classed as homeless?

Clarification: I mean legitimate long term accommodation, obviously.

All depends on what your definition of a home is. There are thousands of people being housed in bed and breakfasts (usually owned by Tory voters who complain all the time about people claiming benefits, but that is another story.) According to many, this constitutes a home. It certainly is a roof over their head, it is certainly shelter, but I doubt anyone of any sense would call it a home.

Why not Sally? Maybe not for a family, but that strikes me as perfectly adequate for single people or couples.

Yes, homelessness and rooflessness are two different things.

But manipulating the homeless as described in this article doesn’t reduce the supply of social rented housing, although it may mean that different groups of people access it.

Our anonymous guest doesn’t say whether s/he thinks that as a consequence of these devices the “wrong” people are being awarded social housing tenancies.

This piece is so much “half a story” that it’s impossible to know how to respond to it.

It’s not that hard to understand this (very good) article, though people might not be familiar with some of the technical language used. The author explains that reports that homelessness is falling are wrong, and why that’s the case.

In addition, it explains that councils are giving people partial information which means that in some cases they aren’t able to choose the option which is best for them. In particular, people are encouraged to remain in badly and unsuitable overcrowded housing. This is even though according to the law, people should have a right not to have to live in those conditions.

Does that help make it clearer?

I’m struggling to understand the definition of rooflesness vs homelesness, I can accept that B&B is less than ideal for most people, especially families, but I’m not sure that living in less than ideal conditions is the same as homelesness. By that criteria a lot of people who are for example forced to move back in with their parents due to uneployment/negative equity are homeless ?

I think this is the core conceptual issue. When someone moves speedily from a settled home to alternative accomodation (permanent or temporary), ordnary language would not describe them as homeless. When someone has a word with parents or other family members, asking them to hold onto some people in non-ideal conditions for longer because alternative accomodation is not currently available, ordinary langauge would not describe those people as homeless. That is why some of us are struggling, because we seem to be in the midst of some sort of discursive re-definition of various concepts.

I think this explains the state of play on definitions somewhat: http://winstonsmith33.blogspot.com/2009/02/living-arrangements.html

[7] Councils giving “partial information”? Good heavens! But it’s nothing new, Don.

Back in the 1980s the other Districts in Oxfordshire regularly told people that “homelessness is dealt with by the Oxford City Council” – if they had a friend or relaticve who lived within the City boundary the Districts “discharged” their duty by “advising” the homeless person to doss on their floor/sofa for a night and then approach the City Council.

“In particular, people are encouraged to remain in badly and unsuitable overcrowded housing. This is even though according to the law, people should have a right not to have to live in those conditions.”

But it is still not living on the streets, which is what most people associate with when they hear about and talk about homelessness, even if that is “rooflessness” to you.

If there’s an issue here with social housing (and there is an element of add it to the queue of things we need to sort out in that respect) then call it inadequate social housing. If it’s an issue with people being coerced in to making a choice of one option between the two or three available to them then it’s an issue of transparancy. But the one thing it is not is an issue about homelessness.

If they are off the streets, in something that resembles a secure accomodation (or at least their ability to have a “permanent” address is guaranteed even if the current accomodation falls through) then homelessness figures ARE DOWN, and we should celebrate that, hooray for less people living in the most terrible situation they could find themselves in.

Now, let’s move on to the next issue, which is related to homelessness like many other societal ills, and call this what it is. Manipulation of the figures, as a suggestion of what this is, is a little crass when you consider the goal is to get people in to some kind of accomodation and security in that status.

Hell, by doing so we can even be combating homelessness indirectly at the same time rather than getting caught up about how we’re not placing people in fine establishments as soon as they might need to sleep in the park.

10. Nick, that’s a principally much better post than this one and explains the situation with the figures significantly better. Thanks for the link.

“I think this is the core conceptual issue. When someone moves speedily from a settled home to alternative accomodation (permanent or temporary), ordnary language would not describe them as homeless.”

That doesn’t change the fact that someone living in a B&B room – i.e. out of a suitcase, if they have one – is not adequately housed. Especially if they have children.

For all the definitional kung-fu being performed here, there is clearly a world of difference between me living in a rented room in a shared house (obviously not homeless), and someone living in a B&B. I can occupy my room in the daytime. I can put my belongings in the wardrobe, and leave them there. I get at least a month’s notice; they get no notice and their bed (if there is one) could be two miles away tomorrow for all they know.

In a B&B or hostel you have no fixed address.You therefore cannot access numerous services, private or public. To take a trivial example, getting an Oyster Card requires a fixed address. Signing up for a dentist or GP requires a fixed address. Proving your identity for almost any purpose requires a fixed address.

It seems to me that this deep and meaningful “core conceptual debate” going on about the true meaning of the word homeless is just a method of psychologically removing large numbers of people from the “deserving of state support” pile and putting them into the “scroungers hoovering up my taxes which I pay like a sucker” pile.

That post Nick links to – clearly the idea there is that as soon as someone’s in something with a roof and doors, even if it’s a lock-up garage shared with a pack of rats, they should be ignored by the state until they are again lacking a roof and doors. Anything else is apparently bleeding-heart liberals being taken for a ride by these so-called “homeless” people.

“the infamous P1e’s”

“rent deposit scheme properties”

“housing option schemes”

“place them via an ‘option’”

“Gatekeeping”

“Option scheme accommodation”

If you had written this article in English rather than jargonese, I would prob ably understand it. As it is, I have very little idea what you are saying, other than that you don’t like g voernment housing policy.

“That doesn’t change the fact that someone living in a B&B room – i.e. out of a suitcase, if they have one – is not adequately housed. Especially if they have children.”

My understanding, and I’m willing to be corrected, is that you would only be in a B&B room (unless there voluntarily) if you were waiting to move in to more secure housing.

““deserving of state support” pile and putting them into the “scroungers hoovering up my taxes which I pay like a sucker” pile.”

No, it’s differentiating between the “deserving of my support in one category” pile and the “deserving of my support in another category” pile. The importance is to recognise where gains are being made, and getting people out of sleeping rough, and in day by day housing has clearly been a success. The next success needs to be adequate social housing and better links with housing agencies for this purpose, but that is not solely an issue for homeless people, it’s one for vulnerable people in general of which homeless people happen to be a fairly high priority sub-group.

Sitting here saying “homelessness is still terrible” when the common definition of that is the sleeping rough idea leads to situations like that described in the link given at 10 by Nick, where people that are not at the bottom of the pile are given support to justify their own existence without tackling the hard problems.

“to justify their own existence” = to justify the existence of the support bodies as they fail to administer the most effective support.

Jungle – all good points but not strictly about homelessness. Although I would invite you to notice where many of the problems you notice arise (incidentally I don’t recall that Oyster cards do require an address for basic features). They tend to be about interacting with state bureacracies and those most closely regulated by them. I think it underlines how people without fixed addresses need support too, but of a somewhat different kind: specific allowances in the face of our monolithic bureaucracies.

“That doesn’t change the fact that someone living in a B&B room – i.e. out of a suitcase, if they have one – is not adequately housed. Especially if they have children.”

Not being adequately housed is still different from homelessness. And is also invalidates the criticism of Mark Easton’s post.

Once again, the definition problem. Seems to come up all the time really, doesn’t it?

Homeless has a meaning in everyday language. It means without a roof over your head, sleeping rough. That’s what the woman on the Clapham Omnibus thinks it is. That’s how you gain her support for the taxation of her income to pay to help solving this problem.

And this form of homelessness is pretty much solved. Absent those with either mental health or addiction problems (whose problem isn’t the basence of housing, it’s the mental health or addiction one) there are no more than a few hundred nationwide on any particular day.

However, what the bureaucracy, the activists, say is “homeless” is “being in a not very good property paid for by the State”. The reason being obvious: only by defining homeless as that can they contnue to get the support of TWotCO to keep paying the taxes so that they’ve got some work to do.

Shameless manipulation of the citizenry I call it.

Homeless has a meaning in everyday language. It means without a roof over your head, sleeping rough. That’s what the woman on the Clapham Omnibus thinks it is.

Just so I know, has anybody asked this question of the woman on the Clapham Omnibus, or is this another Tim Worstall opinion masquerading as fact?

The reason being obvious: only by defining homeless as that can they contnue to get the support of TWotCO to keep paying the taxes so that they’ve got some work to do.

And this is a pretty foul and evidence-free claim, isn’t it?

Basically, what he is saying as there is no true “homelessness” in Britain today – everybody has a roof over their heads even though its at a B&B and its temporary. I think the author would benefit from a visit to parts of Africa where he can see what true homelessness means.

I also would like to ask the author what he thinks that a person on benefits who is moved to a B&B is actually considered homeless while a person not on benefits who rents a room in a house share with 5 people is not homeless. Both are at the mercy of a landlord that can give them a month’s notice – if that – to move out – so both are technically in temporary accomodation.

Yeah, I didn’t have a contract on my bedsit for most of the three years I was living there. If I had been given that room by the state, rather than tracking it down commercially, then I imagine I would have been classed as “homeless” by the author who wrote this article.