Disraeli, appalled by the inequalities pervading Victorian Britain, adopted “one nationism” for his Conservative party to narrow the gap between the haves and the have-nots. The consequent laws passed even included extending the rights of trade unions and allowing peaceful picketing. Ed Miliband, in an acknowledgment that the country has reverted to Dickensian times, has chosen “one nation Labour” as his election slogan, and nothing could justify his choice more than the existence of “poor doors” and the “segregation of inner-city flat dwellers”, only fit for “vile coloured plastic panels on the outside” of their homes (Poor doors: the segregation of inner-city flat dwellers, 26 July). The transfer of the adjective from the property to the people signals the arrival, in London at least, of a form of economic apartheid; “affordable tenants” being treated with contempt because they cannot afford £500,000 for a studio flat are being kept apart from high-income neighbours. This is clearly the sort of divisive behaviour that the previous mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, tried to eradicate with his “pepperpot” policy of social housing mixed in with other accommodation.
The fact that developers and “buying agents” are calling the tune is yet another reason for Miliband to pledge more regulation, and to propose legislation that bans all such “segregation”; such promises would not be unpopular. After all, what is the point of having a government that insists that civilised values are taught in our schools, when it allows, perhaps encourages, such intolerance, snobbery and bigotry in its housing policies?
Bernie Evans
Liverpool
Hilary Osborne’s report is shocking – but only because the separation of people in the same building is, so to speak, in your face. The normal segregation of rich and poor is so much nicer. It provokes only mild, impotent grumbles. It is time to start to think seriously about the rich-poor spectrum, for inequality is rising. Hardly anyone now even bothers to speak of trickle-down. Money is flowing from poor to rich. It is trickle-up, and near the top the flow concentrates into a torrent. A key unaddressed social problem is that there is no limit to accumulation – to a person’s assets and income. There should be such limits, low enough to address our present problems of gross injustice and planetary overload. A key feature is that this proposal is not a tax, for it is quite logical to resent heavy taxation of income that has (in some cases!) been gained legally. The point is to render excessive accumulation unacceptable, in custom and in law. The first step is to start to think and talk about it.
Alan Cottey
Norwich
Bearing in mind all the terrible and newsworthy happenings in the world this week, I find it incredible that the leading headline relates to the “segregation” of London flat-dwellers. This is not even news.
Developers are forced to provide “affordable” units in their housing schemes, and housing completion rates are at historically low levels. If the social housing providers had to pay market-level management and concierge fees, even fewer affordable houses would be provided.
House-building companies are businesses. Politicians should get on with providing houses, for those who cannot afford London prices, by other means.
Sue Hesketh
Over Alderley, Cheshire