'Social cleansing' or social revamp, those are the phrases being hurled around the controversial benefit reforms proposed by Iain Duncan Smith with the coalition and Labour both showing ideological differences for once.
Here are another two buzz phrases you may have heard of 'big state' and 'big society' and like the two aforementioned phrases both are polemic in their approach to how Britain should be run.
Labour wants high tax and heavy state reliance with high borrowing and the coalition wants a smaller state, lower taxes with benefit cuts, yet is still managing to continue to borrow at record levels with little in tax cuts.
What the coalition wants to achieve and what it can achieve are two different things or are they?
Iain Duncan Smith is facing a herculean task of cutting benefits in order get the public finances back into shape and that includes cutting the expenditure on housing benefit that only supports landlords who are levying a heavy tax burden on the economy.
IDS is correct in his backlash towards the Labour ranks who are accusing him of attempting to implement 'social cleansing' which is in my opinion a sick metaphor and very wide of the mark and just plain 'lies'.
If anything a cap on housing benefits will encourage landlords to lower rents and discourage property investors from making large profits from rents in the city of London, which keeps the lower paid as slaves to their respective rents and mortgages.
A cap of Â£400 per week is quite frankly double what the cap should be.
"But this will mean poor people on low wages won't be able to live in London" I hear you cry.
It means that the rents charged are far too high and the proportion of income used up to pay rent is far too high. So how can this balance out?
Simple answer a house price crash which is not a very popular notion politically because the banks will collapse in turn.
Again the words 'house price crash' send fear across the country as home-owners are left wondering how they can pay back their mortgages and are now in negative equity and foreclosures will increase etc. Yet again this is part of the many 'givens' that people subscribe to.
What is needed is a full scale debt jubilee and for banks to collapse with good restructuring. This will lead to the positive aspects of our financial institutions being preserved whilst the chaff is thrown. All this though will fall into favour of property investors unless there is a Land Value Tax system put in place to ensure prices remain affordable. Then of course we need to address one of the central evils of the banking system, fractional reserve banking, before we can ever hope to have a proper sustainable economic system.
So what is the alternative offered by Labour and what can the coalition achieve with the country in Â£4.8 trillion of debt?
The answer to the first part of the question is to continue borrowing until complete economic collapse, the answer to the second part of the question is….notÂ a lot.
Never has there been a time like this when the reset button was so needed.