The UK General Politics Thread Page 102

  • Page

    of 191 First / Last

  • spamdangled 13 May 2013 12:13:29 27,355 posts
    Seen 29 minutes ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Stuart Hazell has changed his plea to Guilty in the Tia Sharp murder trial, saying "the family has suffered enough".

    I think they suffered enough when you abducted and murdered their daughter, you utter fucking prick. Not after subjecting them to court and a long period of denial in the face of overwhelming evidence.

    Edited by darkmorgado at 12:16:51 13-05-2013

    3DS: 4055-2781-2855 Xbox: spamdangled PSN: dark_morgan Wii U: Spamdangle Steam: spamdangled

  • TheSaint 13 May 2013 12:15:48 14,373 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Notice how they failed to quote this bit from the original article:

    In a wide-ranging interview with The Sunday Times, Oliver, who employs thousands of people, attacked prisoner reforms, suggested that school meals were not being funded properly and said that although he did not support UKIP he loved the fact that the party was “stirring it up”.
  • spamdangled 13 May 2013 19:50:25 27,355 posts
    Seen 29 minutes ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Been watching the third debate on the Queen's speech in the commons.

    It's really rather depressing that political debate and government policy now seems to be dictated by UKIP. Stop giving those idiots the oxygen of publicity for god's sake.

    Also, there was a lovely Tory MP who painted people on benefits as "living immoral lifestyles", said the issue of Gay Marriage "was not relevant or important and threatens to undermine the role of the Church of England" and then proceeded to whine on... and on... and on... about foreign immigrants. After the pre-requisite "I'm not racist but" disclaimer.

    "We're not the Nasty Party anymore" indeed...

    Edited by darkmorgado at 19:52:50 13-05-2013

    3DS: 4055-2781-2855 Xbox: spamdangled PSN: dark_morgan Wii U: Spamdangle Steam: spamdangled

  • Bremenacht 13 May 2013 20:02:30 18,222 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    darkmorgado wrote:
    Been watching the third debate on the Queen's speech in the commons
    Get a job. Do something other than watching rubbish on telly!
  • spamdangled 13 May 2013 20:31:06 27,355 posts
    Seen 29 minutes ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    I wouldn't say following politics is "rubbish".

    The rhetoric and mud-slinging in PMQs certainly is though. PMQs really shows politicians in the worst possible light. Half an hour of point-scoring insults, tired ideology and distortion of statistics.

    Though some of the quips do raise the occasional glol, like the Richard III Atos Healthcare one recently.

    Edited by darkmorgado at 20:33:18 13-05-2013

    3DS: 4055-2781-2855 Xbox: spamdangled PSN: dark_morgan Wii U: Spamdangle Steam: spamdangled

  • Bremenacht 13 May 2013 20:40:37 18,222 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Following politics is fine. Watching a debate on the Queen's speech on the telly is a shocking waste of anyones time.

    If you simply must know what's going on in the commons, read Hansard and do something better with the time you've saved.
  • X201 13 May 2013 20:58:17 15,386 posts
    Seen 3 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Today in Parliament, Radio 4 \o/
  • spamdangled 13 May 2013 20:59:29 27,355 posts
    Seen 29 minutes ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Reading Hansard is fine for when you need to refer something, but otherwise it's just dull as hell.

    I always watch BBC Parliament during the day. I prefer Select Committee stuff because it tends to really get to the meat behind bills and things. Started quite liking a lot of the Lords stuff more recently too (which isn't incompatible with my view that it needs radical reform to make it diplomatic, before anyone brings it up).

    I don't watch every single little debate though. Agriculture debates bore me senseless, for example.

    3DS: 4055-2781-2855 Xbox: spamdangled PSN: dark_morgan Wii U: Spamdangle Steam: spamdangled

  • Bremenacht 13 May 2013 21:10:52 18,222 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    X201 wrote:
    Today in Parliament, Radio 4 \o/
    Yes, yes! Or this.

    Each to their own DM, but there are people out there who are paid to produce good summaries of what goes in in Parliament, to save you from doing so.
  • Deleted user 13 May 2013 21:11:13
    TheSaint wrote:
    mowgli wrote:
    TheSaint wrote:
    TheSaint wrote:
    Do the council have any grounds to move you on currently? Hypothetically if I was unemployed and given a council house / flat at a low rent and then got a job paying 40k could I just keep the flat and the cheap rent or would they force me out?
    Anyone?
    There seems to mass confusion about what a council house is. They are not just for the unemployed and single parents! They are for people who want the added security, higher tenancy protection and lower rents of the social sector. If you can pay the rent you stay in the property. I had neighbours growing up on combined incomes of 60/70k plus (in council houses).
    Interesting although this seems all wrong when we have a shortage of social housing.
    See, without picking on you individually it is quite shocking the amount of ignorance that goes hand in hand with the average Tory supporter. My wife bless her comes from a rural middle class family and some of the shocking pre conceptions and outright false information she has been brought up with goes some way to explaining some of these disgusting Tory policies.
  • Deleted user 13 May 2013 21:12:30
    darkmorgado wrote:
    Reading Hansard is fine for when you need to refer something, but otherwise it's just dull as hell.

    I always watch BBC Parliament during the day. I prefer Select Committee stuff because it tends to really get to the meat behind bills and things. Started quite liking a lot of the Lords stuff more recently too (which isn't incompatible with my view that it needs radical reform to make it diplomatic, before anyone brings it up).

    I don't watch every single little debate though. Agriculture debates bore me senseless, for example.
    Yeah, sorry DM. But in no way shape or form is watching BBC parliament during the day not a massive waste of time.
  • Bremenacht 13 May 2013 21:21:39 18,222 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Then there's the horrendous expense of trying to manage it it all. Anyone who believes it won't be expensive is just daft. In however many years time, people will be asking 'why couldn't they just spend the extra money on building more housing rather than forcing people to move?'

    It's a Pogrom against the poor and low-waged.
  • spamdangled 13 May 2013 21:29:20 27,355 posts
    Seen 29 minutes ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Bremenacht wrote:
    X201 wrote:
    Today in Parliament, Radio 4 \o/
    Yes, yes! Or this.

    Each to their own DM, but there are people out there who are paid to produce good summaries of what goes in in Parliament, to save you from doing so.
    True, though summaries often occlude a lot of the best contributions from speakers, the best debates, etc etc and are themselves open to partisan manipulation. I'm very much in favour of "diplomacy needs to be seen to be taking place". Always wanted to spend an afternoon sitting in the public gallery of the commons.

    3DS: 4055-2781-2855 Xbox: spamdangled PSN: dark_morgan Wii U: Spamdangle Steam: spamdangled

  • spamdangled 13 May 2013 21:30:18 27,355 posts
    Seen 29 minutes ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    mowgli wrote:
    darkmorgado wrote:
    Reading Hansard is fine for when you need to refer something, but otherwise it's just dull as hell.

    I always watch BBC Parliament during the day. I prefer Select Committee stuff because it tends to really get to the meat behind bills and things. Started quite liking a lot of the Lords stuff more recently too (which isn't incompatible with my view that it needs radical reform to make it diplomatic, before anyone brings it up).

    I don't watch every single little debate though. Agriculture debates bore me senseless, for example.
    Yeah, sorry DM. But in no way shape or form is watching BBC parliament during the day not a massive waste of time.
    I do other things as well. Cook, clean, trade goods, etc etc. The benefits of a tri-monitor setup are that I can have iplayer on one, general browser/ebay on another, and a game on the central one.

    Edited by darkmorgado at 21:41:58 13-05-2013

    3DS: 4055-2781-2855 Xbox: spamdangled PSN: dark_morgan Wii U: Spamdangle Steam: spamdangled

  • Deleted user 13 May 2013 21:32:10
    Part of my job has had me meeting with various councils and agencies and talking about how they are going to manage this. The consensus is it is a fucking joke. Social landlords are obliged to pursue rent arrears, they cannot just ignore them. They now have legions of people who from the beginning of April are now in rent arrears. Increasing only a weekly/monthly basis. They are obliged to being proceedings. They have no where to put them. This means that families are being made homeless, which means the council now has an obligation to home them. There are no - this needs to be fucking emphasised - appropriately sized houses. This means that these people/families will be put up in hotels and BnBs at huge expense. So now these families are homeless, they have huge rent bills due to no fault of their own. Huge legal expense bills due to no fault of their own. Living in temporary accommodation - with children, elderly people, disabled people etc.

    This isn't another shitty policy, this is a seriously bad butt fucking to a very large part of the country in the same leagues as the poll tax. Don't support it on the basis of some DM filtered BBC news report. It hasn't been thought through and is making people homeless with no where else to go through absolutely no fault of their own.
  • Bremenacht 13 May 2013 21:37:36 18,222 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    darkmorgado wrote:
    mowgli wrote:
    darkmorgado wrote:
    Reading Hansard is fine for when you need to refer something, but otherwise it's just dull as hell.

    I always watch BBC Parliament during the day. I prefer Select Committee stuff because it tends to really get to the meat behind bills and things. Started quite liking a lot of the Lords stuff more recently too (which isn't incompatible with my view that it needs radical reform to make it diplomatic, before anyone brings it up).

    I don't watch every single little debate though. Agriculture debates bore me senseless, for example.
    Yeah, sorry DM. But in no way shape or form is watching BBC parliament during the day not a massive waste of time.
    I do other things as well. Cook, clean, trade goods, etc etc. The benefits of a tri-monitor setup.
    :-D

    Quality.
  • spamdangled 13 May 2013 21:38:38 27,355 posts
    Seen 29 minutes ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    mowgli wrote:
    TheSaint wrote:
    mowgli wrote:
    TheSaint wrote:
    TheSaint wrote:
    Do the council have any grounds to move you on currently? Hypothetically if I was unemployed and given a council house / flat at a low rent and then got a job paying 40k could I just keep the flat and the cheap rent or would they force me out?
    Anyone?
    Bit unsure about this. Traditionally, social housing, once obtained, was "for life". I.E. once you got a house, it was yours indefinitely and independent of circumstance. There's been moves away from that recently and for the record I think moving away from the "council house for life" model is reasonable precisely for the reason mentioned. It's mental that someone can grab a council house when they're unemployed but still be living there once they're earning 50k a year, particularly when waiting lists in some counties stretch to 4 years due to an utter dereliction of new social housing stock in 20 years.

    One other quick point - all these bollocks newspaper headlines about "people on benefits getting 100k a year" etc rarely mention that the majority of that is paid directly to private landlords rather than the claimants. Investment in social housing would not only lower the burden of housing benefit on the state (which isn't, actually, anywhere near as much as it's made out to be as 60% of the welfare budget is Pensions, not housing, JSA, DLA, etc) but also sort force the private rental sector to lower prices due to supply finally managing to catch up to demand.

    Spend about 400 million to create something like 25,000 new social houses would save that amount many, many times over in the long term.

    Edited by darkmorgado at 21:40:38 13-05-2013

    3DS: 4055-2781-2855 Xbox: spamdangled PSN: dark_morgan Wii U: Spamdangle Steam: spamdangled

  • spamdangled 13 May 2013 21:43:53 27,355 posts
    Seen 29 minutes ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Tonight's Panorama was interesting - the massive disparity between unemployment rates among white and black people, which is as much as double in some areas.

    3DS: 4055-2781-2855 Xbox: spamdangled PSN: dark_morgan Wii U: Spamdangle Steam: spamdangled

  • Deleted user 13 May 2013 21:54:52
    I don't see the problem with people earning good money and living in council houses. These aren't meant to be poor houses. They are an alternative to the profit driven and low protection private market. You don't (and shouldn't) have to be living on food stamps to be able to get secure accommodation. Lack of stock is the reason we have housing associations offering 'council housing' and more money needs to be put into them.
  • TheSaint 13 May 2013 22:13:25 14,373 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    I guess I just feel that with such a limited supply they should be going to people who really need them rather than those too afraid to step into the real world.

    Edited by TheSaint at 22:13:38 13-05-2013
  • RedSparrows 13 May 2013 22:22:29 22,648 posts
    Seen 39 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    You have a point to make without recourse to bollocks like 'the real world'.
  • TheSaint 13 May 2013 22:26:51 14,373 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    It was a bit tabloid in hindsight but it sounded better than 'the private housing market'.

    Edited by TheSaint at 22:29:09 13-05-2013
  • Bremenacht 13 May 2013 22:34:40 18,222 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    The only catch with building more homes -especially affordable homes- is that buy-to-lets will hoover up it all up, thus guaranteeing themselves demand and the ability to keep rent high. No government would dare interfere with that market, as it's another British Success Story.
  • Deleted user 13 May 2013 22:35:26
    What exactly is real world about the private housing market above social housing sector? Or is it only the real world when you accept your place in the money chain?
  • thelzdking 13 May 2013 22:40:40 4,367 posts
    Seen 2 weeks ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Yeah, the whole housing market is in cloud cuckoo land as far as I can see.
  • TheSaint 13 May 2013 22:48:38 14,373 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Accepting that you earn enough to look after yourself and pay the market rate rather than occupying a place in a very limited supply of social housing that could be better used for someone who really needs the added protection.
  • Chopsen 13 May 2013 22:49:06 15,962 posts
    Seen 31 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Mowgli is a communist. GET HIM!
  • Chopsen 13 May 2013 22:52:32 15,962 posts
    Seen 31 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    mowgli wrote:
    What exactly is real world about the private housing market above social housing sector? Or is it only the real world when you accept your place in the money chain?
    The fact is that housing has value and worth. Everybody is entitled to a home, that is quite a well established right within our society. But with rights come obligations.

    It's a different thing to say that people can have a safety net which ensures they are housed if they need it, than to say that everybody is given equal access to housing regardless.

    The latter is literally communism. Now, communism is a system that many feel has merits, but in practice it hasn't turned out too well. Basically, people tend to like nicer houses.

    Edited by Chopsen at 22:53:26 13-05-2013
  • Bremenacht 13 May 2013 23:11:44 18,222 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Chopsen wrote:
    mowgli wrote:
    What exactly is real world about the private housing market above social housing sector? Or is it only the real world when you accept your place in the money chain?
    The fact is that housing has value and worth. Everybody is entitled to a home, that is quite a well established right within our society. But with rights come obligations.
    What are these obligations?

    To be used as scapegoats for massive funding gaps they didn't create?
    To be blamed for a refusal to create more housing stock?
    To be knocked around to appease Daily Mail readers?
    To be pushed into backwater parts of the country where they can afford private rates?

    This is a stupid idea that will cost far more to administer than it will ever save. It will hurt the weak and simple. It will do nothing to help those who really need it. It is pure, stinking politics.

    Edited by Bremenacht at 23:12:16 13-05-2013
  • Madder-Max 13 May 2013 23:13:53 11,649 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    darkmorgado wrote:
    Tonight's Panorama was interesting - the massive disparity between unemployment rates among white and black people, which is as much as double in some areas.
    Yeah well whites are lazy fuckers.......

    99 problems and being ginger is one

  • Page

    of 191 First / Last

Log in or register to reply