Would this government ever really want full employment? Full employment drives up wages and that’s the last thing that the Tories’ buddies would ever want!
2 Likes
It was just a uni placement so I didn’t give up. In fact I’d have applied for a job if I could have.
They know that it’s not achievable, and as you say, don’t really want it anyway. The Single Market has greatly eroded the power of unskilled or oversupplied workers. For me, that’s why the punitive regime they’ve created is so abhorrent. It is serving a purpose and it is working out very well for them. For such a privileged bunch, they are fucking brilliant at framing the argument so that it destroys any sympathy for those likely to be affected.
Example. “The government should not pay more than 400 Housing Benefit a week”. Now some are paying a monthly mortgage that size, and that’ll be the comparison that gets made. An impression is created of benefit seekers living it up at the taxpayer’s expense.
Channel 4 coincidentally shows stuff like Benefits Street. The Daily Echo, to its shame, is demonising the homeless by reporting on aggressive and/or fake homeless, again, coincidentally. The Liverpool Echo can’t get enough of printing stories about benefit cheats either.
There are hundreds of these stories (Sotonians homework; search your local rag for “benefit cheat”) with people on jetskis, riding elephants, going on holidays, etc.
Some of the media is a bit more coy about reporting some of the nastier sides of that HB cap, such as people losing their entire support networks, London being socially cleansed, or around 80k kids spending Christmas 2014 technically homeless, pulling crackers in a dismal B&B.
I dunno; I’m getting more emotional in my old age. Very difficult to look it all in the eye, especially as I still spend quite a bit of time on my old estate.
There’s always some strange cognitive dissonance that occurs with people that get annoyed at this stuff.
62 people own half of the worlds wealth
Oh look, that refugee has an iPhone
9 Likes
I think the Cameron bro is doing a Gd Job. He’s fixed it so I’ve got More Money, and only have to work 3 Days Per Week. Also my Sister has got New Job & Southampton beat Arsenal 0-0.
Things aren’t all perfect in UK, i.e. I was concerned to read that 1000s of bros are dying as a result of Labour’s failure to provide effective Opposition, and I’m concerned about all the gd celebrities dying, but overall, since I became Tory a week or so ago, things are looking up for me.
2 Likes
This is an interesting story from the Indy.
Tory MPs go on fact finding mission to Lesbos. Heidi Allen completely changes her tune on our response to this crisis.
1 Like
Tsk our tax payers money going on jaunts abroad. Disgraceful.
Going to go a little Bearsy here ‘how come the Bros didn’t get to go?’.
1 Like
Shows the benefit of taking them out of the bubble of Westminster to see probelms first hand. Of course this should apply to MP’s across the board. Well done to her for taking up the offer from Save the Children to go there and speaking out truthfully after she came back.
Going off topic slightly, I’ve long held a belief that if an MP is serious about becoming a front bencher, then they have to work at least 3 years in both the public and private sectors in a range of jobs (and not just Uncle Monty’s hedge fund team.) This may give them a more rounded appreciation of the problems faced by the population and organisations at large. Too few MP’s have any real world experience, especially when they are groomed for public office as soon as they’ve finished their PPE degree at Oxbridge.
4 Likes
I included that story for a wee bit of balance. I know that not every Tory shares the policy views of the leadership. We have seen MPs rebel in speech, if not in action, against some of the more onerous cuts that affect working voters.
I didn’t vote Labour in 2010. Couldn’t. There were local issues to contend with; we’d just had Luciana parachuted in over competent local councillors. At one stage, Ricky Tomlinson was considering running against her on a socialist Labour ticket. Don’t think she’d be our MP if he’d have done that. Don’t get me wrong; I’m not saying that Jim Royle would have necessarily been MP for Liverpool Wavertree. I just think he would have split the Labour vote enough to allow the LD to sneak in.
There were also big problems in other areas of legislation. Labour did a terrible job of managing the crisis that erupted after 9/11, electing to go to war, enact legislation that impinged on the civil liberties of folk. I wasn’t happy with them then, and had screamed bad things about Tony Blair on the streets on London long before the internecine conflict between he and Brown had settled.
I wasn’t happy with a Conservative-led government back then. My preference would have been for a Labour-led coalition, with the LD’s to reign them in. However, when one reaches a certain age, you’re prepared to accept that people have different ideas about running things, and that I’d give them a chance. You’ll probably find a post on TSW in the very early days to that effect.
I don’t think people were surprised with Mags turning out the way she did. She’s attracted a reputation for being ruthless after she’d been the minister responsible for ending universal free milk. Margaret Thatcher, the milk snatcher, they called her.
The Conservatives went to considerable trouble to detoxify themselves. Dave on a bike. A tree on the logo. Environmental credentials, green economy, all that jazz. The policy and behaviour of many of their MPs in a time of real hardship has deservedly re-toxified the leadership. Make no mistake; politicians like Duncan Smith are already hated. Cameron will never achieve the kind of legacy that Thatcher did either. For all that woman’s faults, and she had many, no-one can contest that she transformed the country. We moved from an ideology of paternalism and state control to the neo-liberal, market driven economy we have now.
Cameron’s Conservatives will be chiefly remembered for their cruelty, lack of compassion and utter mendacity when it came to pre-election pledges. I pity any moderate Conservative MP or supporter that has to clean up after the Eton mess.
1 Like
This is another ridiculous and punitive plan from the Conservatives.
Live in a council house? Does the household make more than 30K p.a. (outside of London)? If so, the Conservatives plan to enforce market rents on those tenants.
It’s a steel-toothed poverty trap that seems designed to force us all into buying, but ignores the fact we can’t. We took our tenancies for life, have paid rent for decades and are now suddenly to be penalised for keeping to our half of the contract.
How about if the council house bros are earning £60k, pap, would you still give them subsidise rent, or should they pay the same as everyone else? I.e. is it the policy you disagree with, or i.e. where the bar is set?
At what level of income should you be required to give up a council house (or at least pay the going rent).
I was under the impression that a council house was provided to those who were unable to provide for themselves. Once you can provide for yourself then surely you shouldn’t be relying on the council to help you out.
BTW I’m not saying the benchmark of £30k pa is the right one, just that is seems like common sense that there should be one.
1 Like
I heard most Council House bros are billionaires. MPs, probably.
This was a coalition proposal with the threshold initially set at 60K. I’d disagree with that, largely because I understand the dynamics of council estates, and that losing decent earning families from the area is one way to guarantee that the estate becomes one of low aspiration and with less money spent in the local economy.
The quote nails it, imo. The assumption is that everyone will be able to buy. The reality is that the market is far too pricey.
This move will just put people into more financial trouble or into the hands of private landlords. The 30K threshold is bloody scandalous.
2 Likes
Them arguments bout driving rich bros out of poor areas, are pretty weak, pap. I think the main problem is where the bros earning £30k might already have debts, or bad credit ratings, or i.e. other commitments like disabled son or whatever. Hopefully bros will Think That Through.
Council house accommodation has nothing to do with the ability for an individual or family to provide for themselves. Before the Right to Buy in the 80’s most people rented their houses from LA’s and many tenants today continue to pay rent for their property, irrespective of the income they have.
There should be no requirement for “giving up” a council house either. Council owned housing is not for a treadmill of tenants coming and going, but intended to create communities, although this has been diluted somewhat with a larger %age owned not by owner-occupiers, but absent landlords.
As usual with Tory housing policy, this is a short sighted attempt to “address” a non issue, but it has far reachinig consequences for those affected. I see the Tories have modified it for HA’s, but Councils will still be required to address rental levels via a Whitehall “formula”, that is bound to kick decent working families right in the nuts.
2 Likes
Originally posted by @Numptyboi
Council house accommodation has nothing to do with the ability for an individual or family to provide for themselves.
Jeez, that doesn’t sound like something the Conservative Bros would agree with. No wonder they’re trying to change it.
Based on all of their other policy implementation, I doubt it.
To address this point directly, I think you should be able to stay in your council house no matter what you earn. People forget that these places are more than just bricks and mortar. It’s where entire families have been raised.
We’re penalising success because of the utter failure of respective governments to provide adequate levels of social housing. That’s completely wrong, and if you were earning 60K a year and suddenly had to pay market rents, what is the incentive for staying put?
The solution is to build more homes. Always has been.
2 Likes