Tying for equal fifth: all of the above. HTH
That doesnât help, you need to put them in order pls tks. I can give you some advice if it helps:
Blair was good because I saw him on Football Focus and he said Steed Malbranque was his favourite player, and everyone was like, LOL, and then later that same day Steed Malbranque went out and scored two goals. That is the kind of man Blair was.
Cameron was good because he took on the Scots in their indepedence election thing, and beat them away from home.
Gordon Brown I didnât like so much. He always seemed like he was holding in a fart. I donât like that. Just let it rip, that is what I do. People will Understand.
Youâre running true to Tory form there, Cherts.
For the uninitiated, I reckon it works like this.
Deep down, they know theyâve a pack of bastards in government. They see the homeless on the streets. They watch the local news, replete with stories about how a certain public service is chronically underfunded. They know.
Most Tories presumably are happy with the way things are working for them. Most people consider themselves honourable and decent, Tories among them. How do they reconcile a system thatâs working very well for them with the effects they see elsewhere and their own moral code?
Itâs easy. They find _anything, _usually something exceptional, then engage in an act of epic self-delusion pretending the exception is normal. That, or they pretend that there is no link between the government and the plight of the governed.
How many times has âcorrelation doesnât imply causalityâ allowed you to sleep like a baby, Cherts?
Yes, but what is ur Prime Ministers in order pls pap?
And a classic left wingers response from yourself, not addressing the question. Who needs proof when we can just air our grievances? And when they ask for proof, we can call them Tory and try to pass it off as them not caring.
Classic deflection techniques. Letâs have the stats, and then we can have a discussion about it.
Have you read the article? She lists quite a few facts.
Hereâs a start, seeing as you say youâve asked so many times.
Why do you only mention social housing? We all know there arenât enough and private landlords charge more. Need to take this into consideration as well.
The fact that the number of evictions is rising fast and with the money thatâs about to be taken away only going to make it worse, I struggle to see any justification in it.
Iâm not comfortable with children being put on the street. Are you?
1 Like
ÂŁ23k is the uppermost benefits cap. Iâd imagine you have to tick a fair few boxes to qualify for as much as that.
Going from the responses weâve seen so far, youâd just find an exception and call it usual. Youâre not discussing policy here. Youâre merely trying to call the article into question, leaving it in a hold state. Until someone comes up with your undefined stats, you get to feel better about your vote. You donât have to address it.
This policy was shite when announced. The only reason that the Conservatives got away with it then is because they were able to play the politics of envy, painting a picture of feckless piss-takers living it up on more than the national average wage WHILE YOU GO TO WORK!
No-one bothered to ask whether that was enough money to feed and house a family. Neither were there many people pointing out that the age of the lone breadwinner is over. It wasnât, and it is now being reduced further. More people will be evicted, have to rely on expensive credit. It was completely immoral then. Itâs worse now.
Of course not, but I have to say that considering I live in one of the worst areas for it I donât see any kids on the street. Literally none.
So, using the average rental price if the above, excluding London as thatâs a different discussion, youâre looking at ÂŁ555 for a private place, leaving ÂŁ1111 a month for bills, food, clothing. That does not seen unreasonable, so why would that lead to homelessness?
If in Social housing, this increases to ÂŁ1300 a month, and council even more.
Originally posted by @Chertsey-Saint
Originally posted by @Saint-or-sinner
Originally posted by @Chertsey-Saint
Originally posted by @Saint-or-sinner
Originally posted by @Intiniki
Another Tory MP resigns.
Steven Philips QC. Undemocratic process from the government. Bit of a worry that a tory QC quits stating that.
This one got my attention more though.
https://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2016/nov/04/benefits-cap-reduction-families-christmas
330,000 children will be affected. A truly Dickensian Christmas tale for over 100,000 extra families this year.
Still should free up some more money so the rich can have another tax break.
This will be about the 300th time Iâve asked this question, and Iâve never got a proper answer for itâŚand obviously the article just voices an opinion - there are no facts there.
How much is Social Housing rent in London, and the rest of the country? ÂŁ23,000 a year, with social rents, should be enough to live on.
Have you read the article? She lists quite a few facts.
Hereâs a start, seeing as you say youâve asked so many times.
Why do you only mention social housing? We all know there arenât enough and private landlords charge more. Need to take this into consideration as well.
The fact that the number of evictions is rising fast and with the money thatâs about to be taken away only going to make it worse, I struggle to see any justification in it.
Iâm not comfortable with children being put on the street. Are you?
Of course not, but I have to say that considering I live in one of the worst areas for it I donât see any kids on the street. Literally none.
So, using the average rental price if the above, excluding London as thatâs a different discussion, youâre looking at ÂŁ555 for a private place, leaving ÂŁ1111 a month for bills, food, clothing. That does not seen unreasonable, so why would that lead to homelessness?
My brother has just bagged a council house in Eastleigh after being on the waiting list for over 5 years. His new rent is an affordable 550 per month. For the last 5 years he has been struggling to pay 900 to a private landlord.
1 Like
Itâs fine, someone with more balls than you has provided those stats.
Have you even seen the price of fags now, you Ivory Tower Cunt? ÂŁ10 a box. A family of four could easily get through 80 a day. Thatâs ÂŁ1200 a month, just on itâs own. Did you factor that in, you cunt? Sky TV, thatâs another ÂŁ60 a month. National lottery, ÂŁ10 a week. Tattoos. Think of all the tattoos!
You literally donât know what youâre on about.
Good for your brother. Unfortunately, he is now considered very lucky because of the shameful acts of successive governments.
Just build more council houses. It helps the economy, the poor and the middle classes and pays for itself whilst keeping the money in circulation.
2 Likes
Why exclude London? People including the poor live there, it has every right to be included.
Read the article, it will help you understand why this further cut is wrong.
I donât think youâll find anyone here disagreeing with that.
3 Likes
I have read the article, I am questioning itâs accuracy, the whole point of us having this debate.
The reason I am excluding London is that maybe those people shouldnât live in London. London is unaffordable to everyone but the very rich, but then not many people NEED to live there and would have a better quality of life elsewhere.
You canât have a capital city without all kinds of people living there. Whoâs going to do all the menial jobs?
There seems to be no understanding from those in power about the long term damage all the cuts will have. This country seems to be falling apart at an ever increasing rate.
Iâm glad our club is run better than this country.
1 Like
The above workers are workers, and so we arenât talking about them, theyâll still live in London. Weâre talking about those that are getting ÂŁ23k of benefits. If theyâre getting ÂŁ23k of benefits and the minimum wage then thatâs a further ÂŁ12k, so ÂŁ35k per year.
I think the argument is not about the benefits cap being too low.
I think the argument is that there is not enough council/social housing within London, which most people agree with.
Doesnât look like anyone wants to play your âRank the Wankersâ game Bearsy. My suspicion is that itâs because theyâre all FUCKING AWFUL, and none of the uber-partisans on here want to admit that their party leaders, past and present, are as bad as âThe Othersâ (except the One True Saviour, the Jezzmeister himself, obvs).
Can you qualify for ÂŁ23k in benefits whilst also working?