How low can the Tory's get?
- Thread starter inferno
- Start date
coley
Well-Known Member
No, I appreciate your idea in this era of austerity, but putting MPs into barracks is unfair on the servicemen living there, why should they have to put up with low life skivers? No a fair compromise would be to give MPs a board and substinance allowance equal to the cost of a mid range premier inn with evening meal and breakfast included.
I notice you haven't replied to my earlier suggestion, don't you think it was a fairer solution? Win win for IDS, whey not totally, he wouldn't be raking back an average £14 per claimant. but then again surely the original idea was a fairer distribution of social housing was it not? The costs to claimants was just an oversight that could be quickly remedied, don't you think?
Dogsauce
I’ve got Skol but I’m not a Scholar
Like most policies, it seems to be a deliberate attempt to break up poorer communities, push people off old 'assured' tenancies, keep people mobile and on their toes. It won't save money, but it will make the jobless feel insecure and isolated, with increased cost for mental health services, crime (significantly higher in more transient areas than settled ones).
The fucking obvious solution of building more housing, at a time when the cost of government borrowing is still stupidly low, and when there are a lot of people not working that could be employed building this housing, is somehow non-obvious to the Bullingdon rabble. The cost of borrowing this money would be offset by increased taxes (and lower benefits) from increased employment, and from the reduced housing benefit bill achieved by taking people out of expensive private accommodation and placing them in new build accommodation. What's stopping them? Idiocy or ideology?
The fucking obvious solution of building more housing, at a time when the cost of government borrowing is still stupidly low, and when there are a lot of people not working that could be employed building this housing, is somehow non-obvious to the Bullingdon rabble. The cost of borrowing this money would be offset by increased taxes (and lower benefits) from increased employment, and from the reduced housing benefit bill achieved by taking people out of expensive private accommodation and placing them in new build accommodation. What's stopping them? Idiocy or ideology?
JimW
支那暗杀团
Historically or now? In the current right to buy scheme the local council can spend the money locally rather than give to central governement if they do it quickly.
There is still a cap on local government home building. And their ability to borrow to finance it.
Chancellor urged to let councils boost growth and build homes
LGA media release 11 March 2013
That would be a drop in the ocean.
sihhi
Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered
The need for profitable building and housing firms - they have land banks and build carefully and modestly, otherwise the profit would be massively reduced - capitalist land economics. Labour will do the same.
Puddy_Tat
naturally fluffy
and the 'need' to maintain property prices and profit margins for buy-to-let merchants.
How many of the front bench of all three parties are landlords and landowners?
Dogsauce
I’ve got Skol but I’m not a Scholar
Many. They'll also move in circles where there are many. It's endemic in certain parts of the middle classes, even the 'liberal' ones, and they'll reinforce each others' justification for buying into this racket to the point that they believe themselves harmless and even noble. We can't expect a reasonable perspective when Parliament is formed from such a narrow social band.
Yeah and they'll never give up their titles and privileges. And so many people want to join them.
redsquirrel
This Machine Kills Progressives
Why don't you throw yourself off a tall building you disgusting cunt.
And don't try to pretend you're just playing devils advocate, this is what you think. It's why you still support the LibDems, it's behind all the free market garbage you spew, it's why you claimed that Cameron was a socialist.
Just spit it out, man. Say what you really think.
redsquirrel
This Machine Kills Progressives
Aye, that comment was OTT, but I was just so angry that the prick was trying to use the OPs concern for their friend/anger over the situation to try and defend his vile views.
A total child of Thatcher.
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
Tory policies are having a very bad effect on my life (although not nearly as bad as they are others to be sure), I don't want to say too much here because it's my stuff but Quartz I will just say you are an idiot, there is a reason nobody takes you seriously on here and your posts on this thread prove it. I don't normally say this type of thing but it is late at night and your post has really pissed me off.
inferno
Well-Known Member
So why don't we turn a property called Buckingham palace into 1000 one room flats?
andysays
Love and solidarity
I was going to build to that suggestion gradually, but I admire your no-nonsense approach
coley
Well-Known Member
Renovate and convert, much more sensible than new build
One of the most revealing elements of this part of the landlord class is when you look at the noticeboard of your local vegetarian restaurant/café, health food shop, even peace centre, etc and notice the rooms/flats available, say 'No DHSS allowed....
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Of course, but given there's not even enough flexibility in social housing stock to permit people to be housed in wholesome homes, let alone in size-appropriate homes, then any system predicated on rehousing rather than evicting won't function - it can't function.
So, all in all, your advocacy is meaningless within the current system.
ddraig
kicking against the pricks...
i hope you remove them or complain to the owners?
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Yup. You'd need to actually have an excess of social housing stock in order to operate a system that would allow a decent "mouring period" before moving people on to a more size-appropriate property.
Like that would ever happen under neoliberalism!
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
i kind of agree with "left leaning" landlords i've had one who was a fucking nightmare but to be fair the landlord might just be sticking up notices on whatever shop they see, it might not have anything to do ideologically with what the people working in the shops think if you see what i mean
and health food shops are more conspiraloon than leftie if you see what i mean ... creeping fascism lol
_angel_
.
Sometimes insurers won't let out to DSS tenants.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
He copped that line wholesale from Bush II and his wanky "compassionate conservatism" sack of bollocks, and it was about as meaningful. Sham compassion so that the liberal end of Conservatism (what the Evil One used to call "wets") voted Tory, and then once in power, the mask was off.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Because like the other welfare reforms it's never been primarily about saving money. I know it's been sold as doing so, but as you've noticed, if you "do the math", it doesn't add up, does it?
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Ever live in a barracks?
_angel_
.
Of course they're not interested in saving money or getting people work - their actions are proving the complete opposite. More people to demonise and more free labour for big businesses.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Can you imagine how full the guardhouse would be of squaddies on punishment for filling in an MP?
Nah, equal to the cost of a local homeless hostel and a cuppa and bun from the Sally Army.
Similar threads
