Why the lib-dems are shit

[i_got_poison]

No. I used the IMF statement to show that even the rightiest of the right, and not just the leftiest of the left (not me, btw) know that your arguments are cack. I have never ever said the IMF are anything but neoliberal arseholes in my entire life! You may google search my posts on here to prove it if you like (you won't be able to use the urban search function because of the tremendously irritating 4 letters or more restriction).

this is only true if we assume the IMF doesn't have a vested interest in the uk's continued deficit spending. the IMF is the lender of last resort and if and when
the uk goes to the IMF, they will shed the rhetoric of stimulous spending and begin the mantra of austerity measures.

p.s. if you can agree the right and left can both be proved right about a particular point of order. what say you, to the conservatives, labour and the liberal democrats
agreeing to spending cuts?

labour has already stated they would've implemented tory style cuts.

 

[DotCommunist]

abour aren't left wing though, are they? I mean only idiots hold any illusions to that idea anymore. Centrists, all the way.

 

[Pickman's model]

they will shed the rhetoric of stimulous spending and begin the mantra of austerity measures.

yeh cos cuts are obviously stimulus spending.

oh - and points of order arise during meetings, and are meaningless outside that context

 

[ymu]

Desperate Cable - got the go ahead from Cameron and Clegg. Just how insulting to their members can they be? Do they really think that little of them?

I can't find the article now, but there was a snippet from a Tory minister about how the typical conversation with a Lib Dem minister on a new Tory policy goes:

"You know we have to have a row about this?"
"Yes. Is next Tuesday good for you?"

 

[butchersapron]

Yep. that's it in a nutshell.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

And the Tories love it, they're deliberately letting things like that slip to further undermine their colleagues in the Libdems

 

[London_Calling]

BBC choosing to take Vince Cable at face value all day long - more than a little sad.

 

[butchersapron]

Vince cable thinks he a light shining in Lancashire - have i that right?

 

[London_Calling]

Have we really got to the point where the BBC can insert a contradiction in not just the same news report but the same sentence of the same news report and no any where one pulls them up: 'In a speech cleared by 10 Downing Street, Vince Cable attacked capitalism . . . ' Do me a favour.

Sarah Lancashire?

 

[frogwoman]

Pretty worrying the BBC's behaviour tbh, i barely look at it these days but if what butchers has posted is anything to go by ..

 

[frogwoman]

this is only true if we assume the IMF doesn't have a vested interest in the uk's continued deficit spending. the IMF is the lender of last resort and if and when
the uk goes to the IMF, they will shed the rhetoric of stimulous spending and begin the mantra of austerity measures.

p.s. if you can agree the right and left can both be proved right about a particular point of order. what say you, to the conservatives, labour and the liberal democrats
agreeing to spending cuts?

labour has already stated they would've implemented tory style cuts.

Labour isn't - oh, forget it

 

[ymu]

He's still claiming Labour is on the left? Oh good grief!

He really doesn't do comprehension at all does he.

Pretty worrying the BBC's behaviour tbh, i barely look at it these days but if what butchers has posted is anything to go by ..

BBC News has been worth shit since Hutton. It wasn't worth a great deal more before that mind, but it's been an unashamed propaganda mouthpiece since then. News24 is a little better - there's a noticeable shift in editorial line come 6am when BBC1 switches back to its own news programming. Although I can't vouch for them more recently - haven't watched much News24 since we've been reliant on a generator for our leccy.

 

[frogwoman]

Not only does he think labour is on the left he seems to think the two are interchangeable

 

[butchersapron]

would you rather whole counties go bankrupt, like what's happening to states in the U.S.?

owning a property isn't a right it's a privilege. most people knew when taking out a mortgage they couldn't afford the repayments, yet did it anyway. there's
nearly 1 million on interest only mortgages and a vast majority of these have no savings to pay off the outstanding balance once the mortgage matures.

these people could rent, and those with families will get properties to live in if they can't afford rental deposits. it's not as though people are being thrown onto the streets.

p.s. what does homeowners have to do with social services and pay conditions in the public service. the piece your quoting makes no mention of these.

London Councils report The Impact of Housing Benefit Changes in London (pdf) estimate that 82 000 people will be made homeless by HB benefit changes in London alone, as well as leading to a drop of around (potentially 26+%) in the number of properties available to rent to those on HB.

 

[_angel_]

Pretty amusing this, Vince Cable points out mildly that huge bonuses are a bit greedy and somehow it gets billed as 'laying into capitalism' EH??????

 

[i_got_poison]

London Councils report The Impact of Housing Benefit Changes in London (pdf) estimate that 82 000 people will be made homeless by HB benefit changes in London alone, as well as leading to a drop of around (potentially 26+%) in the number of properties available to rent to those on HB.

from a paper i despise, but the figures were quoted in other media

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...se-of-80-per-cent-cut-to-housing-benefit.html

The cuts which take effect from next April will cut the maximum housing benefit which can be claimed from £103,000 to £20,800 a year, or £400 a week.

are you intimating £20,800 isn't enough to find suitable accomodation?

£103,000 is an outrageous amount of money. can you justify this being spent on a family?

 

[ymu]

from a paper i despise, but the figures were quoted in other media

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...se-of-80-per-cent-cut-to-housing-benefit.html

are you intimating £20,800 isn't enough to find suitable accomodation?

£103,000 is an outrageous amount of money. can you justify this being spent on a family?

It depends if London wants any bus drivers, cleaners, binmen or retail workers really. They ain't gonna commute.

 

[butchersapron]

from a paper i despise, but the figures were quoted in other media

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...se-of-80-per-cent-cut-to-housing-benefit.html



are you intimating £20,800 isn't enough to find suitable accomodation?

£103,000 is an outrageous amount of money. can you justify this being spent on a family?

Talk about hook line and sinker. There are a handful (around a 100) families who receive a 100 grand housing benefit a year. The other millions receive nothing even approaching that, yet the first group are being used to attack the barebones payments of the second lot. And you fall for it - whilst ignoring the points raised in the post you're pretending to reply to. Exemplary.

 

[i_got_poison]

Talk about hook line and sinker. There are a handful (around a 100) families who receive a 100 grand housing benefit a year. The other millions receive nothing even approaching that, yet the first group are being used to attack the barebones payments of the second lot. And you fall for it - whilst ignoring the points raised in the post you're pretending to reply to. Exemplary.

£1,600 a month on HB isn't enough?: http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property...ooms=4&displayPropertyType=houses&radius=20.0

how much do you believe "the rest" receive? if these cuts only affect the "100" families, isn't this decision, good policy?

p.s. like a politician you aren't able to answer a straight question.

 

[butchersapron]

£1,600 a month on HB isn't enough?: http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property...ooms=4&displayPropertyType=houses&radius=20.0

how much do you believe "the rest" receive? if these cuts only affect the "100" families, isn't this decision, good policy?

p.s. like a politician you aren't able to answer a straight question.

No I don't believe putting 82 000 people in London alone in danger of homelessness is good policy. Nor do any of the specialists or agencies in this field. Dogmatic extremists are lapping it up though.

You've got real comprehension problems as well. My whole point ( which I was forced to repeat as you ignored it in your 'reply' is that these cuts are going to effect nearly everyone, not just the 100 families( all huge families with loads of kids btw). That's the point, that and the fact that Osborne used these 100 families as covet for an attack on millions and a few mugs fell for it.

Unless, of course, you're going to show us how these changes really are going to effect only a 100 people and why the govts own figures and calculations and those of every single report into the expected outcomes - including the one you ignored above - are wrong. Show us how the Charted Institute of Housing's reports estimate of 600 000 families’ housing benefit being cut by an average of £1,000 a year is wrong. SHow us why and how the The National Housing Federation's estimate that more than 750,000 people are at risk of losing their homes in London and the South East is wrong. Or get back YouTube.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

You've got real comprehension problems as well. My whole point ( which I was forced to repeat as you ignored it in your 'reply' is that these cuts are going to effect nearly everyone, not just the 100 families( all huge families with loads of kids btw). That's the point, that and the fact that Osborne used these 100 families as covet for an attack on millions and a few mugs fell for it.

You could always take some or all of the kids into care to decrease the family size. Or link the payment of future housing benefit to an offer of contraceptive implants/sterilization on the NHS. Alternatively you could invest in the economy by commissioning a home building programme; and while your at it move from the notion of market rents to one of fair rents (based on size, quality and location of accommodation).

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[butchersapron]

You'll also need to learn the difference between averages and maximums i got poison. You appear to think that under current proposals all HB recipients receive 100 grand and under the changed rules they'll now receive 21 grand. They won't because these are maximum figures not average figures. The average HB recipient receives 4 grand a year.

 

[Blagsta]

£1,600 a month on HB isn't enough?: http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property...ooms=4&displayPropertyType=houses&radius=20.0

how much do you believe "the rest" receive? if these cuts only affect the "100" families, isn't this decision, good policy?

p.s. like a politician you aren't able to answer a straight question.

Almost 54,000 children already living below the poverty line will be pushed even further down by government cuts to housing benefit, Shelter reveals today.

Independent research commissioned by Shelter from the University of Cambridge shows the cuts will push an extra 27,000 families already below the poverty line to below the minimum income guarantee.

http://england.shelter.org.uk/news/september_2011/child_poverty_to_worsen

 

[Streathamite]

are you intimating £20,800 isn't enough to find suitable accomodation?

if yer family's big, and you live in London, there's a high chance it isn't, actually. Where on earth do you live - John O'Groats?

 

[Blagsta]

The Government will face costs of up to £120 million a year because of the huge rise in homelessness caused by cuts to local housing allowance (LHA), Shelter has revealed today.

http://england.shelter.org.uk/news/september_2011/LHA_cuts_to_cost_120m_a_year

 

[i_got_poison]

You could always take some or all of the kids into care to decrease the family size. Or link the payment of future housing benefit to an offer of contraceptive implants/sterilization on the NHS. Alternatively you could invest in the economy by commissioning a home building programme; and while your at it move from the notion of market rents to one of fair rents (based on size, quality and location of accommodation).

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

a sensible post for a change.

 

[butchersapron]

http://england.shelter.org.uk/news/september_2011/child_poverty_to_worsen

He even quoted from an article supporting the same sort of figures - thousands likely to be made homeless as a result of these changes - to argue that they don't really have any effect.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

a sensible post for a change.

Which bits did you like most?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[i_got_poison]

butch, you imply all responsiblity for the family is the government's. where's the parent's responsiblity in all of this?
i wouldn't agree to cuts if the starting position weren't so high in the first place.

p.s. what about the mail's poster family in chelsea who got the £2.1m home after complaining their previous address was in a poor area.
i know this is one highlighted case, and the mail is making a meal (feast!) out of it, but it does show negligent council spending.
i was speaking to a guy whose father was a housing administration officer. he said fulham, ealing and some of the surrounding boroughs
were awash with HB claimants. those areas aren't cheap. these locations are lifestyle choices, with landlords gaming the system. giving tenants kick-
backs for higher fees. you and i both know this goes on and so does the council. though everyone's happy because the government is collecting the tab.

 

[ymu]

The government's responsibility is to make sure there is affordable housing and enough jobs to go round. They are responsible for any shortfall in those targets. Benefits are below the poverty line as it is. ~20% of kids in the UK live in poverty. That is shameful for a rich country, and it is the government's responsibility to make the situation better, not worse.

You won't find many posters here who are against rent controls. Punish the greedy landlords, not the people who need housing.