Why the lib-dems are shit

[butchersapron]

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.

I implied no such thing. You implied it to build a pathetic strawman. £84 a week is not 'so high' at all.

 

[Streathamite]

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.

oh fs! welcome to a place called 'reality', a very imperfect place. It is impossible to have something as civilised as awelfare state covering a quite-transient, multinational society of near-60 milion without there being SOME anomalies. It's the overall picture that counts, not th sensationalist tabloid snippets that you tories so gorge on.

 

[moon23]

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.

I think it's an individuals responsibility to meet their own housing needs, the state should provide a minimum safety net for those who are capable of but fail to look after themselves and a decent standard of living for those who are really unable to due to physical problems or severe mental health (not just a bit of mild depression and generally being work shy).

I think it makes sense to set the local housing allowance at an average for the area's rental as it is at the moment. Most areas you have rich and poor locations so you aren't going to be able to live in the nicest page on housing allowance. I don't live in London but I’m guessing the problem is it's expensive throughout the area from which they take the average rent, so you get this £1,600 figure. Is the answer that people who can't afford it should consider moving away from the expensive areas?

 

[Blagsta]

Yeah! Ghettoes ftw!

 

[moon23]

oh fs! welcome to a place called 'reality', a very imperfect place. It is impossible to have something as civilised as awelfare state covering a quite-transient, multinational society of near-60 milion without there being SOME anomalies. It's the overall picture that counts, not th sensationalist tabloid snippets that you tories so gorge on.

I agree we shouldn't make judgements on sensationalist snippets, it does make you wonder how such anomalies arise though.

 

[moon23]

Yeah! Ghettoes ftw!

This is a valid point, the net impact of ghettoes is probably more costly economically then paying people on benefits to mingle in nice middle-class areas where a culture of self-improvement might take hold.

 

[Blagsta]

Yeah, them nasty thick working class people.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

I think it's an individuals responsibility to meet their own housing needs, the state should provide a minimum safety net for those who are capable of but fail to look after themselves and a decent standard of living for those who are really unable to due to physical problems or severe mental health (not just a bit of mild depression and generally being work shy).

I think it makes sense to set the local housing allowance at an average for the area's rental as it is at the moment. Most areas you have rich and poor locations so you aren't going to be able to live in the nicest page on housing allowance. I don't live in London but I’m guessing the problem is it's expensive throughout the area from which they take the average rent, so you get this £1,600 figure. Is the answer that people who can't afford it should consider moving away from the expensive areas?

Ignorance over mental health issues, a penchant for punitive state intervention and a proposal for social cleansing; top post moon.

Louis MacNeice

 

[YouSir]

This is a valid point, the net impact of ghettoes is probably more costly economically then paying people on benefits to mingle in nice middle-class areas where a culture of self-improvement might take hold.

Jasus that's a thick thing to say.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Jasus that's a thick thing to say.

Away with you; next you'll be saying the middle class might learn a thing or two from the working class...madness.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[Pickman's model]

This is a valid point, the net impact of ghettoes is probably more costly economically then paying people on benefits to mingle in nice middle-class areas where a culture of self-improvement might take hold.

who do you think needs self-improvement - the people on benefits or the middle class people?

 

[moon23]

Yeah, them nasty thick working class people.

I don't think working class people are inherently nasty and thick, but if poor ghettoes take hold you do get a culture void of learning, betterment or societies civilising affect. You only have to look around some slum council estates to appreciate the problems arising from a culture of degradation and poverty.

 

[YouSir]

I don't think working class people are inherently nasty and thick, but if poor ghettoes take hold you do get a culture void of learning, betterment or societies civilising affect. You only have to look around some slum council estates to appreciate the problems arising from a culture of degradation and poverty.

So poor areas are uncivilised cultural voids where the inhabitants shudder at the sight of books such is their fear and anger at the very notion of learning like a good, civilised middle class person would/should? Hmh...

 

[Blagsta]

I don't think working class people are inherently nasty and thick, but if poor ghettoes take hold you do get a culture void of learning, betterment or societies civilising affect. You only have to look around some slum council estates to appreciate the problems arising from a culture of degradation and poverty.

Yeah, them uncivilised council estate dwellers!

 

[moon23]

who do you think needs self-improvement - the people on benefits or the middle class people?

There are many people on benefits through no fault of their own, there are others who are work shy and some who have never had the benefits of being exposed to a culture of betterment, learning or working.

I'm agreeing with Blagsta that creating ghettoes is a bad idea, I want people on benefits to be a part of society and have a chance to get back into work and regain their self-esteem.

 

[Blagsta]

There are many people on benefits through no fault of their own, there are others who are work shy and some who have never had the benefits of being exposed to a culture of betterment, learning or working.

I'm agreeing with Blagsta that creating ghettoes is a bad idea, I want people on benefits to be a part of society and have a chance to get back into work and regain their self-esteem.

Yeah all working class people who live on council estates are on benefits!

 

[butchersapron]

He's getting worse by the day.

 

[stethoscope]

"work shy"

You score 10 points.

 

[i_got_poison]

oh fs! welcome to a place called 'reality', a very imperfect place. It is impossible to have something as civilised as awelfare state covering a quite-transient, multinational society of near-60 milion without there being SOME anomalies. It's the overall picture that counts, not th sensationalist tabloid snippets that you tories so gorge on.

i asked the question of butch, but he chose not to respond. let me try you.

is £103,000 a year too much for a council to spend on HB for a family?
simple yes or no will suffice considering the amount.

remember this is only on HB, not JSA, working tax credits, child tax credits etc etc.

 

[ymu]

I think it's an individuals responsibility to meet their own housing needs, the state should provide a minimum safety net for those who are capable of but fail to look after themselves and a decent standard of living for those who are really unable to due to physical problems or severe mental health (not just a bit of mild depression and generally being work shy).

I think it makes sense to set the local housing allowance at an average for the area's rental as it is at the moment. Most areas you have rich and poor locations so you aren't going to be able to live in the nicest page on housing allowance. I don't live in London but I’m guessing the problem is it's expensive throughout the area from which they take the average rent, so you get this £1,600 figure. Is the answer that people who can't afford it should consider moving away from the expensive areas?

How will London cope without any low paid workers living in it? Would you commute 2-4 hours a day for £7-8/hour? Could you afford to? Could the transport system cope with that many workers travelling in every day?

 

[moon23]

So poor areas are uncivilised cultural voids where the inhabitants shudder at the sight of books such is their fear and anger at the very notion of learning like a good, civilised middle class person would/should? Hmh...

No they are areas where opportunites have been stolen from people who never had the fortune to be exposed to a positive middle-class attitude of learning, working and culture.

There is nothing wrong about wanting to try and help give people the opportunities for learning and improvement. The Victorians had a wonderful sense of wanting to do this, many great works of public art and general civic improvement have stemmed from that spirit.

 

[moon23]

Yeah all working class people who live on council estates are on benefits!

No, I didn't say this did I?

 

[Blagsta]

No, I didn't say this did I?

Yes you did.

 

[Teaboy]

I think it's an individuals responsibility to meet their own housing needs, the state should provide a minimum safety net for those who are capable of but fail to look after themselves and a decent standard of living for those who are really unable to due to physical problems or severe mental health (not just a bit of mild depression and generally being work shy).

I think it makes sense to set the local housing allowance at an average for the area's rental as it is at the moment. Most areas you have rich and poor locations so you aren't going to be able to live in the nicest page on housing allowance. I don't live in London but I’m guessing the problem is it's expensive throughout the area from which they take the average rent, so you get this £1,600 figure. Is the answer that people who can't afford it should consider moving away from the expensive areas?

You need to read and understand some history. You are very poorly informed and read on this subject, it worries me that you are out addressing politicians with such a scant understanding of the history of our country. You should start by reading a bit on post war regneration in Britain.

 

[moon23]

How will London cope without any low paid workers living in it? Would you commute 2-4 hours a day for £7-8/hour? Could you afford to? Could the transport system cope with that many workers travelling in every day?

That's another good point, along with Blagsta's. It makes sense to have different classes and types of workers living alongside each other.

 

[stethoscope]

No they are areas where opportunites have been stolen from people who never had the fortune to be exposed to a positive middle-class attitude of learning, working and culture.

There is nothing wrong about wanting to try and help give people the opportunities for learning and improvement. The Victorians had a wonderful sense of wanting to do this, many great works of public art and general civic improvement have stemmed from that spirit.

You. Are. Fucking. Shitting. Me.

 

[YouSir]

No they are areas where opportunites have been stolen from people who never had the fortune to be exposed to a positive middle-class attitude of learning, working and culture.

There is nothing wrong about wanting to try and help give people the opportunities for learning and improvement. The Victorians had a wonderful sense of wanting to do this, many great works of public art and general civic improvement have stemmed from that spirit.

What staggeringly patronising bollocks.

 

[butchersapron]

No they are areas where opportunites have been stolen from people who never had the fortune to be exposed to a positive middle-class attitude of learning, working and culture.

There is nothing wrong about wanting to try and help give people the opportunities for learning and improvement. The Victorians had a wonderful sense of wanting to do this, many great works of public art and general civic improvement have stemmed from that spirit.

Name the thieves Thaddeus.

 

[moon23]

Yes you did.

Ok well sorry, I retract any statement or implication where I say everyone on council estates are on benefits.

 

[Streathamite]

I agree we shouldn't make judgements on sensationalist snippets, it does make you wonder how such anomalies arise though.

no it doesn't, it's bloody obvious, all organisations and systems are fallible