UK General Election 2017 - 8 June

[Jimmy Floyd]

Londonia seizes all the motorways, train lines and infrastructure early doors (and the Lake District), so everyone else ends up rolling around in clapped out Rovers and on horseback.

[Shindig]

Durham holds all the Chinese hostage.

[phonics]

I had a great idea ages ago for a dystopian movie/novel where London and the university cities have literally declared independence and run a leftie luvvie utopia, whilst the rest of the country decays into an anarchic mess which hangs foreigners. Sadly it'll never see the light of day now because it's FUCKING HAPPENING.

It's already a genre at this point written by the dumbest people alive and sold to them. Don't bother.

I can't find the original one I'm thinking of where California secedes but our rugged, butch, super sexy, super alpha male has to cross the lib lines to rescue the President of REAL AMERICA's daughter because she's been brainwashed by the ideas of universal basic income and modern feminism.

This one will have to do



America is coming apart. An illegal immigration crisis has broken out along America's Southern border—there are race riots in Detroit—a fiery female rancher-turned-militia leader has vowed revenge on the president for his arrogant policies—and the world's most notorious terrorist is planning a massive attack that could destroy the United States as we know it. Meanwhile the President is too consumed by legacy-seeking to see our country’s deep peril.

Brett Hawthorne is the youngest general in the United States Army—and he’s stuck, alone, behind enemy lines in Afghanistan. He’s the last lost soldier of a failed war, fighting to stay alive and make it back home—but will he be able to stop the collapse of America in time?

[Lewis]

https://s12.postimg.org/eu12o1vfh/bblvstn.png

What have I missed? I reckon we would wear them down by depriving their restaurants of all things 'locally sourced' as they burn money on moderate rebels who never leave campus, and wait around for Manchester to throw its weight into the fight properly instead of pretending to be cool and aloof.

[7om]

Sam Allardyce you say? I'm in.

[Boydy]

Those both sound hellish.

[Lewis]

If I could make pictures/maps I would make a Twitter account live tweeting this fictional civil war like that Second World War one.

[Pepe]

I'm sure you can find someone to collaborate with. Do we have any graphic designers in here?

[Lewis]

Put the call out for 'graphic design engineers' and we'll be swamped.

[Pepe]

:D

Btw, someone should have made one of those Hitler videos about GS after Corbyn's 'victory.' I'm sure good lols would have happened. What a missed opportunity.

[Alan Shearer The 2nd]

That would work.

[GS]

Ulster Christians basically control the government and assuming the parliament doesn't collapse Corbyn won't be prime minister. The DUP are never voting for anything that puts him any closer, so they'll prop up the Tories for five years if that's what it takes.

I'll take that if it means infrastructure investment in NI.

[Max Power]

Didn't Big Sam vote Remain? I'm sure I recall him saying something about it all being a mess post Brexit but maybe I dreamt it because it's so off brand for him.

[phonics]

I'm amazed that May has managed to find that magic money tree she said didn't exist and it's spending for everyone. Yay. Such cynicism.

[GS]

I'm amazed that May has managed to find that magic money tree she said didn't exist and it's spending for everyone. Yay. Such cynicism.

It's a nonsense. If you can only get elected through promising economic mismanagement then we're all fucked.

[phonics]

President May with no mandate breaking every manifesto promise in the book. lol.

Remember when you said Labour wouldn't get into power again for 30 years after this election?

edit: Now even Gove is saying 'We have to listen to the remainers'

lol. What a bunch of absolute losers.

[GS]

She'd have won a majority if her manifesto hadn't been absolutely dreadful. That's the key swing point.

[phonics]

She'd have won if she had a different manifesto, a different campaign and wasn't Theresa May. Give me that Jim Messina money.

[GS]

She'd have survived being the Maybot if it hadn't been for the manifesto.

[Henry]

I'm amazed that May has managed to find that magic money tree she said didn't exist and it's spending for everyone. Yay. Such cynicism.

If they turn their back on the failed policies of deficit fetishism even for cynical reasons, I'm still happy with it.

[GS]

Crosby and his team were predicting a majority of 60+ on the day. Obama's Mate had a majority of 92.

Wankers.

[Lewis]

lol Tim Farron has quit as leader.

[Jimmy Floyd]

I feel a bit sorry for him. It's a bit sad that you can't be a Christian (but you can be a Muslim, presumably?) without being washed away by the tide of liberal fascism.

[phonics]

Forced out of his job by the gays. That'll change his opinion of them.

[Spikey M]

I feel a bit sorry for him. It's a bit sad that you can't be a Christian (but you can be a Muslim, presumably?) without being washed away by the tide of liberal fascism.

Yeah, I think it was more the 'I hate queers' stuff than the 'I love Jesus' stuff that did it.

[Reg]

"torn between living as a faithful Christian and serving as a political leader".
I have a Lib Dem friend who said his personal views didn't affect his voting record and so my friend wasn't too concerned (this coming from a guy who's pretty vocal on equality, same sex marriage, ex-Amnesty etc).

[Jimmy Floyd]

Yeah, I think it was more the 'I hate queers' stuff than the 'I love Jesus' stuff that did it.

I guess. And I thought the Lib Dems had already done every gay related resignation in the book.

[GS]

I feel a bit sorry for him. It's a bit sad that you can't be a Christian (but you can be a Muslim, presumably?) without being washed away by the tide of liberal fascism.

It's an incredibly depressing state of affairs. It's never going to change, either. It's grim that somebody isn't allowed to separate their personal views from what they'd actually legislate for, but understanding that would require nuanced thinking and most of the liberal outrage crowd don't go in for that sort of thing.

[Pepe]

It's grim that somebody isn't allowed to separate their personal views from what they'd actually legislate for

A bit like Corbyn and the IRA shit init?

[GS]

A bit like Corbyn and the IRA shit init?

No, because Jez supported coercion not self-determination. So they're nothing alike, in fact.

[Pepe]

So what he supported back in the day cannot be separated from what he will legislate for?

[Pepe]

Are there gay churches over there?

[Henry]

Are we going to pretend that a Muslim who had "personal views" in favour of Sharia or something, but who promised not to legislate that way wouldn't get into trouble?

Having differing personal and political views is just hypocrisy. Why is he in the Liberal Democrats in the first place?

[Jimmy Floyd]

I support throwing gypsies into the sea, but I wouldn't vote for a law to legalise that. Personal and political are two separate things.

[Spikey M]

It's an incredibly depressing state of affairs. It's never going to change, either. It's grim that somebody isn't allowed to separate their personal views from what they'd actually legislate for, but understanding that would require nuanced thinking and most of the liberal outrage crowd don't go in for that sort of thing.

"The Klansman were on the right track. Did I mention I'm pro free school lunches?"

Nuance.

[Reg]

My guess is that he's torn between being a Bible man (so believing he should follow its word) and actually believing that gay people are just like the rest of us.

[Spikey M]

Are we going to pretend that a Muslim who had "personal views" in favour of Sharia or something, but who promised not to legislate that way wouldn't get into trouble?

Having differing personal and political views is just hypocrisy. Why is he in the Liberal Democrats in the first place?

The same reason Dela was, I assume. They attract them for some reason.

[Yevrah]

Fuck separating personal views from policy.

Farron's been banging on about tolerance, understanding and embracing those that are different/in a minority to us for the whole campaign.

Which is absolutely fine, until he turns round and says he believes in a man in the sky and gays are bad as a result.

I mean, how the fuck do those views go hand in hand and what sort of deviant would hold both? It's lunacy.

[Lewis]

That so many people insisted on conflating personal and policy preferences does at least explain why FREEDOM is in such a shitty state. His bumming views are a bit like wanting to legalise drugs, because you believe in freedom of choice, but still thinking that you would be a bit of a knobhead to use them.

[Reg]

It's not the most honourable or clear way of thinking but you can see why people are conflicted when their upbringing tells them one thing and their heart/brain/gut tells them another.

[mikem]

Is it really so hard to imagine that someone can separate personal standards of morality from public ones? Elected officials uphold laws they don't agree with all the time.

Not allowing a separation simply means politicians are going to lie to you about what they believe.

[Spikey M]

Why would I want someone who doesn't share my values to be responsible for maintaining them? If it was Jews instead of Gays we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[Jimmy Floyd]

If it was Jews instead of gays he could just join Labour.

[Raoul Duke]

Believing in nonsense is going to, at some point, conflict with reality.

[Lewis]

Real nonsense has never been tried.

[Giggles]

We've a ghey running the show now.

[mikem]

Why would I want someone who doesn't share my values to be responsible for maintaining them? If it was Jews instead of Gays we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I hate to say this, but my opinion comes from being an observant Jew of the Reform variant. The idea of holding other Jews to my own mitzvah standards is distinctly odd. Non-Jews, an utter perversion. Marriage equality may be less of an issue in Reform Judaism than in mainstream secular society (I'm all for suing the bakers) but the public / private thing is odd.

[GS]

Fuck separating personal views from policy.

Farron's been banging on about tolerance, understanding and embracing those that are different/in a minority to us for the whole campaign.

Which is absolutely fine, until he turns round and says he believes in a man in the sky and gays are bad as a result.

I mean, how the fuck do those views go hand in hand and what sort of deviant would hold both? It's lunacy.

This is genuinely mystifying. This isn't the nineteenth century any more. If we take your view to its logical conclusion, only atheists and secularists can hold elected positions because anybody else is liable to start advocating electric shock therapy for gays (or whatever stereotypical religious policy you can think of).

You can hold views on personal matters of faith without demanding everybody else agrees with you. You can be personally against abortion, as an example, without voting against it. You can be against same sex marriage, as an example, but consider that the gender of two participants in a legal marriage is none of the state's business.

The liberal fascist league are distinctly anti-liberal, unfortunately. Presumably they're not going to stop until they've run every Christian out of public life.

[Reg]

That's not Yev's argument. Read his last sentence again.

[GS]

It's the crux of his argument.

I'd suggest that many of those commenting don't grasp Christianity, frankly.

[Yevrah]

GS, aren't you the first to criticise Labour MPs when they send their kids to private school?

[Lewis]

I think that only applies to the ones who want to stop other people doing likewise. Tim Farron doesn't want to ban bumming.

[GS]

GS, aren't you the first to criticise Labour MPs when they send their kids to private school?

Only when they lecture everybody else about the evils of selective education and demand that the proles send their kids to the local comprehensive no matter how much of a dump it is.

[Henry]

I don't think this is trying to disbar Christians from public life. There are lots of Christians who have decided that homosexuality isn't a sin, or they join parties which have policies that accommodate the view that it is. The problem here is the absolute hypocrisy of thinking one thing and doing another.

[GS]

If you have that view, we're probably three years away from reviving the Test Act in a different guise.

Demanding everybody think and do the same as you on religious matters has been out of fashion for quite some time now.

[Henry]

If you have that view, we're probably three years away from reviving the Test Act in a different guise.

Demanding everybody think and do the same as you on religious matters has been out of fashion for quite some time now.

You're the only one talking about a demand that people believe the same thing as Farron. The demand is that Farron believe the same thing as Farron - and not engage in a kind of cognitive dissonance borne out of special pleading for religion.

[GS]

That's making windows into men's souls.

His voting record is what it matters, not whether he personally wouldn't do it.

[Yevrah]

I don't really care if people that aren't comfortable with homosexuals are politicians (as there will always be people who aren't and we shouldn't police thought), I just don't understand how someone who is liberal in all other areas and constantly bangs the drum about how we all should be too isn't comfortable with homosexuals. It's as if his principles only go so far and then his religion takes over.

It's the same as when Sarah Teather voted against gay marriage and came out with an absolutely nonsensical rationale afterwards.

I'd admit that's it's probably been made more of an issue than it needed to be, but let's not pretend that if it was a tory who held those views they wouldn't be being ripped apart as we type.

[Yevrah]

That's making windows into men's souls.

His voting record is what it matters, not whether he personally wouldn't do it.

And this is where he dropped the ball. He should have made more of his voting record rather than getting into a question dodging shit-off.

[GS]

Farron handled it very poorly, which made it much more of an issue.

Again, I think much of it is that people don't understand Christianity.

[Henry]

Particularly Christians. :nod:

[Yevrah]

Again, I think much of it is that people don't understand Christianity.

Perhaps, but then not all Christians feel the same way he does so is it any wonder. What's the official line on this one?

[phonics]

http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/am-i-out-of-touch-no-its-the-children-who-are-wrong.jpg

[Henry]

Perhaps, but then not all Christians feel the same way he does so is it any wonder. What's the official line on this one?

The official line from who?
The Old Testament says stuff like "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." Christians say that that the death penalty no longer applies due to some doctrinal contortions, although their New Testament however still says that it's "shameful" and such.

If Tim Farron thinks that it's shameful, then he deserves to be hounded about that.

[GS]

What would it matter if he's not legislating against it? He's not imposing his view on anyone.

It's windows into men's souls again, and it's the sort of thing we did away with when the Test Act was repealed. In 1828.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Good luck with that.

[phonics]

As a leftie, I think it should be all religion all the time but only if it's Sharia or I'm out. None of the Jew stuff either.

[Spammer]

It doesn't really make much PR sense for him to be the leader of a progressive party when he holds views that seem to contradict everything that he publicly stands for. I mean, really. Whether or not it's 'possible' in a not-being-a-hypocrite kind of way, it's a pretty stupid thing to do really unless there is literally nobody else available.

[phonics]

Remember when Tony Blair said God told him to invade Iraq? Good times.

[Lewis]

He publicly stands for not telling people what to do with their bumholes. By definition, any personal opinion he might have would contradict that. That people are having so much trouble with this goes a long way to explaining the state of political discussion in this country.

[phonics]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DCc63LIXUAIRsUQ.jpg:large

Tee hee.

[John]

Jeremy Corbyn will be speaking on the Pyramid Stage at Glastonbury next weekend, then 'introducing' Run The Jewels. :D

[GS]

I think the one lesson to take from this is that there's no point being 'honest' with the electorate - they won't reward you for it, and will buy HOPE and MORE FREE STUFF from the other bloke because they think that there's always going to be some way of paying for it that doesn't impact them.

This point cannot be driven home enough, and should be emblazoned on the mind of everyone who gets near a contribution to the next Tory manifesto.

[phonics]

Only one of the two main parties released a costed manifesto. You can disagree with the costing but it was the Conservatives that promised spending without saying where it would come from.

[GS]

It's a very serious stretch to say Labour costed the manifesto. They put numbers in, certainly, but it doesn't represent a properly costed document because they know they can't provide one which would demonstrate clearly how they were going to fund the promises they made.

Which is fine, by the way - the electorate bought it.

[Lewis]

It was 'costed' in the same way that I can buy a Porsche if somebody gives me a hundred grand for my trainers.

[Pepe]

Honest. :harold:

[John]

Forget the manifesto. In just over a week Jeremy Corbyn is going to be introducing this.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-S9mtYowPY

It'll be deeply absurd.

[GS]

Honest. :harold:

They told people where the cuts were going to fall and that there wasn't going to be a huge raft of free stuff funded by air. Whatever the merits of the policies themselves, it was at least honest about what they were going to do.

I didn't like the social care policy, by the way - but we ended up in the quite remarkable position of the hard left defending the sanctity of inheritance for wealthy homeowners. Not only that, but telling them that they'd continue to have their social care funded for them by poorer tax-payers.

Unless they live in Kensington, of course, at which point they should expect to have their home requisitioned on them.

[Magic]

RTJ!

dots

[Pepe]

Free stuff funded by air. :harold:

Do you mean the free stuff they are already getting funded in the same way it is currently funded? Sounds to me that you are being a bit dishonest with your description.

I understand not liking left wing policies. If you want to think that increasing government spending is bad, that is fine. But it seems to me that you're way more invested in parties and in the circus that is politics that in actual policies and/or ideas. You come of as a bit of a fanboy tbh.

[GS]

Free stuff funded by air. :harold:

Do you mean the free stuff they are already getting funded in the same way it is currently funded? Sounds to me that you are being a bit dishonest with your description.

I understand not liking left wing policies. If you want to think that increasing government spending is bad, that is fine. But it seems to me that you're way more invested in parties and in the circus that is politics that in actual policies and/or ideas. You come of as a bit of a fanboy tbh.

I'm not sure I fully understand your point.

I didn't like the Tory policy of booting deficit reduction into the middle of the next decade either. It suggested a lack of seriousness in tackling the issue, but it also 'decommissioned' a key attack line against Labour - it's hard to argue that they can't be trusted when you're saying you're not going to bother sorting it yourself for another eight years.

If you read the Labour manifesto (I wouldn't bother, but you can if you want) and look at the costing element, you can see that that it's clearly a cursory exercise to avoid any suggestion that it's 'uncosted'. There's no way their revenue generation schemes bring in what they think, but they're still going to make massive spending commitments which they'd end up borrowing to fund (including nationalising things again, which we all thought we'd moved on from over 20 years ago).

[Pepe]

I didn't read the manifesto, but I did see some highlights. As I commented earlier, it is basically 'spend more, tax the rich to pay for it.' I know nothing about Labour, don't give a rats arse about them or Corbyn. As with most programs, it is bollocks. But I don't think it is any more dishonest than the good old 'we can't afford it' that always comes from the right. Point is, painting the mainstream party you support as 'poor them, they are being shunned for being honest' is nonsense. People that don't want to vote for them don't want to do it because they don't like what they offer. Also, when you suggest that the next bunch should consider how being honest doesn't get 'rewarded' you're suggesting they should do more lying in the name of winning. You don't see an issue with that?

[GS]

The Tory manifesto itself was shit - in my view, it's the single biggest reason they lost their majority - not necessarily because the policies were inherently unfair (they weren't) but the presentation and 'groundwork' for advancing them slowly into the public conscience was completely absent. There was also no serious 'positive' policies that could be sold to anyone, meaning the media vacuum was filled with negativity and the subsequent defence. You could see the social care policy defence almost retreating trench by trench as various cabinet ministers sent out on TV basically drowned under questioning.

You can't advocate a major social care policy change out of the blue, fail to explain it properly, and expect the other side won't weaponise it to scare people (which they did very easily). That said, there was at least some effort to be honest with people, particularly pensioners, that they can't seriously expect to get a winter fuel payment if they're sitting in a home worth £2m. That you can't expect, in the face of a social care CRISIS (as it was painted in the spring) that you can sit in a £2m house and expect the poor to work harder to fund your social care. Or that if you're a student, you should really be paying your own tuition fees.

[Pepe]

So it was then not an issue of them being honest and being punished for it, but rather one of poor presentation. A program run on cuts should in principle be a hard sell. On the other hand, that's what's winning elections in most places, so it is not like you can just claim the people are so stupid and they just want free stuff.

[GS]

There were too many problems, frankly. The presentation was a problem. The lack of roll-out was a problem. The failure to defend it properly as a socially just measure to address the social care CRISIS and instead just u-turn when the scale of the backlash became obvious was a problem.

None of that, however, lessens the fact that the Tory manifesto spelt out a range of specific cost cutting measures. That the Tories didn't campaign on economic management (and thus undermine Jez's fantasy economics) is another problem.

Anyway, the point remains that the Labour manifesto is undeliverable - it's a pick and mix of populist policies which promise people universal benefits without any of the consequences of paying for it.

The Tory manifesto can be attacked from numerous angles - and it deserves to be - but it at least had the merit of not basically being a work of fiction.

[Pepe]

Anyway, the point remains that the Labour manifesto is undeliverable - it's a pick and mix of populist policies which promise people universal benefits without any of the consequences of paying for it.

[...] but it at least had the merit of not basically being a work of fiction.

I am not sure you can categorically say it is undeliverable. I know you believe that, and you're far from alone there. However, I think it would be entirely possible to keep benefits and offer free tuition or whatever it was he was offering without having to raise taxes for, say, the bottom 50%. Now I know you believe it would bring chaos, what with the increased deficit, but I remain unconvinced frankly (I did read the stuff you linked me to about deficit.) There are also economists out there who suggest increased spending and increased deficits are viable (granted, they suggest the increased spending should go towards productive endeavours.) So, while I'm sure the manifesto is extremely rose tinted, I don't think it is any more fiction than claiming cuts and austerity policies are the only way forward and an absolute necessity to avoid a complete country-wide meltdown.

Opinions, of course.

[Henry]

Anyone with a different opinion to GS is by his definition, unreasonable and ignorant of what they're talking about.

You should know that by now.

[Kikó]

We should mean test old people and act surprised when they freeze to death because capita failed to deliver.

Still cuts are important.

[niko_cee]

I always thought the universal pensioner benefits were done on the basis that it is simply cheaper to give it to all of them than to have to run a staff of 78,000 civil servants (half of whom are permanently signed off due to stress) to means test it. What is the rationale that justifies it otherwise?

[GS]

The rationale is / was that it's a vote winner, frankly, because people like handouts and you can trust old people to go down and vote.

[Lewis]

My nan and grandad thought the DEMENTIA TAX was a good policy, albeit with some kinks that needed sorting, but they had already spoiled their postal votes.

[Pepe]

People do love handouts, which is why the left is governing in every single country.

[Jimmy Floyd]

My nan and grandad thought the DEMENTIA TAX was a good policy, albeit with some kinks that needed sorting, but they had already spoiled their postal votes.

My folks absolutely HATED it. I tried to talk them round but it wasn't happening.

[Lewis]

They'll all come crawling back when the NHS starts getting its £350 million a week.

[Lewis]

My folks absolutely HATED it. I tried to talk them round but it wasn't happening.

Yeah but they have a four million pound house.

[Kikó]

Where's that magic money tree? People have to get to work and make something of themselves. The state has no business in helping people.

[GS]

Winter fuel costs two billion quid a year as a universal pay-out.

Even Red Ed was going to means test the fucking thing if he got in. It's entirely reasonable to expect that people who can afford to pay for it should do so.

[Kikó]

And I'm entirely sure we will have grannies dying of the cold because capita or some other shit house company botching up their claim to hit a contracted target.

[GS]

So you would make all payouts universal?

That's the logical end point.

[Pepe]

Universal basic income init.

[Jimmy Floyd]

I think universal basic income is a pretty much inevitable outcome within our lifetimes. Many in the centre hate it for some reason but I can't see a better way of doing things.

[Kikó]

Tax robots.

[Lewis]

It would only work if it was literally all you received, and you had to cover your school/health/whatever out of it. If it was just a wage on top of existing welfare provisions then everything falls to bits.

[Henry]

https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/19146181_1824193641228143_3540797737671033258_n.jp g?oh=f27a59162a1308c6c7f4bacf037e2577&oe=599DAD54

:nod:

[Kikó]

So you would make all payouts universal?

That's the logical end point.

I'd rather they overpay and everyone gets it rather than the opposite.

[GS]

I'd rather they overpay and everyone gets it rather than the opposite.

Which is preposterous. You're basically advocating we spend a billion quid (or whatever the cut-off point would be) to guard against potential administrative error.

[Pepe]

It would only work if it was literally all you received, and you had to cover your school/health/whatever out of it. If it was just a wage on top of existing welfare provisions then everything falls to bits.

That idea is why I can't get on board of it yet.

[GS]

It would only work if it was literally all you received, and you had to cover your school/health/whatever out of it. If it was just a wage on top of existing welfare provisions then everything falls to bits.

Indeed. The cost estimates for it are staggeringly high (obviously), so you'd need to bin off everything else including pensions, all work or out-of-work benefits, health, education etc. You'd need to ring fence certain tax revenues for centralised spending (e.g. government, infrastructure, defence etc.) and then distribute the rest.

The problem, of course, would be that you'd have a certain class of people who would spend the money going on a month-long binge to Magaluf whilst their kids go without education. Then you'd have everybody complain that this is the case and that the state must step in and spend their money for them, at which point you're back where you started.

[Lewis]

Fortunately, you would expect wealthier left-wingers to have set up some sort of fund for those people. You know, like, re-distributing it, because they already have enough.

[GS]

True. I'm working to the assumption that they'd be opening up their empty rooms to poor folk anyway, like they all pretended they were going to do for all those Syrians they wanted us to bring in.

[Kikó]

The problem, of course, would be that you'd have a certain class of people who would spend the money going on a month-long binge to Magaluf whilst their kids go without education. Then you'd have everybody complain that this is the case and that the state must step in and spend their money for them, at which point you're back where you started.

It's always the poor cunts who ruin it.

[Pepe]

Look at them with their phones!

[Reg]

True. I'm working to the assumption that they'd be opening up their empty rooms to poor folk anyway, like they all pretended they were going to do for all those Syrians they wanted us to bring in.
You mean like hundreds of people have offered their homes to people who lived at the Grenfell Tower.

Edit-
The Magaluf thing, what on earth. Beyond words.

[Kikó]

The man has no humanity. The accountancy has killed any compassion beyond the bottom line.

[randomlegend]

He's just a weird, horrible cunt.

[Lewis]

Let's not pretend that you wouldn't have some idiots who would piss it all away.

[Shindig]

The problem, of course, would be that you'd have a certain class of people who would spend the money going on a month-long binge to Magaluf whilst their kids go without education.

I think we've just found a window into GS' upbringing.

[John]

I doubt they'd be going to Magaluf, but I know people now who spaff every penny they get on booze and couldn't give less of a toss if their kids actually go to school. A second's thought should tell you he's absolutely right.

[Byron]

Yeah, not understanding the reaction here. The type of people that appear on Jeremy Kyle are exactly the kind of people who would take the money, spaff it all and then moan that they don't have the money to make a doctor's appointment.

As a form a Social Darwinism it could be a good experiment.

[Magic]

That's how the Tories have been in power the last few years. People have short memories. #BENEFITBRITAIN

[GS]

I think some of you need to stop looking for reasons to be outraged and actually try and think through the consequences, or otherwise, of certain policies or suggestions.

[Reg]

I think some of you need to stop looking for reasons to be outraged and actually try and think through the consequences, or otherwise, of certain policies or suggestions.
It wasn't the hypothetical consequences that struck me. It was the distinct snobbery in your post.

[GS]

What, that some people would spend the money on themselves and not their children's education?

[Shindig]

For the most part, my education was free. Isn't that how most people look at it?

[Reg]

A tiny, tiny percentage of people would do something like that. I'm not advocating universal basic income, I have no real idea whether it'd work. That's not my point. You're so unaware of how you come across there's not much point going further with it, and it's no fun anyway.

[GS]

For the most part, my education was free. Isn't that how most people look at it?

I'm not sure what your point is.


A tiny, tiny percentage of people would do something like that. I'm not advocating universal basic income, I have no real idea whether it'd work. That's not my point. You're so unaware of how you come across there's not much point going further with it, and it's no fun anyway.

There'd be a hell of a lot more than you'd think, regrettably. The consequence of the inevitable pissing of the money up the wall would be an outcry that "this was allowed to happen in 21st century Britain" and we'd go back to controlling the spending for everybody as we do now.

Incidentally, if you're expecting everybody to congratulate each other when unworkable "leftie" ideas are suggested as solutions to all the country's ills then you're probably on the wrong forum.

[Reg]

Did you not read my post? "I'm not advocating universal basic income, I have no real idea whether it'd work. That's not my point."

Anyway, have a good evening.

[ItalAussie]

There'd be a hell of a lot more than you'd think, regrettably.

Is this a "fact" as in something that's true? Or a "fact" as in this is how GS sees the world?

[GS]

I think the point really is self-evident.

[Shindig]

The problem, of course, would be that you'd have a certain class of people who would spend the money going on a month-long binge to Magaluf whilst their kids go without education.

I took that (incorrectly) to imply the money spent on Magaluf should've been spent on the kids, rather than some general absentee parenting.

[ItalAussie]

I think the point really is self-evident.

In the sense that it coincides with your pre-existing prejudices.

It's like how the Republicans keep attaching drug tests to welfare in the US, only to find that the numbers are always significantly lower than the population at large.

[GS]

Here we go again.

It's not prejudice to recognise that there would be an issue.

All it would take would be a handful of 'human interest' stories about how the new system had failed and you'd end up ripping it up and starting again.

As a more extreme example of the inevitable difficulty - what would happen if somebody gambled the money away, had no money for health insurance (replacing the NHS) and needed treatment? Would they be turned away or would there be an expectation we treat them anyway, thus undermining the entire point of the new system?

[GS]

Jo Swinson isn't running for leader, so presumably it's going to be Vince v Norman Lamb.

Vince may be TARNISHED by the coalition, but he's still their only recognisable national face - it might make sense to have him do it for a couple of years to remind people that the Lib Dems actually exist and then hand over to someone else for the next election. Or maybe by reminding everybody that they exist he just reminds people of the broken promises and being mates with Tories.

[Jimmy Floyd]

I can't think of anything more irrelevant than who is Lib Dem leader.

[GS]

I only care to the extent I'd like them to take more seats off Wee Jimmy Krankie in the north.

[ItalAussie]

Here we go again.

It's not prejudice to recognise that there would be an issue.

I'd like to go back to the actual wording I object to: "There'd be a hell of a lot more than you'd think, regrettably."

That's a statement of opinion as inviolable fact. You do this all the time, and I'd quite like to see you to back this one up. Because I actually don't think it's true. I think it would be at worst a small minority, which is far less than you'd think. This is consistent with what you see every time people try and impose controls and testing on welfare in the US: people on welfare are generally more careful with money than their detractors give them credit for.

I'm open to this being wrong, but your personal opinions (even if you deliver them as "facts") mean absolutely nothing to me.

[GS]

It's an assertion of belief, not of 'inviolable fact', as nobody could prove the point either way.

[Dark Soldier]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/apr/06/welfare-britain-facts-myths

2013 report, there's no substantial recent figures.

So to deal with the point that quite a fucking lot of people may piss their benefits (£70 a week) up the wall, what leads you to believe this GS? Is it a local sample of your area, where you've gone and spoke to such people? Is it seeing them in a pub while you're off grafting, crunching numbers? Is it seeing them not in soul crushing depression, maybe even happy as you work yourself to the bone?

Some, yes some, and going off my experiences of living via benefits since the age of 18 being shipped all around Manchester, this equates to a small amount do take the piss, yes, There will be chancers, as there are in every walk of life, be it poor, middle class, or rich. A lot blow their benefit due to living in a deprived, run down, no fucks given about it area, on horrible, drug, alcohol and crime ridden estates. They have no qualifications due to being either thick or having zero ambition through years of trying and fuck all coming of it (yes, these people exist). They turn to drink, or drugs, or perhaps, God fucking forbid, they save up a few hundred by living on 50p chicken nuggets or pot noodles, going without electric/gas as a lot of these people live via paid meters day in, day out, with zero light at the end of the tunnel. Being treated like shit by the DWP for the sake of £70 a week, constant rejection of jobs because they're not qualified or smart enough to be anything but a shit shoveller. They see some hope in escaping that for a week at a shitty all inclusive hotel for a week. Utter cuntery. My last medical, btw, lasted 10 minutes. No physical checks on me whatsoever, no looking into my history. Can I wash myself? Can I go out of the house once a week? Can I walk 50 meters unaided? Before I got the part time gardening gig last year (just that years work has fucked my knees up way beyond what they were a year ago btw, but I needed 'experience', in a sector I cannot do in the future), I was rejected for over a hundred jobs. And I'm sure most on here, whether we get on or not, will attest I'm not a thick as fuck inbred cretin. You've got hundreds, sometimes thousands applying for a shitty minimum wage role. Why take a mid 30s person with a long period of no work when you can get a teen fresh out of school/college?

Then you have the Government of Cameron, and now May, systematically throwing disabled people off of the benefit that lets them exist, onto ESA if they're lucky. ESA is currently £100 (well, £70 as of now) a week, and you aren't hounded into oblivion to apply for 30+ jobs a week. The idea is to find work that you can do within your means, which sounds like a solid idea. I'm on ESA currently, soon to be taken off and quite rightly as I'm fit for work, I deliberately flunked my medical due to it. This system would work if you aren't then outsourced to another for profit organisation (Ingeus in my case) who will try and force you into zero hour contracts or short internships. If you take the zero hour contract, you are then classed as employed (them stats look good!) and you're given 'support' for a couple of months. As an example, my advisor, for Ingeus in Bury, has over 200 people he has to see at least once every two weeks. Some need way more support than others (severe disabilities, genuinely severe), so personally I'm lucky to see mine for more than 10 minutes within those two weeks. I get no real help beyond a "how're you doing?" kinda chat.

I'm lucky to be on the £100 a week, as anyone new to the scheme from April this year has been reduced to the exact same as JSA:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/feb/03/cut-to-disability-benefits-may-make-return-to-work-harder-claim-mps

They have to pay electric, gas, food, and travel to and from wherever their advisor is based (its never local, mines a 90 minute round trip via public transport). You can claim travel back up to £4, might be £5 as I only pay £2.20 for my travel and walk the mile there and back to save cash, if its above that, get fucked. If you have to get a taxi, you can't claim. You miss that appointment, you loose the benefit for two weeks. Instantly cut, regardless.

So okay, some might go to Magaluf, the absolute cunts. Some might piss it away on alcohol, or drugs, or a big TV, or a games console, or fucking anything to escape from this constant fucking cycle of shit. But fuck 'em, fuck the potential prospect of some of these people having potential comfort at some point in the future. There are disabled dying from the consequences of these cuts. There are vulnerable people, legit vulnerable people being ignored, forgotten about by their own fucking Government. But Stacey from the estate might slip out a third kid for an extra £100 a week, or Dave might buy a crate of lager for £20. The few, yes the few, might take the piss. And don't be banging on about fucking numbers whilst the rich/big business use tax havens, get favourable tax breaks, Politicians get huge wage increases and bonuses and fucking benefits to their 'work'. I'm seeing this shit first fucking hand.

Ten billion goes unclaimed from the benefits budget as of 2016:

http://www.independent.co.uk/money/spend-save/10bn-worth-of-benefits-go-unclaimed-each-year-in-the-uk-a7085166.html

By all means keep at your sources, your quotes, your stance, your beliefs, but don't bring your Daily Mail cunt prejudice into it.

https://welfaretales.wordpress.com/category/death-after-fit-to-work-decision/

https://www.theguardian.com/careers/2017/feb/23/disability-employment-gap-sanctions-cuts-and-death-after-fit-to-work-tests

https://mzolobajluk.wordpress.com/2015/09/14/the-increasing-death-toll-due-to-the-loss-of-benefits/

EDIT: Corrected spelling, added new link.

[Kikó]

Bravo!

[Henry]

Excellent post.

[Shindig]

Good post. I can't say I miss those days.

[GS]

Which is all very interesting, but the system has to be fair to the people who are actually paying for it too. I've no doubt it's shit, but it's public money and is thus subject to internal control requirements and accompanying documentation. Hence why expenditure is so tightly controlled.

Anyway, your post also missed two central points in relation to what I was actually talking about. First, it was in the context of UBI - not the current benefit system. Second, it was in the context of parents controlling all financial expenditure for dependents (that is, not being able to access key public services for free) - not the current benefit system in relation to unemployment, which is a different matter.

I'm all for personal responsibility - so if people want to spend their benefit money on whatever, I don't care. I really don't. It's your life. My point, which if you'd read it you'd have seen, was what happens when they're controlling finances for dependents and couldn't access public services for free.

For what it's worth, I thought cutting the PIP was stupid and unnecessary.

So in summation - that post didn't really address the issue of what would happen in a UBI system.

[Pepe]

So in summation - that post didn't really address the issue of what would happen in a UBI system.

Only if a UBI system came at the expense of every other type of government aid which is not a necessity.

[GS]

Given the scale of public spending in those areas, you wouldn't have much choice if you were going to make UBI fiscally feasible. Total spending is around £800bn.

Central government spending on key and basic infrastructure (defence, protection, transport etc). comprises some 30% and interest on existing debt is another 7%.

If you include the NHS and education, that's another 29% for FY18. You'd be ring fencing two thirds of spending. All you have left after that is pensions and welfare (34%), and that's before you considered what would in effect be a massive increase in 'in work' benefits paid out on a universal basis.

There's no way it works unless you effectively abandon all but essential centralised infrastructure and defence spending just to keep the country functioning. Even then, you'd do very, very well to average over ten grand a head for adults before you considered supplemental payments to children.

You could make some savings in "other spending", no doubt, and one would hope that interest payments will decrease over time if we have sound economic management. But even that, at a conservative estimate of 50m adults at 18 and over, wouldn't amount to much once you get down to the detail of actually distributing it.

[Mellberg]

That DS post is mega.

Meanwhile, GSbot avoids the emotional side of the discussion and returns to percentages.

[GS]

I recognised it was shit for him, but to be quite frank if you ran the country by personalising every decision we'd be well on the way to bankruptcy, if not actually bankrupt.

We'd probably also have about 25% more people living here as your only admission criteria in the immigration process would be "does he seem like a decent lad".

[Dark Soldier]

I recognised it was shit for him, but to be quite frank if you ran the country by personalising every decision we'd be well on the way to bankruptcy, if not actually bankrupt.

Its not about 'running the country by personalising every decision', its about treating the disabled and poor as human beings and not statistics on a sheet whilst the papers run with the anti-benefit scum vitriol that whips the working man into a frenzy, which leads to the bullshit prejudice you were spouting.

I won't claim to know how to fix it, its beyond my capability, I'm just tired of that class being seen as lazy workshy cunts because of a minority. Its equivalent to calling all Muslims terrorists because a few mentals bomb somewhere. The post was made because you brought personal prejudice into it whilst at the same time having a go at Henry in the Tower thread for his prejudice.

When you're a voice that is deemed not worth listening to, for year upon year upon fucking year, told to shut up and put up with it, its dehumanising. Its why the Tower situation has so much anger aimed at the Tories, not merely due to that incident but due to the clear fucking divide between the haves having their whims tended to whilst the have nots are repeatedly told, essentially, 'fuck you you aren't worth shit, including the right to live in housing which is safe'.

[Mellberg]

Meanwhile, in another alternate universe, if you remove all emotion and empathy from politics, you're left with Rupert Murdoch's waiter asking if he'd like salt and vinegar with his Syrian refugee.

[Pepe]

Its not about 'running the country by personalising every decision', its about treating the disabled and poor as human beings and not statistics on a sheet whilst the papers run with the anti-benefit scum vitriol that whips the working man into a frenzy, which leads to the bullshit prejudice you were spouting.

Yes but what about the rich people who need to pay for your shit? Why don't you think of them too!

[Dark Soldier]

I will add I'm not a full on left mental. I'd vote Tory if their policies matched where I'd like to see this country headed. Its just over the past 8 years, they've been utterly fucking disgusting. Labour, throughout history, haven't been much better, but I'd rather the chance to see change, or something different rather than 'better the devil you know' which many seem happy to run with currently.

[Lewis]

The dole machinery is idiotic (I got sanctioned by them and was told to sue the Department for Work and Pensions), but the 'have nots' in that tower were probably receiving more in housing benefit alone than a lot of people do in wages, so it's not that straight-forward.

[GS]

With all respect, there's no prejudice in recognising that the state couldn't trust some people to adequately manage their finances where it involved (a) direct responsibility for financing currently free public services and (b) most importantly, doing so for dependents.

If everybody could be trusted, we wouldn't have kids being taken into care, general absenteeism from some (some being the operative word) parents, chasing absent fathers for child support payments etc.

Now, if the issue is therefore quibbling over how far "some" extends, that's a waste of time as nobody could say. What you can say is that any such examples would raise serious questions about the integrity of such a system and it would be unlikely to stand up to sustained scrutiny as a result.

[Dark Soldier]

The dole machinery is idiotic (I got sanctioned by them and was told to sue the Department for Work and Pensions), but the 'have nots' in that tower were probably receiving more in housing benefit alone than a lot of people do in wages, so it's not that straight-forward.

In comparison to the area, they probably weren't. In comparison to the North, they probably were, yes. Move the poor up North, keep London as a rich playground.

[Dark Soldier]

With all respect, there's no prejudice in recognising that the state couldn't trust some people to adequately manage their finances where it involved (a) direct responsibility for financing currently free public services and (b) most importantly, doing so for dependents.

If everybody could be trusted, we wouldn't have kids being taken into care, general absenteeism from some (some being the operative word) parents, chasing absent fathers for child support payments etc.

Now, if the issue is therefore quibbling over how far "some" extends, that's a waste of time as nobody could say. What you can say is that any such examples would raise serious questions about the integrity of such a system and it would be unlikely to stand up to sustained scrutiny as a result.

The system doesn't stand up now. You can't trust everyone as we're not autonomous, obviously. I get what you're trying to say but check how you come across sometimes. There's no point in continuing a debate that's only gonna stay circular, as I've stated, I don't have the answers.

We can't keep heading down what we are now re: welfare, its abhorrent.

[GS]

This may be an ideological difference, then, in the sense that my view is that welfare payments must also be fair to the people who are paying for it. If you're in a situation where the worker only earns a negligible amount above unemployment benefit, the system won't have credibility and thus won't be sustainable. I think there also has to be a recognition that it will, inevitably, be somewhat scientific in its management because it's effectively a massive HR operation.

One distinction that should be clear is disability benefit. I thought the PIP reforms ill-considered, and that's being generous. Your posts suggest I've equated all benefit claimants, which is not the case.

[Lewis]

In comparison to the area, they probably weren't. In comparison to the North, they probably were, yes. Move the poor up North, keep London as a rich playground.

They don't have to be bussed up North, but there is no reason that the state should house people in amongst the most expensive real estate on the planet just because their parents lived there (oddly enough the people who usually make this argument are usually those most welcoming to people moving across the globe for work). You have to factor things like that into your theory about newspapers 'run[ning] with the anti-benefit scum vitriol that whips the working man into a frenzy'.

[Dark Soldier]

I'm off out having a pint on the taxpayer's money, lads. Its been emotional.

[Spammer]

people on welfare are generally more careful with money than their detractors give them credit for.

My main paid job is as a debt advisor and while there are idiots, I'd say among the best people at budgeting are among the poorest, and especially those on benefits. They have to be, a lot of the time.

[Dark Soldier]

They don't have to be bussed up North, but there is no reason that the state should house people in amongst the most expensive real estate on the planet just because their parents lived there (oddly enough the people who usually make this argument are usually those most welcoming to people moving across the globe for work). You have to factor things like that into your theory about newspapers 'run[ning] with the anti-benefit scum vitriol that whips the working man into a frenzy'.

I just want to reply to this point with a quote from elsewhere from someone who lives in that area (rllmuk). I know nothing of the structure and history around London, I've never even visited so for me to offer a personal view would be ignorance. This quote is touching on what you're saying, however (it comes across as a tad aggressive due to the nature that thread was going in due to tedious trolling fucks):


Notting Hill was a fucking slum 30/40 years ago, and was pounced upon by the rich as some sort of patronising "ooh, isn't their funny culture and smelly food fun" exercise in poverty fetishisation. So how fucking DARE anyone say that the poor don't deserve to live there. The poor are the people who built the fucking place. They suffered through Rachman in the 50's and 60's. They've worked for a hundred years on the market that has been over taken by cheap tourist shit because some rich prick decided to make a stupid film about the place and only show a black face in the background for 5 minutes.

The newly arrived immigrants deserve to be there more than the rich fuckers who have come along, taken our lives and our culture and then tried to sell it back to us. That area is built on immigration. When every other fucking rental house in London had signs in the windows saying "No Blacks, No Irish, No Dogs", Notting Hill was one of the only places that would give them a home.

So poorer people should move, or be moved, because their housing benefit is higher than elsewhere in the country?

A follow up point from the same topic:


This a hundred times. I mean, what do you do when an area changes? I live in council housing in West Kensington which, in the late 80s and early 90s, was not particularly desirable. Now it is thanks to the wealthy being displaced from south Fulham and Chelsea by the even more obscenely rich, should we all be shipped out to zone 6? What about somewhere like Hackney, which again was far from desirable in the 90s but is now very popular with young white people with beards - should every council tenant now be deported out of the capital? Do we just exist at the whim of fucking estate agents and the goddamn 'market'?

What people need to understand is that those of us who find ourselves living in these suddenly-popular areas don't want to live here because the postcode gives us some sort of prestige - it's because it's where we're from, where our history is, where our communities are (remember communities? Governments love to go on about them but how does a community get built when the population is made up of insecure private-renters who could be moved on in 6 months?) and the families we support - for instance I'd have a hard time helping support my disabled mother if I lived in Preston as opposed to ten minutes up the road.

There should be no 'rich areas' where the poor are not welcome - everywhere in London should have a sound mix of people on all sorts of incomes, and those on the lowest incomes should not be made to live in shit, dangerous conditions. Not in a country as rich as this.

[Lewis]

Yes.

[Dark Soldier]

Wonderful stuff.

[Henry]

The lack of "community" makes things a lot more like America. Which is probably what they want - atomised, disoriented and transferable units of production and consumption.

[Spammer]

'Community' sounds horrible, and I for one can't think of anything worse. Imagine people going around to each other's houses to do things for each other, just out of common human decency? People looking out for each other and feeling a sense of belonging for their area, and possibly wanting to help sort shit out in the local community because they have a sense of investment in it?

It makes me shudder just to think of it.

[Spammer]

There'd be need no need for accountants if there's no money transferred, so GS probably hates that kind of thing on principle.

[Disco]

'Community' sounds horrible, and I for one can't think of anything worse. Imagine people going around to each other's houses to do things for each other, just out of common human decency? People looking out for each other and feeling a sense of belonging for their area, and possibly wanting to help sort shit out in the local community because they have a sense of investment in it?

It makes me shudder just to think of it.

Big Society mate.

[Lewis]

Didn't you end up in Leeds via Oxford and Sheffield? Did moving each time make you forget who you are and make you want to do any of that shite less? I'm sure most people would like to live in the more expensive parts of London, but they can't afford to, so they don't.

[phonics]

As someone who could afford to live in the most affluent parts of London. Nah.

[Spammer]

Didn't you end up in Leeds via Oxford and Sheffield? Did moving each time make you forget who you are and make you want to do any of that shite less? I'm sure most people would like to live in the more expensive parts of London, but they can't afford to, so they don't.

Yeah it did. In Oxford I didn't feel any sense of investment in the local area whatsoever, and that's despite doing outreach work and getting exposing myself to various issues for my job, because I knew I wouldn't stay there. I mean I did do stuff, but not as much. In Sheffield I did as I grew up there, and in my area of Leeds I do because I plan on staying there. If I was planning on leaving Leeds in a few months (or felt that I would be forced to) then I doubt I'd be as bothered either.

[Lewis]

That's your problem then.

[Spammer]

Erm, ok. The point is that people are more invested in their local community if they have actual, consistent ties to it, and are less likely to give a shit about it if it's just where they've been dumped or if they feel they're likely to move on at some point.

That's the point I was making. I think that this is really basic, immediately relatable stuff to anyone who isn't a complete misanthrope.

[Lewis]

Which is great, but the state has to house people, not ensure that they have good neighbours for odd jobs and sugar emergencies. If they want to do that they can. If they don't then oh well.

[Dark Soldier]

Except there are houses there, so I'm not sure what your hypothetical point is. If its over the surviviors of Grenfell being offered housing in Preston, its at a time when those people need that local support of family and friends, so its heartless as fuck and a cunt move. If its that people who already live in that area, but get more in housing benefit than someone in Hull so they should fuck off as its a rich man's area now, then give your head a wobble. There's people in central Manc who would get more in housing benefit than I would in Bury, I'm not wishing for them to be moved and re-homed due to it, why the fuck should I care?

"Sorry Lewis, we've discovered that Hull has no available housing for us to house you locally, but there's a cracking one bedroom flat in Southampton we will put you in!"

"But then how can I go to the cinema with my mum"

EDIT: Removed last point as it makes me look more of a cunt than I am.

[Spammer]

Which is great, but the state has to house people, not ensure that they have good neighbours for odd jobs and sugar emergencies. If they want to do that they can. If they don't then oh well.

You can't ensure it anyway. What you can do is consider the psychological - and ultimately social - impact of completely disregarding people's dignity.

I think DS summed up the sense of disillusionment well. He complains about it on here, thaough other people will channel that anger and malaise in other ways. Once they do that in antisocial ways it absolutely needs curbing but I don't think 'they're scum' is a satisfactory explanation of the people who do boil over completely and I think it'd be prudent to consider the kinds of things that lead to that kind of anger developing in the first place.

[Lewis]

If you're working and renting in Central Manchester, then you are liable to be forced to look elsewhere if your rent increases. People move around. Expecting to be put up in the most expensive part of the country on the tax-payers' tab because community is a daft argument, and seemingly not applicable to any other product.

[Dark Soldier]

But again, that's not the point. Its about people who already live there. Nobody is arguing here that young Dave from Stoke is asking to be put up in Kensington and should be allowed to. If you're homeless, or about to be, the council offer you a place, regardless of where it is, and if you don't take it, you're fucked. As an example my cousin, who is long term signed off due to mental health issues. His mother couldn't handle his problems anymore, so she told him he had to leave. The council offered to rehouse him, not in Bury but the outskirts of Preston (seems to be a common theme due to it being a monumental shithole). He would've rather had stayed here due to the support network of family and friends, but he took it as he had no other choice. The immigrants who were in that block wouldn't have asked to be there, they'd have been put there by the Council (the horror!) due to there being a local community of people of the same background.

If you're born in Kensington, and want to move out of the family place, but nowhere in Kensington is available for you, then you're not living in Kensington. You might be in a neighbouring borough, which considering transport there is easily accessible to some extent, isn't a major issue. If you had a job in Central Manc, worked there, privately rented but due to the cost of the property you rent being put up, you wouldn't just quit your job and move to Dundee, you'd find somewhere which may add 20 minutes to your journey, but kept you local enough.

You seem to have this opinion that because you can't, or even won't work, you should accept a place wherever the fuck its offered, even if its the other side of the country. Which is just madness, really.

[Spammer]

Why do you reckon the state has to house people, exactly? Is it a moral thing or what?

Edit: Directed at Lewis. I'm genuinely curious.

[Dark Soldier]

Its because if workshy cunts were left homeless, there'd be a crisis innit.

[Dark Soldier]

Hypothetical:

Someone's mam is disabled. She relies on their car to help get her to the shops, their visits to keep her spirits up, but they're not listed as a carer and live separate from their mam. Government sells off the property they've been housed in, say its in Kent. They offer to rehouse them in Castleford. They should just go 'alright then man, sounds good to me'?

EDIT: added clarity.

I guess it just comes down to how you view people should be treated I suppose, the cold statistical approach, or the humane, person to person approach.

[Lewis]

Why do you reckon the state has to house people, exactly? Is it a moral thing or what?

Edit: Directed at Lewis. I'm genuinely curious.

I don't think it's a moral thing or a 'right', but if people pay taxes then they ought to expect something back.


But again, that's not the point. Its about people who already live there. Nobody is arguing here that young Dave from Stoke is asking to be put up in Kensington and should be allowed to. If you're homeless, or about to be, the council offer you a place, regardless of where it is, and if you don't take it, you're fucked. As an example my cousin, who is long term signed off due to mental health issues. His mother couldn't handle his problems anymore, so she told him he had to leave. The council offered to rehouse him, not in Bury but the outskirts of Preston (seems to be a common theme due to it being a monumental shithole). He would've rather had stayed here due to the support network of family and friends, but he took it as he had no other choice. The immigrants who were in that block wouldn't have asked to be there, they'd have been put there by the Council (the horror!) due to there being a local community of people of the same background.

If you're born in Kensington, and want to move out of the family place, but nowhere in Kensington is available for you, then you're not living in Kensington. You might be in a neighbouring borough, which considering transport there is easily accessible to some extent, isn't a major issue. If you had a job in Central Manc, worked there, privately rented but due to the cost of the property you rent being put up, you wouldn't just quit your job and move to Dundee, you'd find somewhere which may add 20 minutes to your journey, but kept you local enough.

You seem to have this opinion that because you can't, or even won't work, you should accept a place wherever the fuck its offered, even if its the other side of the country. Which is just madness, really.

The renter in Manchester (and possibly the person moving out of the Kensington family home) isn't dependent on the state for their accommodation. By all means keep people as local as possible, but the realities of London are that that might not be possible without spending far more money than ought to be justifiable.


Hypothetical:

Someone's mam is disabled. She relies on their car to help get her to the shops, their visits to keep her spirits up, but they're not listed as a carer. Government sells off the property they've been housed in, say its in Kent. They offer to rehouse them in Castleford. They should just go 'alright then man, sounds good to me'?

Their kids could take them in, or even just help them out, until somewhere more local and affordable came up.

[Spammer]

I'm curious in Lewis' stance. He acknowledged further up that there's an obligation to house people, but strangely thinks no fucks should be given about where to house them. Even from a strictly financial standpoint, I'd say it's on shaky ground in the long run once you consider the impact on the people involved of that kind of treatment.

That's without any concern for any sentimental BULLSHIT about some things being worth considering simply because they cause less suffering.

So yeah, I'm curious to hear how that works.

[Lewis]

EDIT: added clarity.

I guess it just comes down to how you view people should be treated I suppose, the cold statistical approach, or the humane, person to person approach.

What if the state took a 'cold statistical approach', because all it has are cold statistics, and left the 'humane, person to person approach' to actual persons? That works for me.

[Dark Soldier]

Their kids could take them in, or even just help them out, until somewhere more local and affordable came up.

That's taking into account the kids have the space, there isn't a rift in the family, they themselves aren't in council housing etc. Its not cut and dry.

I'll bow out here as its obvious we have clearly conflicting views, as me and GS always will, and I've enjoyed the discussion, and so far I've managed to keep my opinion on foreign billionaires snapping up property left right and centre and keeping it unoccupied for years. Some for 10-15 years, because there's fuck all I can do but rant as the Government (both Labour and Tory) allowed it to happen, along with any old cunt with a bit of cash being able to snap up any property they want and can afford and pushing the rent up to insane, insane prices, then complain there's not enough space for those who aren't well off.

EDIT: My spelling is a mess today, its too warm and the lagers done its job.

[Spoonsky]

Isn't this just a symptom of the deeper problem, which is what's happened to London in the past 10-20 years? DS' quotes alluded to it as well.

In general I agree with Hammer and DS, but I see Lewis' point in the sense that financially London is just insane and seems to fall outside any normal rules logic.

[Pepe]

It's one of those things. Housing prices are insane because they let them (or encouraged them) to become insane. So now it costs a fortune to house people. Well, maybe we should have kept housing prices under control in the first place. As is, real estate is one of the most profitable investments out there, so people are making a fortune out of it, in many cases at the government's expense, while poor people need to constantly move to shitter and shitter areas because any area that is not a shithole is prohibitively expensive. Of course, moving to a shitter area will only make it more likely that you become even poorer. And so it goes. That's the 'free market' for you right there.

[Spammer]

And then you (or people in general) manage to do something about the shitter areas to make them slightly less shit, and then other people become interested and jump on the bandwagon and all kinds of stuff comes into your area and all of a sudden it's quite an nice area and house prices are soaring and you need to sling your hook again because your rent is too expensive.

[GS]

That's what happens if you're a private renter as well. If prices go up, you have to move.

Why should it be different when it's public money?

[Lewis]

I think one way of solving this is for everybody to have to die in the house they were born in, with no movement in any direction in case somebody loses out.

[Dark Soldier]

I was born in a hospital, oddly enough, but where better to facilitate a rampant morphine addiction.

[mikem]

It's one of those things. Housing prices are insane because they let them (or encouraged them) to become insane. So now it costs a fortune to house people. Well, maybe we should have kept housing prices under control in the first place. As is, real estate is one of the most profitable investments out there, so people are making a fortune out of it, in many cases at the government's expense, while poor people need to constantly move to shitter and shitter areas because any area that is not a shithole is prohibitively expensive. Of course, moving to a shitter area will only make it more likely that you become even poorer. And so it goes. That's the 'free market' for you right there.

Artificially restricting prices on what is typically either the only (or the largest) asset for the bottom two thirds of the economy?

[Pepe]

Yes. Housing should be a right of every citizen, not an 'asset.'

As for 'artificially,' lol.

[Spammer]

That's what happens if you're a private renter as well. If prices go up, you have to move.

Why should it be different when it's public money?

I didn't make a distinction between public and private money in that post. I was just commenting on gentrification, which obviously applies to all of it.

London/Kensington probably does stretch it to breaking point though, with it being such an extreme example. I get that.

[GS]

Yes. Housing should be a right of every citizen, not an 'asset.'

As for 'artificially,' lol.

I doubt many would disagree.

However, there needs to be a recognition that house prices in certain areas will change and social housing needs to respond to that. There isn't a compelling case that you should be housed in a particular area simply because you want to be.

There are plenty of people who are "priced out" of areas they grew up in or where they want to live, but because it's the private market (rent or mortgage), it's just tough shit and they have to go elsewhere.

So a 'right', yes. But not an unrestricted right to live where you want, irrespective of other considerations.

If you think people should be able to do that, then the next logical step is to support unrestricted government subsidies to private landlords / banks so everybody gets to live where they want.

[randomlegend]

Yeah but as DS said, there's a huge difference between having to move 20 minutes away because your rent went up and being uprooted halfway across the country.

[phonics]

If you think people should be able to do that, then the next logical step is to support unrestricted government subsidies to private landlords / banks so everybody gets to live where they want.

Or maybe a form of social housing owned by local councils. Don't know what you'd call such a scheme, mind.

[Henry]

How about we stop oligarchs and the like from buying up shitloads of property and leaving it empty?

[GS]

Yeah but as DS said, there's a huge difference between having to move 20 minutes away because your rent went up and being uprooted halfway across the country.

People move for jobs all the time, so they can support themselves. This isn't different, in my view. There should be an aim of housing people close to a particular area, of course, but not at any expense and not if there is availability elsewhere while people are on a waiting list.

Again, this is something where you're left to it if you're in the private market, and you need to make a choice. You can't have a situation where people renting in the private sector and wanting to live in a particular area would be better off going onto housing benefit so the state subsidise without restriction what they couldn't afford themselves. As before, the system must be fair to the people whose taxes actually pay for it.

[GS]

How about we stop oligarchs and the like from buying up shitloads of property and leaving it empty?

Except that isn't the case: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2017/06/17/the-role-of-foreign-investors-in-the-london-residential-market/

[randomlegend]

People move for jobs all the time, so they can support themselves. This isn't different, in my view.



Lol.

[phonics]

The number of people with jobs on housing benefit at this point in time is 982 thousand. That's around 1/30th of the entire working population.

edit: Whoops that factoid was from 2014. In 2017, we're at around 1.2 million on housing benefit in full employment or 3.75% of the work force.

[GS]

What's your point?

[phonics]

The systems broken. Badly.

[GS]

That doesn't mean that people on social housing should get to pick where they want to live regardless of cost and expect the state to pick up the bill.

[Kikó]

I hope you never fall on hard times gs.

[phonics]

That doesn't mean that people on social housing should get to pick where they want to live regardless of cost and expect the state to pick up the bill.

No the private sector that they're employed by should be paying them enough to live in an area they can get to work from. The Governments not subsidizing the housing benefactor, it's subsidizing low wages by the private sector.

Can't be the private sectors fault though. Nothing ever is.


I hope you never fall on hard times gs.

Quite, it's easy to be okay with a broken system you've never been a part of.

[Lewis]

Housing costs being a joke in certain places are largely (entirely) the result of successive governments [deliberately] fucking the system up, so they are mainly subsidising their own errors.

[Pepe]

Housing costs being a joke in certain places are largely (entirely) the result of successive governments [deliberately] fucking the system up, so they are mainly subsidising their own errors.

True.

[GS]

Yes, the private sector that pays for public services. Which seems to be lost on people sometimes.

One assumes you're in favour of higher corporation tax and a higher minimum wage. Both would significantly squeeze free cash flow and restrict not only job creation but wage increases for full time employees. You'd end up making it worse, particularly when cost push inflation comes into play and you have less buying power. The economy is basically at full employment too, so it's not as if these companies are hoarding cash - they've invested.

That said, the company will pay to the market. Unless you propose driving wages up constantly through legislation, but that will get you nowhere because utimately a 25 year old probably doesn't need to be paid fifteen quid an hour to serve coffee.

[phonics]

Yes, the private sector that pays for public services. Which seems to be lost on people sometimes.

One assumes you're in favour of higher corporation tax and a higher minimum wage. Both would significantly squeeze free cash flow and restrict not only job creation but wage increases for full time employees. You'd end up making it worse, particularly when cost push inflation comes into play and you have less buying power. The economy is basically at full employment too, so it's not as if these companies are hoarding cash - they've invested.

That said, the company will pay to the market. Unless you propose driving wages up constantly through legislation, but that will get you nowhere because utimately a 25 year old probably doesn't need to be paid fifteen quid an hour to serve coffee.

Stopped reading after 'these companies aren't t hoarding cash'.

[GS]

Stopped reading after 'these companies aren't t hoarding cash'.

Unemployment is below 5% and is considered to effectively be full employment.

Try and actually think about it.

[Kikó]

How much of the full employment are in zero hours or pay substandard wages? People being employed doesn't equal improvement of living standards.

[phonics]

Unemployment is below 5% and is considered to effectively be full employment.

Try and actually think about it.

How do those two things relate?

Try and actually think about it.

[Henry]

One assumes you're in favour of higher corporation tax and a higher minimum wage. Both would significantly squeeze free cash flow and restrict not only job creation but wage increases for full time employees.

Clearly not true in all circumstances, so you're just proclaiming your ideology as fact again.
The real economy is much more complex than the simplistic models proposed by voodoo economists.

[GS]

How much of the full employment are in zero hours or pay substandard wages? People being employed doesn't equal improvement of living standards.

2.8% of all people in employment as per the ONS.

On wages, it pays to the market.


How do those two things relate?

Try and actually think about it.

Because businesses creating three million jobs means three million salaries being paid out to workers and three million whacks of employer NIC making their way to the exchequer.

If they were hoarding, they wouldn't invest in staff and job creation.

You have a risible lack of understanding sometimes.

[GS]

Clearly not true in all circumstances, so you're just proclaiming your ideology as fact again.
The real economy is much more complex than the simplistic models proposed by voodoo economists.

Clearly true in most circumstances, given free cash flows are a key determinant of investment decisions - whether for external acquisitions or internal investment decisions requiring board approval. External factors which can't be controlled heighten risk, and reduce the flexibility the business feels it has for staff investment or retention.

This is a part of my actual job, so you can probably spare us the contrary argument given it will be wrong.

[phonics]

And if those three million jobs are paying stagnant wages despite productivity increasing, they'd be hoarding, no?

PS. Stop being such a pompous condescending wank.

[Lewis]

Productivity has been pretty flat here for years.

[phonics]

Productivity has been pretty flat here for years.

And wages are down against inflation so what's your point?

[GS]

And if those three million jobs are paying stagnant wages despite productivity increasing, they'd be hoarding, no?

First, it's variable depending on company size, number of staff, company performance, sector performance.

Second, it's sometimes a choice between staff retention, promotions, pay increases etc. There's a finite pot of money.

Finally third, certain jobs won't see pay increases because the role itself is not sufficiently skilled to warrant it. That's the blunt truth. If I own a coffee shop, is it really worth £7.20 an hour, soon to be a tenner, for a staff member (actually higher assuming the employee earns over 8K)?

[phonics]

Consdering a cup of coffee costs about 15p (if you include the packaging, 8p if you don't) to make and you can then sell it for 2.50 or more. Yeah.

[Lewis]

And wages are down against inflation so what's your point?

Is that very recently? Because otherwise it stopped being the case about three years ago, when it was somewhat understandable.

[Spammer]

I'm sure it's gone over already how 0% contracts are often used to fiddle the statistics of these things.

[phonics]

Is that very recently? Because otherwise it stopped being the case about three years ago, when it was somewhat understandable.

Since Feb:
http://i.imgur.com/nddmZf9.png


Inflation remains higher than the average wage growth of 2.1% (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/may/17/uk-pay-jobless-rate-pay-growth-inflation-brexit) year on year in the three months to March. Wage figures due on Wednesday were expected to show the gap between underlying pay growth and the inflation increase widened further in April.

[Henry]

You're an accountant, not an economist. You need to stop pretending that they're the same thing. It's Error #1 that people who don't know anything about economics make.

Looking only at a single company, which you are, and considering only their incomings and outgoings, as you are, increased taxes means less money to spend on things like wages.

The difference in an economy, where you consider all companies and individuals at once, is that the taxes collected get recycled back into the economy as spending, producing more activity and more demand in a feedback loop, meaning that any given company (or maybe some and not others) can obtain more revenue, potentially more than what they lost out on in the first place.

The economy is a complex, dynamic system with millions of agents performing trillions of transactions. It isn't possible to reduce relationships between any of its variables to a single line graph of the form "taxes up, wages down".

[GS]

Consdering a cup of coffee takes about 15p (if you include the packaging, 8p if you don't) to make and you can then sell it for 2.50 or more. Yeah.

Yes, only if you overlook all overheads including rent, utilities, insurance, accounting fees, marketing; municipal taxes, national taxes like corporation tax, employer NIC and VAT; the initial investment costs, ongoing capital expenditure simply to stand still, any interest payments to banks for loan financing, any drawings to an equity partner who fronted the cash and expects a return etc etc etc

So yes, if you ignore literally every other cost bar the direct cost of sale associated with making one cup of coffee you'd have a point. Since nobody would do that, you don't.

[SvN]

To be fair phonics, that was a pretty fucking stupid example.

[randomlegend]

They aren't investing in job creation out of charity for fuck's sake, they do it when they think they can make more money by expanding.

The fact people are in work does not mean companies aren't making huge profits whilst paying shit wages. At all.

Edit: the folly of not refreshing.

[Dark Soldier]

910k people on zero hours as of early 2016:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/mar/03/zero-hours-contracts-uk-record-high

This means anyone doing more than one (one fucking hour per week) is classed as employed. No stability, no ability to plan, no security. The job centre, help into work schemes and such are actively forcing people into this. I was told to go self employed as an IT worker as I use computers a lot. No experience in the sector whatsoever (I've since got the requisite qualifications but whoop-de-doo) competing against thousands of others within the same sector with experience out their arse, for the sake of hopefully grabbing a four hour shift each fortnight.

You work, you no doubt do well GS, pumping numbers into a database into Excel or whatever system your employers use. God forbid a severe illness strikes you down one day, you claim, and you're told you're fit for work because you're 'copacetic'. And yes, I know you agree PIP shouldn't be cut, bravo. PIP that some are forcibly being taken off whilst they're dying in hospital beds.

Be a politician, you're cut from the same tedious cloth. Zero emotion, zero empathy. Fuck 'em. Fuck 'em all.

I'm all for opposing views, challenge people, wake them up, but its the equivalent of the pub bore who just hammers home the same fucking shit until you're forced to concede. Determination, I'll give you that.

This may come across as rambling fucking bullshit but I'm not arsed mate. I deal with wankers like this often. I work, I contribute, the fuck you do, the fuck you offer. Zero, baseline zero human empathy outside their own little bubble.

[Lewis]

Since Feb:

The currency tanked mate. And it's four months. It's not particularly illustrative of whatever you think it illustrates.

[Pepe]

I see it is time for the neoliberal economics 101 lecture again.

[GS]

They aren't investing in job creation out of charity for fuck's sake, they do it when they think they can make more money by expanding.

The fact people are in work does not mean companies aren't making huge profits whilst paying shit wages. At all.

Edit: the folly of not refreshing.

Yes, it's why capitalism works. If you don't like company you work for, your redress is to go and work for someone else.

[Boydy]

Can you imagine a world without lawyers accountants?

http://i.imgur.com/1SvkSTv.jpg

[Reg]

This is a part of my actual job, so you can probably spare us the contrary argument given it will be wrong.
Stand down guys, the Mighty One has spoken.

[Shindig]

I was wondering if GS had been in this thread lately. I was wondering if he'd been sacked.

Shame.

[Lewis]

Anyway, to lighten the mood, here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imWOQ6xx6lA) is a bloke crying(!) on Ed Miliband's radio programme(!!) because his mother voted leave(!!!).

[Reg]

I happened to hear that yesterday. There were a few strange things about it, but one was that he hadn't proofread his letter before reading it out on a radio station with millions of listeners.

[Henry]

So the Tories are apparently unable to do a deal with the DUP and will proceed as a minority government.

On the one hand, it appears to be because of some reluctance about the DUP bigotry and backwardness, so credit there.

On the other hand, LOL.
When's the next election? This could be voted down, couldn't it?

[Jimmy Floyd]

Don't think so, unless there are enough Tories willing to put Corbyn in power.

318 Tories is nearly a majority when you take out the shinners (322 needed) and I can't imagine the ulstermen are going to be voting it down, so even if they abstain, a Tory minority government is actually a working majority of about 5.

It'll be hard to get much legislation through though, so I imagine we'll be going again in the autumn, at which point Corbyn wins a 500 majority and I flee the country.

[Jimmy Floyd]

317 actually.

Coalition of Chaos numbers 315 at an absolute maximum, so it ain't happening unless unionists or Tories vote with Corbyn.

The electorate really have outdone themselves in terms of utter chaos this time around.

[GS]

The FTPA is still in place. The power to collapse the government rests entirely with the DUP, given it would have to be a vote of no confidence.

I can't envisage them ever bringing the government down. Not only because their ten seats is a solid haul and they know they have leverage now that they might never again, but also on the principle that noted IRA sympathiser and supporter Jeremy Corbyn can't be PM.

I'm far from convinced that significant chunks of their electorate would forgive them putting Corbyn anywhere near office.

Based on what I read earlier in the week, the "confidence" aspect is sorted. The issues are over supply. The DUP won't bring them down, but they can make things very difficult on non-confidence/non-financial votes.

[GS]

There's also Lady Hermon, who usually votes Labour but is unlikely to do anything that puts an IRA sympathiser nearer to being in charge given they spent several years trying to assassinate her husband.

[Jimmy Floyd]

I was going to ask about Lady Hermon, is she going to abstain or what?

You could easily have all 18 of the buggers abstaining/not taking their seats, which just about sums up the relationship between GB and NI currently.

[GS]

She's on record a week before the election saying she "could never back Labour if Corbyn was leader", which is pretty unequivocal.

She may abstain given she doesn't like the Tories.

As it is, I simply don't see the 11 unionists doing anything that, in any way, helps Corbyn and McDonnell. There's a vehement and justifiable dislike there. It's one of the reasons why I reckon parliament will go longer than people think. Short of a series of by-election defeats or Tory defectors who would never be forgiven, you can't realistically get to an anti Tory majority in a confidence vote.

[Jimmy Floyd]

The IRA are probably Labour's best chance at this point, if they blow up a few Tories and cause by-elections.

[Spammer]

This is a part of my actual job, so you can probably spare us the contrary argument given it will be wrong.

Is this to suggest then that every other accountant would agree with you?

[GS]

In the example specifically discussed therein?

Yes, they would. Because it's quite basic.

[Lewis]

If I had known that a weak Conservative government would only have time to leave the European Union I would have canvassed for the Liberal Democrats.

[GS]

I'd be interested to know how many of those complaining that it's going to take up a lot of time were using the argument that it would be too much effort to leave last year.

[mikem]

Yes. Housing should be a right of every citizen, not an 'asset.'

As for 'artificially,' lol.

Oh sigh. I'm more lefty than you on this issue but marinate in your righteousness. I don't understand the point of a right to housing that you don't own. Intergenerational poverty becomes a reinforced circle when people can't generate wealth to pass on.

[Boydy]

What?