miga

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The E&C deveolpment was first put together under > the liberal/ con coalition council (and some of > those lib and con councillors involved were given > jobs by Lendlease when they lost their seats!). > And there are equal examples of poor council > management from parties of all colours. The > processes and legal constriants are the same for > all of them. That is policy set by government. > When you have a government and mayor who think > selling off social housing to give way to > corporate private development should be favoured > over social homebuilding, that's what you get. Fair enough I got the timeline wrong on the original Heygate decision, but yes, the point is that poor management and corruption is rife in LAs, and yes, it happens across all political parties (e.g. the debacle of Excalibur). Let's also not forget that the Labour government 1997-2010 didn't shun right to buy, buy to let etc. but actively encouraged it. But it's convenient to bang on about Boris and Cameron, as if they were at the heart of the historical factors that brought about the current state of affairs, rather than just the latest administrators on a continuum. When someone says "I see people dying everyday because of Cameron", while it's a worrying observation, it *is* anecdotal. It can explain an attitude, but of course you're more likely to see destitute people if you work in allocating housing for a council, or people who OD if you work with addicts. And also, I'm glad you brought up the 4000 dead within 6 months thing. I think it's an example of sloppy, sensationalist journalism, the way that Indy, Guardian and others have reported on this. But, no-one really yet knows whether that number is fine, or horrendously bad, because there's a lot missing, still. http://storify.com/bengoldacre/how-dwp-has-confused-everyone-by-releasing-the-rig, just for a start but there is a world of articles out there explaining that we can't tell yet whether IDS really kills sick people for fun. I mean....murdering Tory scum!!!

I get the impression that a few of the posters on here work on the front line in LAs, perhaps in a social work or housing. Laudable as that work is, I think it's still worth remembering anecdotal evidence is just that. On the other hand, given the balls up that Lewisham has made of the Excalibur estate redevelopment or that Southwark has made of E&C redevelopment, you could argue that the incompetence and corruption of Labour controlled LAs in our part of London is the cause of a large portion of housing issues, without looking to some "Tory coonts" arch narrative.

-10/10

Only ever had good service from Balfe's in ED.

They're the "most popular official pages" on YouTube though...not the 10 artists with most hits on their videos. I bet "Gangnam Style" has had more views in the past year than all of Maroon 5 videos combined (will doubtless eat my words shortly).

I get the general criticisms against benefits sanctions, bedroom tax and so on, but the only specific criticism on UC so far has been that some people will struggle to manage their rent money if it's not paid directly to the landlord. I get that, some people struggle with debt or addiction, but to call UC an unmitigated failure on that basis seems a bit OTT. Some people on benefits looking to get back into work would welcome not having the admin overhead of cancelling several types of benefit when they go into work, with their various different timelines and then doing the same when they dip below the threshold again two months later. I'd worry more about the technical implementation of UC, given the horrible track record on IT projects by big government bureaucracy, to be honest.

I thought Universal Credit was about the method of distribution, not the amount. On the face of it, it seems like a good idea to just get the one payment rather than multiple different forms of benefit, all of which must be managed separately? Is the worry that money that's not specifically for housing will get used elsewhere by recipients? Or is the worry about changing conditions and eligibility for welfare which might dovetail with UC?

What is "imminent risk of homelessness" and how was this figure arrived at? Not questioning what you're saying, but would like to read the report this came from for context and explanation of terms.

I want to see the prosperity and quality of life of the West in 1960s and 1970s, with jobs for life, affordable housing, free University education etc. etc., but you know, history and that.

Yes, you'll know they're serious about "balancing the books" when they do something about pensions, which are about half of the welfare budget, or 5-6% GDP. That's the demographic timebomb ???? was talking about, although UK is probably better off than other European countries, what with lots of immigration and high birth rates.

I think it's time to wrap things up Bob, your satire is pretty sheet.

david_carnell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And for all Quids likes to talk about the > ludicrous comparisons with Venezuala, this > government has managed to double the national > debt. Do you think this would have been different under any of the other possible governments?

Bob Buzzard Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Oh well at > least it's got more cachet than Iceland so it > should help boost the profile of the area. Because the myriad cafes, trendy bars and an independent cinema don't do that already.

Also, it wasn't Syriza that ran the corrupt state into the ground, it was a mixture of left/right governments, they all had their fingers in the till. And let's also not forget the Tories keep on shifting the deficit elimination into the future. So much for austerity.

I don't think you need to worry ????, if Corbyn ever gets into power, he'll have to soften a lot. If you look at Syriza and what they've done since being in power, in a country that was already a lot more to the left, they've compromised a lot on their initial hard line. It's incredibly hard to change a system, especially one as stable as this country.

I've just come back from spending some weeks in a pretty backwards part of Europe...I never thought the less salubrious SE postcodes would give off the appearance of such well organised cleanliness. It's all relative.

I'm sure there's a bit of entryism, the Telegraph was telling its readers to do as much some weeks ago, but it looks like they've thrown out the baby with the bathwater....what a mess.

My twitter feed is ablaze with talk of people (Lewisham East) being de-registered from voting in the Labour leadership elections...bizzarre.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well my burper said that I could kiss his ass. What a peasant...burping, riding donkeys, suggestions of bestiality....

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm sure there is substantial overlap. But > regarding the welfare state - the Tories main > objective seems to be to reduce spending and > reduce the role of the government. No one at the last election, to my knowledge, supported an increase in spending, apart from the Greens. On their list of priorities the Tories had a reduction in spending (or "balancing the books") further up, but when DM says something like "make welfare a springboard out of poverty", what he means is, "reduce amount of time people spend in welfare and get them into work ASAP". The words are different but the substance is the same.

Jeremy, while I agree with you that DM's "mission statement" sounds good, if you dissect it point by point, I think there's no significant difference to what Cameron stands for. E.g. decentralisation to the cities - this thinking is strongly pushed by a non-partisan think tank both parties are friendly with; stopping the flow of immigration (one from DM's Moses tablet), reducing welfare dependence, energy self-reliance etc.

In some not too distant past (when my parents were my age), jobs were relatively safe, houses were affordable, the (state) education system wasn't in a constant state of unknowable flux, and government debt to GDP was ~40%, university education was free. (There were also allegedly much less savoury aspects of this rose-tinted past which I'm omitting). You could afford to buy a house in a middle class part of London on two professional salaries (gasp! unimaginable!). I'm not sure the previous state of the economy and society is retrievable, given the competition from the rest of the world, current state of government debt (with deficit removal always on the horizon) and a wages race to the bottom for all kinds of work. Despite finding myself nodding along to both Corbyn and Farage (the latter much less so, admittedly), I can't see how either of these guys can wind the clock back. I think the most useful contribution Corbyn will make as leader, for what will prove to be a short time, is to move the Overton window back to the left a little and along it reel in the Tories (who, let's face it, can't afford to get rid of the welfare state anyway, but might reel in the RTB, "Help to buy" populism).

Toddlers in top hats smoking cigars and throwing crispy ?50 notes at the writhing strippers....

> a pub full of wealthy toddlers

Thread idea: Are sexist/classist stereotypes OK if they're directed at middle class women?