bickster

My argument appears to be floundering

The Cod War springs to mind instantly

This is the correct analysis /momentum

Were you in a bar called Dick Turpin's by any chance?

Does not compute

Who the unions want

Depends who won control of the brand I guess

Labour continuing as they are will not help remove the Tories. This isn't up for dispute either

That would be Old Swan. You appear to be describing the industrial bit in the corner of Green Lane and Prescot Road. It's grim but just the other side of that is Newsham Park, a lovely park surrounded by lots of Victorian housing, shame its a shithole, it could be a lovely area but it isn't, its a low rent right light district dump of a place

Well until the two Labour Parties currently masquerading as one split into the two parties they really are, you need to get used to it

You say this like its a bad thing

This is a myth, the vast majority of council services are put out to tender and the cheapest quote wins. The inefficiency comes from accepting the cheapest quote (which they pretty much have to by law), which then gets you the shittiest job done. You can blame a certain Mrs Thatcher for that, she introduced "competitive tendering"

Absolutely, that would help. Depends where in Shakeabush you were I guess. Its a very odd suburb in that its massive and no-one can actually agree where it starts and ends. I know where I think it starts and ends (and I'm pretty much an expert in the field) but everyone thinks differently. To be honest the shittier parts of Wavertree are the student ghetto between Smithdown Road and Picton Road. The top end of which has rows of empty houses which are supposedly going to be up for sale for a £1 each but you have to guarantee a certain amount of money for repairs which no bank will currently lend you and the first people to do this will be move into a slum street with no neighbours and problems on either side of your property. They really should demolish them. Most of Wavertree is OK tbh, there's even a conservation area (Wavertree Garden Suburb). There are much worse places in the city

See if it was an aspiration and framed as such, I'd have no problem with what was said. Labour want to put an end to homelessness... Yup no problem, it's a perfectly correct thing to want to do, I'd believe them. But that wasn't what was said and they do this all the time and in this instance its pretty much impossible to do what they say they will. Saying they will end it and end it in the term of one parliament just will not happen, so I find it very hard to believe them. The homelessness issue is sort of irrelevant to my point in a way. It's just a particular issue, out of many where Labour claim they will do the impossible and as usual, they don't tell you how they'll do it either.

This isn't in dispute. The point is they shouldn't claim they'll do the impossible, people are less likely to believe their more probable claims I have no issue with Labour attempting to reduce homelessness, I applaud it. But it would take a special kind of person to believe that the Labour Party will eradicate the problem in 5 years. Not one poster here believes they will

Fixed

Exactly my point

Another one for the stupidly bold claims file Laudable as the sentiment is, they will never achieve this We have two city centre shelters for the homeless in Liverpool, one run in conjunction with the council, the other by a charity run by one of the large property owners in the city centre (Hotels they run themselves mainly). Even in the cold of winter they cannot get everyone to stay in the hostels, despite there being room. to claim you will end rough sleeping across the UK in one parliamentary term is absolute nonsense. Liverpool's Labour council have been trying to get rough sleepers off the street for longer than that and they've been funding all manner of issues to that end, they still haven't managed it

Always said by people who want to leave and really don't understand the issues (or idiotic politicians)

If any further proof were needed that Brexit is wrong, here it is.

not, some people were drunk at 3am leaving a pub and they picked a fight on someone they didn't like for any manner of reasons as drunk people do THAT is the most plausible reason

No I'm really not. There is zero evidence, that isn't a high bar

Neither do I, which is exactly why adding attacks with an unproven motive to a list doesn't help. Neither of us were there but we can read Own Jones' own words, iirc he said, I have no proof but he "knew" it was a far right attack (or similar)