Bolitics The New Condem Government

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Major is at it again!

 

Agree on the social mobilty.

 

Not so much on pensioners. The Baby Boomers got more than enough, frankly.

[MakemineVanilla]

Major is at it again!

 

Agree on the social mobilty.

 

Not so much on pensioners. The Baby Boomers got more than enough, frankly.

 

David Willetts wrote a book on what a fantastic life the Baby Boomers have had but being determined not to line the wicked old Tory's pockets by buying a copy, I don't know what his claims are, but it is impossible for me to think of why the present generations are to be considered hard done by.

[Risso]

 

Major is at it again!

 

Agree on the social mobilty.

 

Not so much on pensioners. The Baby Boomers got more than enough, frankly.

 

David Willetts wrote a book on what a fantastic life the Baby Boomers have had but being determined not to line the wicked old Tory's pockets by buying a copy, I don't know what his claims are, but it is impossible for me to think of why the present generations are to be considered hard done by.

 

 

The (some) baby boomers are retiring on final salary schemes, which were intended to be be paid out for the 10 to 15 years of the average retirement before death, but who are now living for 30 years instead.  They were all also able to buy houses at decent rates, and have sold them at sky high prices, which usually means they have a nice comfortable pension, a fully paid off smaller home and a lump sum in the bank.  Today's younger generations will have to work until they're 70 at least probably, can't get on the property ladder and will have to put much larger amounts away for a much smaller pension.  And the jammy bastards got to live through the 60s.  And they didn't have X Factor or Downton friggin' Abbey.

[mockingbird_franklin]

oh dear, what an astounding policy the bedroom tax is proving to be.

 

Affordable homes facing demolition because of bedroom tax

Housing associations say change to benefit rules means tenants cannot afford to rent three-bed maisonet

•  

Shadow work and pensions secretary Rachel Reeves says 660,000 vulnerable households are being hit by the bedroom tax. Photograph: Christopher Thomond for the Observer

 

Three-bedroom homes are being condemned to demolition by housing associations because the coalition's bedroom tax has made them too expensive for tenants to live in, the Observer can reveal.

Despite a national property shortage, providers of affordable homes are unable to find people who can meet the cost of living in a home with an extra bedroom and are, in some cases, planning demolitions. In Liverpool, one housing provider, Magenta Living, has admitted that "with changes to welfare benefits there is very little prospect of letting upper three-bedroom maisonettes in the current climate".

In a letter to Alison McGovern, the Labour MP for Wirral South, Magenta says one such block of flats will be "emptied with a view to subsequent demolition" because of the inability to let them out, sell them or keep up with the costs of keeping them unlived in.

Coast and Country Housing, a housing association in north-east England that has 10,190 homes, has also reported a huge increase in the number of empty homes and announced that demolitions are now feasible.

Wigan and Leigh Housing, which manages 22,576 homes on behalf of Wigan council in Greater Manchester, concurred that demolishing their unlettable larger properties may prove to be the most cost-effective step. The development will raise the temperature in a Commons debate on Tuesday in which Labour intends to vote in favour of the bedroom tax being immediately repealed.

A number of senior Liberal Democrats, including one cabinet minister, are also understood to have reservations about the policy.

Under the government's controversial reform, the amount of housing benefit single people or couples can receive is cut if they are deemed to have a spare bedroom in their council or housing association home. Two children under 16 of the same gender are expected to share a room and two children under 10 are expected to share, regardless of gender.

Ministers say they have made the changes in order to maximise the use of Britain's affordable housing stock. Figures published last week show that the year-on-year increase in the number of homes has hit its lowest ebb in a decade, with 124,720 more homes, a rate of increase 8% lower than the year before. The number of new homes built was 118,540, down from 128,160 the year before, a rate that does not keep up with population growth.

Research from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation suggests Britain is facing a property shortage of more than a million homes by 2022 unless the rate of housebuilding is dramatically increased.

McGovern said the government's welfare policy was failing on its own criteria of success: "The rhetoric coming from the government was that the bedroom tax was about cutting down the housing waiting list. But if that is the case why have we got empty homes in the Wirral? It simply hasn't worked."

Shadow work and pensions secretary Rachel Reeves said this week's Commons vote was an opportunity for the Liberal Democrats to show where they stand on the issue: "This incompetent and out of touch government seems oblivious to the perverse and costly consequences of this unjust and unworkable policy. Not only is it hitting 660,000 vulnerable households, including 440,000 disabled people; the costs to the taxpayer are mounting as people are pushed into more expensive private rented accommodation while existing social homes are left vacant."

A government spokesman said: "The removal of the spare room subsidy is a necessary reform that will return fairness to housing benefit. We've been clear that hardworking people should not be subsidising tenants living in properties that are too large for their requirements.

"Consent from the Homes and Communities Agency is required before any social housing provider can dispose of a site on which social housing stood and will ensure that public investment and the needs of tenants are protected."

 

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/nov/10/bedrooom-tax-affordable-homes-face-demolition

[MakemineVanilla]

 

 

Major is at it again!

 

Agree on the social mobilty.

 

Not so much on pensioners. The Baby Boomers got more than enough, frankly.

 

David Willetts wrote a book on what a fantastic life the Baby Boomers have had but being determined not to line the wicked old Tory's pockets by buying a copy, I don't know what his claims are, but it is impossible for me to think of why the present generations are to be considered hard done by.

 

 

The (some) baby boomers are retiring on final salary schemes, which were intended to be be paid out for the 10 to 15 years of the average retirement before death, but who are now living for 30 years instead.  They were all also able to buy houses at decent rates, and have sold them at sky high prices, which usually means they have a nice comfortable pension, a fully paid off smaller home and a lump sum in the bank.  Today's younger generations will have to work until they're 70 at least probably, can't get on the property ladder and will have to put much larger amounts away for a much smaller pension.  And the jammy bastards got to live through the 60s.  And they didn't have X Factor or Downton friggin' Abbey.

 

 

I don't know - kids of today, they don't know they are born.

 

Send 'em back to the 1950's and 60's that's what I say. They will soon know the meaning of austerity. What with the rationing and those bug infested houses. Let them try living in Summer Lane, breathing in the coal smoke and having to take their frozen piss down to the communal bogs every morning and wait in the queue. Let them get all romantic about polio, TB and diphtheria. Let them sit at their mother's table and tell them what they fancy for tea, when there's just that big pot of stew bubbling on the stove, like yesterday and last week. Let them crave rock'n roll music and play them 'She Wears Red Feathers and a Huly-Huly Skirt', followed by 'How Much Is That Doggy In The Window'. Let them see how hip it all was. Let them dream all year about what clothes they might get when the Provident cheque finally came through.

 

Let them try out the 60's when a refrigerator was a luxury and they would get sterilised milk in their tea and 'fuel poverty' was a way of life, not the sign of victimhood. Let them save for a bicycle out of the 14s 6d they get from their paper-round. Let them go to a secondary modern school and hear the teachers chuckle when they tell them they want to go to university. Let them play their collection of six 45s and 2 LPs on their second-hand Dansette record-players and find how indulged they feel. Let them go and operate a power-press for a tenner a week, or do a bit of labouring for a lot less and let them feel how rich they are. Let them come home stinking of suds and cutting oil. Let them lose a finger on a machine. Let them go deaf from the noise at work. Let them swap their Suburus for a three-speed Ford Prefect, they can see the road through the rust holes in the foot-well.

 

Yes, let them pay into a final salary pension for ten years and let them cash it in to survive the unemployment of the 1970's and 80's.

 

Let them watch the skills they were promised would give them security for life go out of date and become unwanted.

 

Let them listen to the the younger generation complain about how hard done by they are because they can't have their own house in their twenties, as well as all that stuff they need, like two cars and a foreign holiday every year, and how lucky the baby boomers are for having been trained by attrition to live on a pittance.

 

Let them get a job stacking shelves in a supermarket to give them a enough to live on because they gave their savings away, so their kids could have the life-style they believe is their right.

 

Then perhaps they might have a better idea of which generation has got it made or not.

Edited November 12, 2013 by MakemineVanilla

[Risso]

You're old, aren't you?

[MakemineVanilla]

You're old, aren't you?

Not particularly but my brother and sister are and they like tell me about the 'good old days'.

[PauloBarnesi]

Can someone turn the headline size down. Just because you can doesn’t mean you should...

[drat01]

http://www.computerweekly.com/blogs/public-sector/2013/11/conservatives-erase-internet-h.html

 

Oh dear oh dear oh dear.

 

It seems that a certain political party does not want anyone looking back at what they said previously. I suspect that from now on 2010 will be called year 0 at Conservative HQ

[PauloBarnesi]

I suspect they aren’t the only one at it, no party likes being reminded of previous promises that they never keep.

[bickster]

I suspect they aren’t the only one at it, no party likes being reminded of previous promises that they never keep.

Its the very essence of party politics, the need to get elected rather than getting elected for having conviction

Having said that it is ok to change your mind but you should at least acknowledge that you have

[drat01]

 

I suspect they aren’t the only one at it, no party likes being reminded of previous promises that they never keep.

Its the very essence of party politics, the need to get elected rather than getting elected for having conviction

Having said that it is ok to change your mind but you should at least acknowledge that you have

 

Exactly Gareth, things will change as circumstances do. What the Tory party though are doing here is trying to re-write history buy removing any reference to it. The problem they have is that it aint that simple and by going down this path they are now coming under even more scrutiny.

 

As said many times for a man with a marketing background, Cameron certainly oversees a lot of marketing gaffes

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Never trust anyone in marketing.

[bickster]

Never trust anyone that calls it marketing...

Its advertising, marketing is a word made up by tossers so they themselves actually seem less of a tosser, which of course means they failed

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

It's a labyrinthine world of jargon, with a tosser holding a Macbook Air at every turn.

 

Anyway. this is worth a read

 

There are around 2000 full sized golf courses in England (141 in Surrey alone), with hundreds more smaller courses and driving ranges, according to Colin Wiles on the Inside Housing blog. He calculates that the overall footprint of just the full sized courses is 150,000 hectares or 1.1% of England’s 13.4m hectares. According to a comprehensive government assessment in 2011, that’s the same amount of land in England used for homes

 

Colin argues that when you add in smaller courses and driving ranges, the full ‘golf footprint’ is more than twice as large as the space used for homes.

Edited November 13, 2013 by CarewsEyebrowDesigner

[PauloBarnesi]

 

 

I suspect they aren’t the only one at it, no party likes being reminded of previous promises that they never keep.

Its the very essence of party politics, the need to get elected rather than getting elected for having conviction

Having said that it is ok to change your mind but you should at least acknowledge that you have

 

Exactly Gareth, things will change as circumstances do. What the Tory party though are doing here is trying to re-write history buy removing any reference to it. The problem they have is that it aint that simple and by going down this path they are now coming under even more scrutiny.

 

As said many times for a man with a marketing background, Cameron certainly oversees a lot of marketing gaffes

 

 

Don’t get me wrong its a ridiculous thing to have done, and counter productive. Probably the idea of some bright spark in the IT department. But we know that if any of the political parties could do this and get away with it they would. 

 

As I ve always said a read of Private Eye will show what the parties get up to on a national and local level and all colours are at something dodgy. 

[drat01]

I suspect it was not an IT bod but more likely someone associated with that very nice person, Steve Hilton

 

As per the comment they are all at it, the local press certainly does show what a lot of so called political figures do get up to. Often very amusingly

[Awol]

EMPLOYEE NOTICE       

Due to the current financial situation caused by the slowdown in the economy, the Government has decided to implement a scheme to put workers of 50 years of age and above on early, mandatory retirement, thus creating jobs and reducing unemployment.

This scheme will be known as RAPE (Retire Aged People Early).

Persons selected to be RAPED can apply to the Government to be considered for the SHAFT program (Special Help After Forced Termination).

Persons who have been RAPED and SHAFTED will be reviewed under the SCREW program (System Covering Retired-Early Workers).

A person may be RAPED once, SHAFTED twice and SCREWED as many times as the Government deems appropriate.

Persons who have been RAPED could get AIDS (Additional Income for Dependents & Spouse) or HERPES (Half Earnings for Retired Personnel Early Severance).

Obviously, persons who have AIDS or HERPES will not be SHAFTED or SCREWED any further by the Government.

Persons who are not RAPED and are staying on will receive as much SHIT (Special High Intensity Training) as possible. The Government has always prided itself on the amount of SHIT it gives its citizens.

Should you feel that you do not receive enough SHIT, please bring this to the attention of your MP, who has been trained to give you all the SHIT you can handle.

Sincerely,


The Committee for Economic Value of Individual Lives (E.V.I.L.)

[drat01]

It seems that the Conservative Year zero policy is not a IT bod but more of a HQ thing.

 

They have now told YouTube to remove video's

 

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/nov/14/conservatives-remove-webcameron-from-youtube

 

I suppose Cameron does have a track record of this with his suppression of references to his Bullingdon days etc and the infamous pictures

[Eames]

It seems that the Conservative Year zero policy is not a IT bod but more of a HQ thing.

 

They have now told YouTube to remove video's

 

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/nov/14/conservatives-remove-webcameron-from-youtube

 

I suppose Cameron does have a track record of this with his suppression of references to his Bullingdon days etc and the infamous pictures

This sort of tactic has gone on for years..... try and hide/back away from old promises and polices that might contradict the new message. Every party does it, has done it and will do it. 

 

This is particularly cack-handed example however.