So outside of putting the bill on those who have fought to better themselves - a standard socialist approach - there are not any surprises. So at least they are staying consistent with their beliefs!
Do we consider if the higher corporation tax bills incurred by companies will have any effect on those people working there? The companies will look to make up the money elsewhere......
Income tax increases for the top 5%. Aside from the arguments I have already made here..... Think about the kinds of jobs that pay this kind of salary. People will likely have options to move to offices in other countries. And if you squeeze them and they have less money to spend into the economy - then there will be an element of one cancelling out the other.
Inheritance Tax raids? Will more and more people not find ways around this - such as downsizing on property and then passing on the cash to their kids / grandkids before they actually die? Meaning that the inheritance bill that Labour expect to tax is essentially lower?
Charging VAT on private school fees? Whether you like it or not, kids in private schools are afforded smaller classes and more attention from teachers. As they grow up - that attention they are afforded can then be paid back to society in the form of jobs that require high levels of qualification and expertise. Why punish the parents who choose to give their kids that opportunity?
Cracking down on Tax avoidance? I actually think in principle this sounds the fairest of the lot. However, if they think in practice these kinds of people wont find new ways to keep their money or leave the country all together then they are living in cloud cuckoo land.
Or perhaps we can do something to give kids in the state school system the opportunity to have the time and attention afforded to them so that they too can have a crack at getting jobs that require high levels of qualification and expertise. why continue to cement the status quo and punish those that have to send their kids to state schools by confining them to a life of jobs that require less skill and qualifications
Not when the state system will be flooded with people priced out of the private system.
Once again this generalisation of rich folk being Eton educated in coat tails. Not everyone who goes to private school is mega rich.
So outside of putting the bill on those who have fought to better themselves - a standard socialist approach - there are not any surprises. So at least they are staying consistent with their beliefs!
Do we consider if the higher corporation tax bills incurred by companies will have any effect on those people working there? The companies will look to make up the money elsewhere......
Income tax increases for the top 5%. Aside from the arguments I have already made here..... Think about the kinds of jobs that pay this kind of salary. People will likely have options to move to offices in other countries. And if you squeeze them and they have less money to spend into the economy - then there will be an element of one cancelling out the other.
Inheritance Tax raids? Will more and more people not find ways around this - such as downsizing on property and then passing on the cash to their kids / grandkids before they actually die? Meaning that the inheritance bill that Labour expect to tax is essentially lower?
Charging VAT on private school fees? Whether you like it or not, kids in private schools are afforded smaller classes and more attention from teachers. As they grow up - that attention they are afforded can then be paid back to society in the form of jobs that require high levels of qualification and expertise. Why punish the parents who choose to give their kids that opportunity?
Cracking down on Tax avoidance? I actually think in principle this sounds the fairest of the lot. However, if they think in practice these kinds of people wont find new ways to keep their money or leave the country all together then they are living in cloud cuckoo land.
Or perhaps we can do something to give kids in the state school system the opportunity to have the time and attention afforded to them so that they too can have a crack at getting jobs that require high levels of qualification and expertise. why continue to cement the status quo and punish those that have to send their kids to state schools by confining them to a life of jobs that require less skill and qualifications
You make going to state school sound like going to the work house. I know plenty of successful people that haven't didn't even go to grammar school and are earning great money and leading prosperous careers
So outside of putting the bill on those who have fought to better themselves - a standard socialist approach - there are not any surprises. So at least they are staying consistent with their beliefs!
Do we consider if the higher corporation tax bills incurred by companies will have any effect on those people working there? The companies will look to make up the money elsewhere......
Income tax increases for the top 5%. Aside from the arguments I have already made here..... Think about the kinds of jobs that pay this kind of salary. People will likely have options to move to offices in other countries. And if you squeeze them and they have less money to spend into the economy - then there will be an element of one cancelling out the other.
Inheritance Tax raids? Will more and more people not find ways around this - such as downsizing on property and then passing on the cash to their kids / grandkids before they actually die? Meaning that the inheritance bill that Labour expect to tax is essentially lower?
Charging VAT on private school fees? Whether you like it or not, kids in private schools are afforded smaller classes and more attention from teachers. As they grow up - that attention they are afforded can then be paid back to society in the form of jobs that require high levels of qualification and expertise. Why punish the parents who choose to give their kids that opportunity?
Cracking down on Tax avoidance? I actually think in principle this sounds the fairest of the lot. However, if they think in practice these kinds of people wont find new ways to keep their money or leave the country all together then they are living in cloud cuckoo land.
Or perhaps we can do something to give kids in the state school system the opportunity to have the time and attention afforded to them so that they too can have a crack at getting jobs that require high levels of qualification and expertise. why continue to cement the status quo and punish those that have to send their kids to state schools by confining them to a life of jobs that require less skill and qualifications
So outside of putting the bill on those who have fought to better themselves - a standard socialist approach - there are not any surprises. So at least they are staying consistent with their beliefs!
Do we consider if the higher corporation tax bills incurred by companies will have any effect on those people working there? The companies will look to make up the money elsewhere......
Income tax increases for the top 5%. Aside from the arguments I have already made here..... Think about the kinds of jobs that pay this kind of salary. People will likely have options to move to offices in other countries. And if you squeeze them and they have less money to spend into the economy - then there will be an element of one cancelling out the other.
Inheritance Tax raids? Will more and more people not find ways around this - such as downsizing on property and then passing on the cash to their kids / grandkids before they actually die? Meaning that the inheritance bill that Labour expect to tax is essentially lower?
Charging VAT on private school fees? Whether you like it or not, kids in private schools are afforded smaller classes and more attention from teachers. As they grow up - that attention they are afforded can then be paid back to society in the form of jobs that require high levels of qualification and expertise. Why punish the parents who choose to give their kids that opportunity?
Cracking down on Tax avoidance? I actually think in principle this sounds the fairest of the lot. However, if they think in practice these kinds of people wont find new ways to keep their money or leave the country all together then they are living in cloud cuckoo land.
Or perhaps we can do something to give kids in the state school system the opportunity to have the time and attention afforded to them so that they too can have a crack at getting jobs that require high levels of qualification and expertise. why continue to cement the status quo and punish those that have to send their kids to state schools by confining them to a life of jobs that require less skill and qualifications
You make going to state school sound like going to the work house. I know plenty of successful people that haven't didn't even go to grammar school and are earning great money and leading prosperous careers
So outside of putting the bill on those who have fought to better themselves - a standard socialist approach - there are not any surprises. So at least they are staying consistent with their beliefs!
Do we consider if the higher corporation tax bills incurred by companies will have any effect on those people working there? The companies will look to make up the money elsewhere......
Income tax increases for the top 5%. Aside from the arguments I have already made here..... Think about the kinds of jobs that pay this kind of salary. People will likely have options to move to offices in other countries. And if you squeeze them and they have less money to spend into the economy - then there will be an element of one cancelling out the other.
Inheritance Tax raids? Will more and more people not find ways around this - such as downsizing on property and then passing on the cash to their kids / grandkids before they actually die? Meaning that the inheritance bill that Labour expect to tax is essentially lower?
Charging VAT on private school fees? Whether you like it or not, kids in private schools are afforded smaller classes and more attention from teachers. As they grow up - that attention they are afforded can then be paid back to society in the form of jobs that require high levels of qualification and expertise. Why punish the parents who choose to give their kids that opportunity?
Cracking down on Tax avoidance? I actually think in principle this sounds the fairest of the lot. However, if they think in practice these kinds of people wont find new ways to keep their money or leave the country all together then they are living in cloud cuckoo land.
Or perhaps we can do something to give kids in the state school system the opportunity to have the time and attention afforded to them so that they too can have a crack at getting jobs that require high levels of qualification and expertise. why continue to cement the status quo and punish those that have to send their kids to state schools by confining them to a life of jobs that require less skill and qualifications
Not when the state system will be flooded with people priced out of the private system.
Once again this generalisation of rich folk being Eton educated in coat tails. Not everyone who goes to private school is mega rich.
fair point - I was looking at it more from the fact at redressing the balance and using the funds to help bring down class sizes and give those in the state school system a fairer crack at those highly qualified jobs etc. It's a closed shop in some respects and definitely harder for those that go through the state system to break in. I agree it's very contentious as you rightly point out not all parents that send their kids to private school are mega wealthy, but a lot are, and the socialist in me believes it's a good policy
So outside of putting the bill on those who have fought to better themselves - a standard socialist approach - there are not any surprises. So at least they are staying consistent with their beliefs!
Do we consider if the higher corporation tax bills incurred by companies will have any effect on those people working there? The companies will look to make up the money elsewhere......
Income tax increases for the top 5%. Aside from the arguments I have already made here..... Think about the kinds of jobs that pay this kind of salary. People will likely have options to move to offices in other countries. And if you squeeze them and they have less money to spend into the economy - then there will be an element of one cancelling out the other.
Inheritance Tax raids? Will more and more people not find ways around this - such as downsizing on property and then passing on the cash to their kids / grandkids before they actually die? Meaning that the inheritance bill that Labour expect to tax is essentially lower?
Charging VAT on private school fees? Whether you like it or not, kids in private schools are afforded smaller classes and more attention from teachers. As they grow up - that attention they are afforded can then be paid back to society in the form of jobs that require high levels of qualification and expertise. Why punish the parents who choose to give their kids that opportunity?
Cracking down on Tax avoidance? I actually think in principle this sounds the fairest of the lot. However, if they think in practice these kinds of people wont find new ways to keep their money or leave the country all together then they are living in cloud cuckoo land.
Or perhaps we can do something to give kids in the state school system the opportunity to have the time and attention afforded to them so that they too can have a crack at getting jobs that require high levels of qualification and expertise. why continue to cement the status quo and punish those that have to send their kids to state schools by confining them to a life of jobs that require less skill and qualifications
You make going to state school sound like going to the work house. I know plenty of successful people that haven't didn't even go to grammar school and are earning great money and leading prosperous careers
Agreed, it was more tongue in cheek reply to: Damo's comment
So outside of putting the bill on those who have fought to better themselves - a standard socialist approach - there are not any surprises. So at least they are staying consistent with their beliefs!
Do we consider if the higher corporation tax bills incurred by companies will have any effect on those people working there? The companies will look to make up the money elsewhere......
Income tax increases for the top 5%. Aside from the arguments I have already made here..... Think about the kinds of jobs that pay this kind of salary. People will likely have options to move to offices in other countries. And if you squeeze them and they have less money to spend into the economy - then there will be an element of one cancelling out the other.
Inheritance Tax raids? Will more and more people not find ways around this - such as downsizing on property and then passing on the cash to their kids / grandkids before they actually die? Meaning that the inheritance bill that Labour expect to tax is essentially lower?
Charging VAT on private school fees? Whether you like it or not, kids in private schools are afforded smaller classes and more attention from teachers. As they grow up - that attention they are afforded can then be paid back to society in the form of jobs that require high levels of qualification and expertise. Why punish the parents who choose to give their kids that opportunity?
Cracking down on Tax avoidance? I actually think in principle this sounds the fairest of the lot. However, if they think in practice these kinds of people wont find new ways to keep their money or leave the country all together then they are living in cloud cuckoo land.
Or perhaps we can do something to give kids in the state school system the opportunity to have the time and attention afforded to them so that they too can have a crack at getting jobs that require high levels of qualification and expertise. why continue to cement the status quo and punish those that have to send their kids to state schools by confining them to a life of jobs that require less skill and qualifications
The two are not mutually exclusive and obviously there is plenty that could be done to improve our state schools. However unless you're proposing the banning of private provision of education, a state education will never on average be as good as a private one.
The irony is that there are plenty of privately-educated kids whose parents scrimp and save to send them there yet they would have flourished just as well in a state school (due to their parents' supportive attitude). Similarly there are plenty of kids sent to private school whose life chances would have been improved by not going (because they are forced down certain academic paths they ought not to have gone down at the expense of other non-academic paths where their talents/interests genuinely lie).
However no amount of investment will change the fact that there is a large proportion of parents who simply don't care about (state) education and this is reflected in the attitudes of their kids (regardless of how inspirational their teachers are or how sparkling new the school buildings are).
Changing tack slightly, it was curious that on more than one occasion Corbyn used the 'homeless people in our train stations' soundbite as if homelessness was invented in 2010.
In fact in the UK it peaked in 2003, fully six years into a Labour government.
I don't have the figures for 2003, but the number of rough sleepers in the UK has increased by 134% in the past six years
Changing tack slightly, it was curious that on more than one occasion Corbyn used the 'homeless people in our train stations' soundbite as if homelessness was invented in 2010.
In fact in the UK it peaked in 2003, fully six years into a Labour government.
I don't have the figures for 2003, but the number of rough sleepers in the UK has increased by 134% in the past six years
Homelessness includes more than just rough sleepers and yes it has increased since 2010, but my point was that it actually peaked at much higher levels in 2003 under Labour.
So if you believe that Tory cuts have caused the recent spike in homelessness (seems fair to assume it has been a partial contributory factor), then one needs an alternative explanation for what happened under Labour last time (unsurprisingly Corbyn keeps quiet on this one!).
Changing tack slightly, it was curious that on more than one occasion Corbyn used the 'homeless people in our train stations' soundbite as if homelessness was invented in 2010.
In fact in the UK it peaked in 2003, fully six years into a Labour government.
I don't have the figures for 2003, but the number of rough sleepers in the UK has increased by 134% in the past six years
Homelessness includes more than just rough sleepers and yes it has increased since 2010, but my point was that it actually peaked at much higher levels in 2003 under Labour.
So if you believe that Tory cuts have caused the recent spike in homelessness (seems fair to assume it has been a partial contributory factor), then one needs an alternative explanation for what happened under Labour last time (unsurprisingly Corbyn keeps quiet on this one!).
What happened between 2003 and 2010 then?
I don't think anyone can say with a straight face that Labour failed the homeless.
Changing tack slightly, it was curious that on more than one occasion Corbyn used the 'homeless people in our train stations' soundbite as if homelessness was invented in 2010.
In fact in the UK it peaked in 2003, fully six years into a Labour government.
I don't have the figures for 2003, but the number of rough sleepers in the UK has increased by 134% in the past six years
Homelessness includes more than just rough sleepers and yes it has increased since 2010, but my point was that it actually peaked at much higher levels in 2003 under Labour.
So if you believe that Tory cuts have caused the recent spike in homelessness (seems fair to assume it has been a partial contributory factor), then one needs an alternative explanation for what happened under Labour last time (unsurprisingly Corbyn keeps quiet on this one!).
What happened between 2003 and 2010 then?
I don't think anyone can say with a straight face that Labour failed the homeless.
If you ignore the brief six years to 2003 and the absolute levels it reached!
Basically show that the lowest 70% of income earners will receive more in welfare and benefits-in-kind than they pay in tax - the next 10% receive about the same that they pay whilst only the top 20% pay more in tax than they receive in welfare/benefits.
So much for those with the broadest shoulders not paying their way!
Changing tack slightly, it was curious that on more than one occasion Corbyn used the 'homeless people in our train stations' soundbite as if homelessness was invented in 2010.
In fact in the UK it peaked in 2003, fully six years into a Labour government.
I don't have the figures for 2003, but the number of rough sleepers in the UK has increased by 134% in the past six years
Homelessness includes more than just rough sleepers and yes it has increased since 2010, but my point was that it actually peaked at much higher levels in 2003 under Labour.
So if you believe that Tory cuts have caused the recent spike in homelessness (seems fair to assume it has been a partial contributory factor), then one needs an alternative explanation for what happened under Labour last time (unsurprisingly Corbyn keeps quiet on this one!).
What happened between 2003 and 2010 then?
I don't think anyone can say with a straight face that Labour failed the homeless.
If you ignore the brief six years to 2003 and the absolute levels it reached!
So during the Labour years it rose by about 70 before falling by 210, so a net improvement of 140 to record lows, and you're seriously trying to paint this as a Labour failure?
Did you expect it to drop overnight once Blair crushed Major? Should Tony, Prezza, Campbell, Gordon and co been out Friday the morning after with the cement mixers building new homes?
Might you understand how Maggie selling off over half the housing stock may have been a factor in Labour not immediately solving the issue?
As someone who was working in the government department responsible for housing in the early 2000's, the numbers jumped as local authorities were in the process of doing massive upgrades to their housing stock, which delayed homing lots of people, once decent homes was completed, the numbers dropped at a massive rate.
Changing tack slightly, it was curious that on more than one occasion Corbyn used the 'homeless people in our train stations' soundbite as if homelessness was invented in 2010.
In fact in the UK it peaked in 2003, fully six years into a Labour government.
I don't have the figures for 2003, but the number of rough sleepers in the UK has increased by 134% in the past six years
Homelessness includes more than just rough sleepers and yes it has increased since 2010, but my point was that it actually peaked at much higher levels in 2003 under Labour.
So if you believe that Tory cuts have caused the recent spike in homelessness (seems fair to assume it has been a partial contributory factor), then one needs an alternative explanation for what happened under Labour last time (unsurprisingly Corbyn keeps quiet on this one!).
Yes I know that. It's why I said I didn't have the specific figures for rough sleepers in 2003.
In any case, you referred to those sleeping rough in your initial post. Your data seems to be based on statutory homelessness, which is a different thing, as you say.
As someone who was working in the government department responsible for housing in the early 2000's, the numbers jumped as local authorities were in the process of doing massive upgrades to their housing stock, which delayed homing lots of people, once decent homes was completed, the numbers dropped at a massive rate.
The kind of facts this issue needs. Not sure why nya thinks it's feasible to solve homelessness overnight. Does he hold the Tories to the same scrutiny? Obviously not.
Changing tack slightly, it was curious that on more than one occasion Corbyn used the 'homeless people in our train stations' soundbite as if homelessness was invented in 2010.
In fact in the UK it peaked in 2003, fully six years into a Labour government.
Following the 1997 election victory, the government set up the Social Exclusion Unit, one of which aims was to reduce rough sleeping. In 1999 the Rough Sleeper Unit was created, with Louise Casey appointed as its head. The RSU's aim was to reduce the number of rough sleepers by two thirds by 2002. This was achieved by the end of 2001. In 2002, the government enacted the Homelessness Act 2002 which built on existing homeless legislation. They also introduced homelessness prevention and assisted local authorities in the prevention of homelessness by providing an annual homeless prevention grant. From 2003 onwards the number of homeless households and households staying in B and B reduced, until 2010, at which point once the coalition government's austerity measures were introduced, the number of homeless households steadily increased. The number of rough sleepers has doubled between 2010 and 2016.
Changing tack slightly, it was curious that on more than one occasion Corbyn used the 'homeless people in our train stations' soundbite as if homelessness was invented in 2010.
In fact in the UK it peaked in 2003, fully six years into a Labour government.
Following the 1997 election victory, the government set up the Social Exclusion Unit, one of which aims was to reduce rough sleeping. In 1999 the Rough Sleeper Unit was created, with Louise Casey appointed as its head. The RSU's aim was to reduce the number of rough sleepers by two thirds by 2002. This was achieved by the end of 2001. In 2002, the government enacted the Homelessness Act 2002 which built on existing homeless legislation. They also introduced homelessness prevention and assisted local authorities in the prevention of homelessness by providing an annual homeless prevention grant. From 2003 onwards the number of homeless households and households staying in B and B reduced, until 2010, at which point once the coalition government's austerity measures were introduced, the number of homeless households steadily increased. The number of rough sleepers has doubled between 2010 and 2016.
I would like this but there is nothing to like about the levels of homelessness rising or the Tories that have caused it to happen.
Changing tack slightly, it was curious that on more than one occasion Corbyn used the 'homeless people in our train stations' soundbite as if homelessness was invented in 2010.
In fact in the UK it peaked in 2003, fully six years into a Labour government.
Following the 1997 election victory, the government set up the Social Exclusion Unit, one of which aims was to reduce rough sleeping. In 1999 the Rough Sleeper Unit was created, with Louise Casey appointed as its head. The RSU's aim was to reduce the number of rough sleepers by two thirds by 2002. This was achieved by the end of 2001. In 2002, the government enacted the Homelessness Act 2002 which built on existing homeless legislation. They also introduced homelessness prevention and assisted local authorities in the prevention of homelessness by providing an annual homeless prevention grant. From 2003 onwards the number of homeless households and households staying in B and B reduced, until 2010, at which point once the coalition government's austerity measures were introduced, the number of homeless households steadily increased. The number of rough sleepers has doubled between 2010 and 2016.
and this, but the lack of stock due to massive upgrades was part of the problem, was a policy which was designed by SEU that was easy to achieve, all governments like those!
My initial annoyance was with Corbyn's "have you seen the homeless in our train stations?" soundbite last night as if homelessness/rough sleepers never existed before 2010.
Maybe Tory cuts have caused an increase in rough sleeping though I'm sure there are plenty of other factors which are not policy-related - however that wouldn't fit neatly in the Labour narrative.
Changing tack slightly, it was curious that on more than one occasion Corbyn used the 'homeless people in our train stations' soundbite as if homelessness was invented in 2010.
In fact in the UK it peaked in 2003, fully six years into a Labour government.
I don't have the figures for 2003, but the number of rough sleepers in the UK has increased by 134% in the past six years
Homelessness includes more than just rough sleepers and yes it has increased since 2010, but my point was that it actually peaked at much higher levels in 2003 under Labour.
So if you believe that Tory cuts have caused the recent spike in homelessness (seems fair to assume it has been a partial contributory factor), then one needs an alternative explanation for what happened under Labour last time (unsurprisingly Corbyn keeps quiet on this one!).
What happened between 2003 and 2010 then?
I don't think anyone can say with a straight face that Labour failed the homeless.
If you ignore the brief six years to 2003 and the absolute levels it reached!
So during the Labour years it rose by about 70 before falling by 210, so a net improvement of 140 to record lows, and you're seriously trying to paint this as a Labour failure?
Did you expect it to drop overnight once Blair crushed Major? Should Tony, Prezza, Campbell, Gordon and co been out Friday the morning after with the cement mixers building new homes?
Might you understand how Maggie selling off over half the housing stock may have been a factor in Labour not immediately solving the issue?
No. Still the same number of houses and (without Labour's laissez-faire attitude to immigration) still the same number of people. Now, add in Labour's deliberate policy of getting as many immigrants as possible through the door +3.6mn and might you understand that, partially, the housing shortage is of Labour's making? (Of course, it's got worse since as numbers of people that live in the UK has increased further. But that doesn't give Labour absolution does it?)
isnt he freinds with some alleged members of the ira who bombed/killed a lot of civilian, sometimes you cant have it both ways. im against bombing but sometimes you don't get 20 minutes to make a decision its a case of them or us, yesterday 80 people were killed in Iraq by a suicide bombing, yet i didn't see too many of these celebs with #prayforkabul, if corbyn does get his way and all these people go to university, there aren't the jobs here, we need apprentices, not everyone can do office work, pushing the minimum wage up to £10 per hour, who in the right mind is going to go and do an apprenticeship?, earning peanuts for a couple of years when they can do a minimum skill no qaulification needed job for less, i wanted to go university but couldnt as my mum couldnt afford it, ended up doing a entry level plumbing course and am now a project manager so its not all bad, i know poeple that have done uni courses haven't got there jobs they needed and work in jobs that arent related to there degree ( 1 in local wetherspoons and 1 in the local cinema )
My initial annoyance was with Corbyn's "have you seen the homeless in our train stations?" soundbite last night as if homelessness/rough sleepers never existed before 2010.
Maybe Tory cuts have caused an increase in rough sleeping though I'm sure there are plenty of other factors which are not policy-related - however that wouldn't fit neatly in the Labour narrative.
But would fit neatly with the Conservative narrative.
Not a dig - we are all influenced by our political prejudices.
isnt he freinds with some alleged members of the ira who bombed/killed a lot of civilian, sometimes you cant have it both ways. im against bombing but sometimes you don't get 20 minutes to make a decision its a case of them or us, yesterday 80 people were killed in Iraq by a suicide bombing, yet i didn't see too many of these celebs with #prayforkabul, if corbyn does get his way and all these people go to university, there aren't the jobs here, we need apprentices, not everyone can do office work, pushing the minimum wage up to £10 per hour, who in the right mind is going to go and do an apprenticeship?, earning peanuts for a couple of years when they can do a minimum skill no qaulification needed job for less, i wanted to go university but couldnt as my mum couldnt afford it, ended up doing a entry level plumbing course and am now a project manager so its not all bad, i know poeple that have done uni courses haven't got there jobs they needed and work in jobs that arent related to there degree ( 1 in local wetherspoons and 1 in the local cinema )
In theory the new apprenticeship levy should open up 'apprenticeships' in roles/industries not traditionally associated with them. This is in theory though. I don't think anyone knows what the hell is going on with them yet. Employers, employees and providers
See this is the problem now day's, the photo you posted and then there's this one floating around the internet, 2 completely contradictory pieces of information on pretty much the same thing
isnt he freinds with some alleged members of the ira who bombed/killed a lot of civilian, sometimes you cant have it both ways. im against bombing but sometimes you don't get 20 minutes to make a decision its a case of them or us, yesterday 80 people were killed in Iraq by a suicide bombing, yet i didn't see too many of these celebs with #prayforkabul, if corbyn does get his way and all these people go to university, there aren't the jobs here, we need apprentices, not everyone can do office work, pushing the minimum wage up to £10 per hour, who in the right mind is going to go and do an apprenticeship?, earning peanuts for a couple of years when they can do a minimum skill no qaulification needed job for less, i wanted to go university but couldnt as my mum couldnt afford it, ended up doing a entry level plumbing course and am now a project manager so its not all bad, i know poeple that have done uni courses haven't got there jobs they needed and work in jobs that arent related to there degree ( 1 in local wetherspoons and 1 in the local cinema )
I thought this until I found out the 'facts' Corbyn visited various members of the IRA to try and set out peace talks he did the same with HAMAS as well. The right wing press and Parties will have you believe he was a sympathiser, Corbyn is a pacifist by nature, and has condemned violence by both sides.......
isnt he freinds with some alleged members of the ira who bombed/killed a lot of civilian, sometimes you cant have it both ways. im against bombing but sometimes you don't get 20 minutes to make a decision its a case of them or us, yesterday 80 people were killed in Iraq by a suicide bombing, yet i didn't see too many of these celebs with #prayforkabul, if corbyn does get his way and all these people go to university, there aren't the jobs here, we need apprentices, not everyone can do office work, pushing the minimum wage up to £10 per hour, who in the right mind is going to go and do an apprenticeship?, earning peanuts for a couple of years when they can do a minimum skill no qaulification needed job for less, i wanted to go university but couldnt as my mum couldnt afford it, ended up doing a entry level plumbing course and am now a project manager so its not all bad, i know poeple that have done uni courses haven't got there jobs they needed and work in jobs that arent related to there degree ( 1 in local wetherspoons and 1 in the local cinema )
We're not out yet and the decision to leave was voted on LAST YEAR not 3 months ago when we had larger growth than all of the g7 countries.
Wait till Brexit actually happens!
Agree. I hope we are all hugely surprised by the outcome. The result of the election likely to be a hung parliament will mean May won't have the easy ride she wants on this.
Everyone knows what the outcome will be. The little Englanders who voted leave will be walking around for a few years with stupid smirks on their faces thinking they have their country back while the UK economy crashes for the next 10 years before we are begging the EU to let us back in.
i take it you didnt vote leave are you going to continue to sulk about or shall we do a best out of 3
Changing tack slightly, it was curious that on more than one occasion Corbyn used the 'homeless people in our train stations' soundbite as if homelessness was invented in 2010.
In fact in the UK it peaked in 2003, fully six years into a Labour government.
I don't have the figures for 2003, but the number of rough sleepers in the UK has increased by 134% in the past six years
Homelessness includes more than just rough sleepers and yes it has increased since 2010, but my point was that it actually peaked at much higher levels in 2003 under Labour.
So if you believe that Tory cuts have caused the recent spike in homelessness (seems fair to assume it has been a partial contributory factor), then one needs an alternative explanation for what happened under Labour last time (unsurprisingly Corbyn keeps quiet on this one!).
What happened between 2003 and 2010 then?
I don't think anyone can say with a straight face that Labour failed the homeless.
If you ignore the brief six years to 2003 and the absolute levels it reached!
So during the Labour years it rose by about 70 before falling by 210, so a net improvement of 140 to record lows, and you're seriously trying to paint this as a Labour failure?
Did you expect it to drop overnight once Blair crushed Major? Should Tony, Prezza, Campbell, Gordon and co been out Friday the morning after with the cement mixers building new homes?
Might you understand how Maggie selling off over half the housing stock may have been a factor in Labour not immediately solving the issue?
No. Still the same number of houses and (without Labour's laissez-faire attitude to immigration) still the same number of people. Now, add in Labour's deliberate policy of getting as many immigrants as possible through the door +3.6mn and might you understand that, partially, the housing shortage is of Labour's making? (Of course, it's got worse since as numbers of people that live in the UK has increased further. But that doesn't give Labour absolution does it?)
Two fallacies there regarding 'selling houses means same number of people waiting for a home' (yes, same number of people on the waiting list but now less homes!) and that open door immigration increases numbers of homeless (red herring as councils ought to be increasing stock to meet demand regardless of citizenship).
isnt he freinds with some alleged members of the ira who bombed/killed a lot of civilian, sometimes you cant have it both ways. im against bombing but sometimes you don't get 20 minutes to make a decision its a case of them or us, yesterday 80 people were killed in Iraq by a suicide bombing, yet i didn't see too many of these celebs with #prayforkabul, if corbyn does get his way and all these people go to university, there aren't the jobs here, we need apprentices, not everyone can do office work, pushing the minimum wage up to £10 per hour, who in the right mind is going to go and do an apprenticeship?, earning peanuts for a couple of years when they can do a minimum skill no qaulification needed job for less, i wanted to go university but couldnt as my mum couldnt afford it, ended up doing a entry level plumbing course and am now a project manager so its not all bad, i know poeple that have done uni courses haven't got there jobs they needed and work in jobs that arent related to there degree ( 1 in local wetherspoons and 1 in the local cinema )
Kabul is in Afghanistan
Beat me to it - I was also going to suggest that waiting that 20 minutes might avoid bombing the wrong country!!
Comments
Once again this generalisation of rich folk being Eton educated in coat tails. Not everyone who goes to private school is mega rich.
The irony is that there are plenty of privately-educated kids whose parents scrimp and save to send them there yet they would have flourished just as well in a state school (due to their parents' supportive attitude). Similarly there are plenty of kids sent to private school whose life chances would have been improved by not going (because they are forced down certain academic paths they ought not to have gone down at the expense of other non-academic paths where their talents/interests genuinely lie).
However no amount of investment will change the fact that there is a large proportion of parents who simply don't care about (state) education and this is reflected in the attitudes of their kids (regardless of how inspirational their teachers are or how sparkling new the school buildings are).
So if you believe that Tory cuts have caused the recent spike in homelessness (seems fair to assume it has been a partial contributory factor), then one needs an alternative explanation for what happened under Labour last time (unsurprisingly Corbyn keeps quiet on this one!).
I don't think anyone can say with a straight face that Labour failed the homeless.
Basically show that the lowest 70% of income earners will receive more in welfare and benefits-in-kind than they pay in tax - the next 10% receive about the same that they pay whilst only the top 20% pay more in tax than they receive in welfare/benefits.
So much for those with the broadest shoulders not paying their way!
Did you expect it to drop overnight once Blair crushed Major? Should Tony, Prezza, Campbell, Gordon and co been out Friday the morning after with the cement mixers building new homes?
Might you understand how Maggie selling off over half the housing stock may have been a factor in Labour not immediately solving the issue?
In any case, you referred to those sleeping rough in your initial post. Your data seems to be based on statutory homelessness, which is a different thing, as you say.
My initial annoyance was with Corbyn's "have you seen the homeless in our train stations?" soundbite last night as if homelessness/rough sleepers never existed before 2010.
Maybe Tory cuts have caused an increase in rough sleeping though I'm sure there are plenty of other factors which are not policy-related - however that wouldn't fit neatly in the Labour narrative.
Not a dig - we are all influenced by our political prejudices.
http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/9-things-every-voter-needs-to-know.html