I have seen statistics suggesting up to 60% of the capital's rough sleepers are non-UK EU nationals.
I'm not sure what any government (Tory or otherwise) is supposed to do when the EU's ridiculous free movement policy allows anybody from 27 countries (some of them still very much 'developing' ones) to turn up with no means to support themselves yet maintain an absolute legal right to be here.
I have seen statistics suggesting up to 60% of the capital's rough sleepers are non-UK EU nationals.
I'm not sure what any government (Tory or otherwise) is supposed to do when the EU's ridiculous free movement policy allows anybody from 27 countries (some of them still very much 'developing' ones) to turn up with no means to support themselves yet maintain an absolute legal right to be here.
I have seen statistics suggesting up to 60% of the capital's rough sleepers are non-UK EU nationals.
I'm not sure what any government (Tory or otherwise) is supposed to do when the EU's ridiculous free movement policy allows anybody from 27 countries (some of them still very much 'developing' ones) to turn up with no means to support themselves yet maintain an absolute legal right to be here.
Except that under EU Law it is permissible to remove people who are unable to support themselves.
I have seen statistics suggesting up to 60% of the capital's rough sleepers are non-UK EU nationals.
I'm not sure what any government (Tory or otherwise) is supposed to do when the EU's ridiculous free movement policy allows anybody from 27 countries (some of them still very much 'developing' ones) to turn up with no means to support themselves yet maintain an absolute legal right to be here.
Except that under EU Law it is permissible to remove people who are unable to support themselves.
It would be better if they didn't get here in the first place without proving that but anyhow, off topic!
The mental gymnastics some posters on this thread are going through to shift the blame to Labour or to create some false equivalency between the amount of kids turning up for school hungry this morning, because that's what we are talking about, and 10, 15, 20 years ago is astonishing.
None of this should be a surprise to anyone.
The Tories have stood on a platform of austerity and a narrative of demonising benefits claimants since 2010. If you were happy to vote for it in 2010, then vote for more in 2015 and then a little more last year people could at least have the honesty to accept it or acknowledge the impact their vote has had on the poorest in our society.
See also rising homelessness...
im not shifting the blame to anyone - but the notion that food banks and poverty in this country are a new thing that have just been caused by the tories i believe to be bollocks. lets remember the tories only got in power in 2010!.
Then you go on to shift the blame. Look at the present shit state our country is in, it is down to the Tories and the polices of the Tory government, no one else. If as been said before we have had 25 plus years of poverty, Btw we haven't, (there will always be some poorer people) but the present levels of poverty is unprecedented in the modern world, its at Dickensian levels in some areas....the bottom line is that the Tories have had over 8 years to make it better, so what do they do, they make it worse for most people in this country, that cannot be argued, its not been fixed, its been broken and broken, by them almost to the point that it cannot be repaired. As @Bournemouth Addick said above, Tory voters have had plenty of time to understand what they are voting for. I cant change that, if only they would say, 'yep I voted for them, Ive bought into the tory vision of "I'm alright Jack', and I dont really give a toss about people less well off then me, but hey I give a couple of quid to Children In Need, so my conscious is clear' then at least I would have a bit of respect for them, however the constant defence of tory policies and attacking Labour is ridiculous, and I have nothing but contempt for anyones political view who voted for this Conservative government. Make no mistake the Tories caused this mess, no non else...no one.
Could you name some of the areas you mention that are at "Dickensian" levels of poverty.
I really cant believes that you would ask that, Ostriching at its finest. After all I've written you pick this part to highlight. That sums of the tory voter. Heres a microcosm of our society, get yer head round this little stat...this was compiled in 2017....in 2016, 4,751 people are estimated to be sleeping rough on any one night, since 2010 rough sleeping estimates show an increase of 169%.....well done the Tories, but hey you carry on putting your cross down next to them....!
So, to be clear, you can't name any actual areas that are at Dickensian levels of poverty
Theres nothing more to say on this, is there, you all know where I'm coming from, but as usual the Tory boys will deflect from what is in front of them with small minded attacks on a throwaway line, instead of the big problem of poverty and food banks etc, in an attempt to try and justify who/what they voted for, and as such contributed to the shit cart that their masters have created.
No one is deflecting or saying that food banks are the cause of anyone other than the Tories. All people are saying is that are not new, they did not appear in the last 10 years and they are not our masters a Tory creation. You're the one making bold claims and then not backing it up. So I thought I'd give you a hand...
I have seen statistics suggesting up to 60% of the capital's rough sleepers are non-UK EU nationals.
I'm not sure what any government (Tory or otherwise) is supposed to do when the EU's ridiculous free movement policy allows anybody from 27 countries (some of them still very much 'developing' ones) to turn up with no means to support themselves yet maintain an absolute legal right to be here.
Except that under EU Law it is permissible to remove people who are unable to support themselves.
It would be better if they didn't get here in the first place without proving that but anyhow, off topic!
So all tourists from EU countries should provide payslips, bank statements, proof of employment etc. before coming to the UK?
Also I think it is more the case that people have come here from the EU either with a job secured or with enough money and subsequently fall into homelessness, rather than come here just to be homeless on our streets.
I have seen statistics suggesting up to 60% of the capital's rough sleepers are non-UK EU nationals.
I'm not sure what any government (Tory or otherwise) is supposed to do when the EU's ridiculous free movement policy allows anybody from 27 countries (some of them still very much 'developing' ones) to turn up with no means to support themselves yet maintain an absolute legal right to be here.
Except that under EU Law it is permissible to remove people who are unable to support themselves.
It would be better if they didn't get here in the first place without proving that but anyhow, off topic!
So all tourists from EU countries should provide payslips, bank statements, proof of employment etc. before coming to the UK?
Also I think it is more the case that people have come here from the EU either with a job secured or with enough money and subsequently fall into homelessness, rather than come here just to be homeless on our streets.
The mental gymnastics some posters on this thread are going through to shift the blame to Labour or to create some false equivalency between the amount of kids turning up for school hungry this morning, because that's what we are talking about, and 10, 15, 20 years ago is astonishing.
None of this should be a surprise to anyone.
The Tories have stood on a platform of austerity and a narrative of demonising benefits claimants since 2010. If you were happy to vote for it in 2010, then vote for more in 2015 and then a little more last year people could at least have the honesty to accept it or acknowledge the impact their vote has had on the poorest in our society.
See also rising homelessness...
im not shifting the blame to anyone - but the notion that food banks and poverty in this country are a new thing that have just been caused by the tories i believe to be bollocks. lets remember the tories only got in power in 2010!.
Then you go on to shift the blame. Look at the present shit state our country is in, it is down to the Tories and the polices of the Tory government, no one else. If as been said before we have had 25 plus years of poverty, Btw we haven't, (there will always be some poorer people) but the present levels of poverty is unprecedented in the modern world, its at Dickensian levels in some areas....the bottom line is that the Tories have had over 8 years to make it better, so what do they do, they make it worse for most people in this country, that cannot be argued, its not been fixed, its been broken and broken, by them almost to the point that it cannot be repaired. As @Bournemouth Addick said above, Tory voters have had plenty of time to understand what they are voting for. I cant change that, if only they would say, 'yep I voted for them, Ive bought into the tory vision of "I'm alright Jack', and I dont really give a toss about people less well off then me, but hey I give a couple of quid to Children In Need, so my conscious is clear' then at least I would have a bit of respect for them, however the constant defence of tory policies and attacking Labour is ridiculous, and I have nothing but contempt for anyones political view who voted for this Conservative government. Make no mistake the Tories caused this mess, no non else...no one.
Could you name some of the areas you mention that are at "Dickensian" levels of poverty.
I really cant believes that you would ask that, Ostriching at its finest. After all I've written you pick this part to highlight. That sums of the tory voter. Heres a microcosm of our society, get yer head round this little stat...this was compiled in 2017....in 2016, 4,751 people are estimated to be sleeping rough on any one night, since 2010 rough sleeping estimates show an increase of 169%.....well done the Tories, but hey you carry on putting your cross down next to them....!
So, to be clear, you can't name any actual areas that are at Dickensian levels of poverty
Theres nothing more to say on this, is there, you all know where I'm coming from, but as usual the Tory boys will deflect from what is in front of them with small minded attacks on a throwaway line, instead of the big problem of poverty and food banks etc, in an attempt to try and justify who/what they voted for, and as such contributed to the shit cart that their masters have created.
I don't think anyone is disagreeing that over the last 10 years, for 95%+ of people, they are financially worse off. But there is a myriad of reasons why that is and why say 5% of people aren't (and it's not simply the big earners) and it isn't simply due to The Tories being in power for a while, although without doubt they haven't exactly helped the situation at times.
The whole system needs a clean slate and starting again, a lot of the problems today stem back many many years. I remember saying at the time when child tax credits/working tax credits came out that all this would do is artificially fix things in the short term and cause more issues in the longer term, you've simply passed the burden of salary to the state. The issue is as a society we all want cheap, just look at retail in this country, if retailers, big and small, suddenly had to pay something more like £12.50 an hour like it should be they'd mostly be out of business, those that have survived so far anyway.
Many people in the 70's (and no doubt other times) went without food and other things on a fairly regular basis, of course back then there wasn't even foodbanks to fall back on, you either relied on a friendly/supportive neighbour/family member or you simply went hungry and I'm not aware there are any stats on that to compare to modern day which is a shame.
I wish we didn't need food banks, but I'd rather they were there than we went back 50 years and simply let people go hungry. Not to say we shouldn't try to eradicate the need for them but I haven't seen any government or party come up with a coherent argument as to how they will so far.
The only reasonable answer I can come up with is sadly akin to what RD suggests! That is remove almost all benefits, tax credits, state pension etc and simply pay a basic living wage from Government to every single Adult from 18 to death. Thereafter any work you do/money you earn is all taxed.
How can 95% of people be 'worse off' when house prices are up approx. 40% over that period, the FTSE is up 70% (good for pension funds), real interest rates are negative, employment is high etc.?
Some may 'feel' worse off in part because the wealth of say the very visible top 0.01% has exploded over the same period, but that's a relative concept and importantly a global phenomenon too.
I have seen statistics suggesting up to 60% of the capital's rough sleepers are non-UK EU nationals.
I'm not sure what any government (Tory or otherwise) is supposed to do when the EU's ridiculous free movement policy allows anybody from 27 countries (some of them still very much 'developing' ones) to turn up with no means to support themselves yet maintain an absolute legal right to be here.
Except that under EU Law it is permissible to remove people who are unable to support themselves.
It would be better if they didn't get here in the first place without proving that but anyhow, off topic!
So all tourists from EU countries should provide payslips, bank statements, proof of employment etc. before coming to the UK?
Also I think it is more the case that people have come here from the EU either with a job secured or with enough money and subsequently fall into homelessness, rather than come here just to be homeless on our streets.
Tourists don't come here to live obviously.
Obviously. But what is stopping someone coming here as a tourist and staying here permanently as homeless?
EU freedom of movement isn't the issue here. Not unless we vet literally every single person entering the country for financial viability.
The mental gymnastics some posters on this thread are going through to shift the blame to Labour or to create some false equivalency between the amount of kids turning up for school hungry this morning, because that's what we are talking about, and 10, 15, 20 years ago is astonishing.
None of this should be a surprise to anyone.
The Tories have stood on a platform of austerity and a narrative of demonising benefits claimants since 2010. If you were happy to vote for it in 2010, then vote for more in 2015 and then a little more last year people could at least have the honesty to accept it or acknowledge the impact their vote has had on the poorest in our society.
See also rising homelessness...
im not shifting the blame to anyone - but the notion that food banks and poverty in this country are a new thing that have just been caused by the tories i believe to be bollocks. lets remember the tories only got in power in 2010!.
Then you go on to shift the blame. Look at the present shit state our country is in, it is down to the Tories and the polices of the Tory government, no one else. If as been said before we have had 25 plus years of poverty, Btw we haven't, (there will always be some poorer people) but the present levels of poverty is unprecedented in the modern world, its at Dickensian levels in some areas....the bottom line is that the Tories have had over 8 years to make it better, so what do they do, they make it worse for most people in this country, that cannot be argued, its not been fixed, its been broken and broken, by them almost to the point that it cannot be repaired. As @Bournemouth Addick said above, Tory voters have had plenty of time to understand what they are voting for. I cant change that, if only they would say, 'yep I voted for them, Ive bought into the tory vision of "I'm alright Jack', and I dont really give a toss about people less well off then me, but hey I give a couple of quid to Children In Need, so my conscious is clear' then at least I would have a bit of respect for them, however the constant defence of tory policies and attacking Labour is ridiculous, and I have nothing but contempt for anyones political view who voted for this Conservative government. Make no mistake the Tories caused this mess, no non else...no one.
Could you name some of the areas you mention that are at "Dickensian" levels of poverty.
I really cant believes that you would ask that, Ostriching at its finest. After all I've written you pick this part to highlight. That sums of the tory voter. Heres a microcosm of our society, get yer head round this little stat...this was compiled in 2017....in 2016, 4,751 people are estimated to be sleeping rough on any one night, since 2010 rough sleeping estimates show an increase of 169%.....well done the Tories, but hey you carry on putting your cross down next to them....!
So, to be clear, you can't name any actual areas that are at Dickensian levels of poverty
Theres nothing more to say on this, is there, you all know where I'm coming from, but as usual the Tory boys will deflect from what is in front of them with small minded attacks on a throwaway line, instead of the big problem of poverty and food banks etc, in an attempt to try and justify who/what they voted for, and as such contributed to the shit cart that their masters have created.
I don't think anyone is disagreeing that over the last 10 years, for 95%+ of people, they are financially worse off. But there is a myriad of reasons why that is and why say 5% of people aren't (and it's not simply the big earners) and it isn't simply due to The Tories being in power for a while, although without doubt they haven't exactly helped the situation at times.
The whole system needs a clean slate and starting again, a lot of the problems today stem back many many years. I remember saying at the time when child tax credits/working tax credits came out that all this would do is artificially fix things in the short term and cause more issues in the longer term, you've simply passed the burden of salary to the state. The issue is as a society we all want cheap, just look at retail in this country, if retailers, big and small, suddenly had to pay something more like £12.50 an hour like it should be they'd mostly be out of business, those that have survived so far anyway.
Many people in the 70's (and no doubt other times) went without food and other things on a fairly regular basis, of course back then there wasn't even foodbanks to fall back on, you either relied on a friendly/supportive neighbour/family member or you simply went hungry and I'm not aware there are any stats on that to compare to modern day which is a shame.
I wish we didn't need food banks, but I'd rather they were there than we went back 50 years and simply let people go hungry. Not to say we shouldn't try to eradicate the need for them but I haven't seen any government or party come up with a coherent argument as to how they will so far.
The only reasonable answer I can come up with is sadly akin to what RD suggests! That is remove almost all benefits, tax credits, state pension etc and simply pay a basic living wage from Government to every single Adult from 18 to death. Thereafter any work you do/money you earn is all taxed.
How can 95% of people be 'worse off' when house prices are up approx. 40% over that period, the FTSE is up 70% (good for pension funds), real interest rates are negative, employment is high etc.?
Some may 'feel' worse off in part because the wealth of say the very visible top 0.01% has exploded over the same period, but that's a relative concept and importantly a global phenomenon too.
I should have said disposable income.
With respect it still doesn't make sense given low interest rates, higher personal allowances etc..
I'm aware that the cost of some important goods/services have risen faster than inflation (eg. rail fares, energy, petrol) but on the flipside the price of other goods/services have not just risen slower than inflation but in many cases have fallen (eg. clothing, electronics, air fares, taxis etc.).
I suspect there are plenty of outgoings which should be viewed as part of the 'disposable income' budget but are instead now viewed as essentials.
I have seen statistics suggesting up to 60% of the capital's rough sleepers are non-UK EU nationals.
I'm not sure what any government (Tory or otherwise) is supposed to do when the EU's ridiculous free movement policy allows anybody from 27 countries (some of them still very much 'developing' ones) to turn up with no means to support themselves yet maintain an absolute legal right to be here.
Except that under EU Law it is permissible to remove people who are unable to support themselves.
It would be better if they didn't get here in the first place without proving that but anyhow, off topic!
So all tourists from EU countries should provide payslips, bank statements, proof of employment etc. before coming to the UK?
Also I think it is more the case that people have come here from the EU either with a job secured or with enough money and subsequently fall into homelessness, rather than come here just to be homeless on our streets.
Tourists don't come here to live obviously.
Obviously. But what is stopping someone coming here as a tourist and staying here permanently as homeless?
EU freedom of movement isn't the issue here. Not unless we vet literally every single person entering the country for financial viability.
Snatch squads and a big human catapult in Folkestone aiming out to sea
I have seen statistics suggesting up to 60% of the capital's rough sleepers are non-UK EU nationals.
I'm not sure what any government (Tory or otherwise) is supposed to do when the EU's ridiculous free movement policy allows anybody from 27 countries (some of them still very much 'developing' ones) to turn up with no means to support themselves yet maintain an absolute legal right to be here.
Except that under EU Law it is permissible to remove people who are unable to support themselves.
Like we ever remove anybody, bloody sure even those who would like to go home can't get out ! Plus most likely find that begging, shop lifting, drugs, pick pocketing etc is classified as an occupation and therefore means you can support yourself.
I have seen statistics suggesting up to 60% of the capital's rough sleepers are non-UK EU nationals.
I'm not sure what any government (Tory or otherwise) is supposed to do when the EU's ridiculous free movement policy allows anybody from 27 countries (some of them still very much 'developing' ones) to turn up with no means to support themselves yet maintain an absolute legal right to be here.
Except that under EU Law it is permissible to remove people who are unable to support themselves.
It would be better if they didn't get here in the first place without proving that but anyhow, off topic!
So all tourists from EU countries should provide payslips, bank statements, proof of employment etc. before coming to the UK?
Also I think it is more the case that people have come here from the EU either with a job secured or with enough money and subsequently fall into homelessness, rather than come here just to be homeless on our streets.
Tourists don't come here to live obviously.
Obviously. But what is stopping someone coming here as a tourist and staying here permanently as homeless?
EU freedom of movement isn't the issue here. Not unless we vet literally every single person entering the country for financial viability.
I presume that tourists from developing countries will generally need a visa to visit (thus requiring some Q&A at the embassy) and more generally any visitor can be questioned on arrival regarding the purpose of their visit etc.. ie. the same process that any visitors from the UK (generally under the visa-waiver) to the US will recall from their ever-friendly immigration officers.
When I lived in the US my visa implied that if I lost the particular job I had then I would have been required to leave the country else I was breaking the law - I'm not sure why the burden should have fallen on the US government to forcibly remove me.
I have seen statistics suggesting up to 60% of the capital's rough sleepers are non-UK EU nationals.
I'm not sure what any government (Tory or otherwise) is supposed to do when the EU's ridiculous free movement policy allows anybody from 27 countries (some of them still very much 'developing' ones) to turn up with no means to support themselves yet maintain an absolute legal right to be here.
Except that under EU Law it is permissible to remove people who are unable to support themselves.
Like we ever remove anybody, bloody sure even those who would like to go home can't get out ! Plus most likely find that begging, shop lifting, drugs, pick pocketing etc is classified as an occupation and therefore means you can support yourself.
I think this is a sticking point with those voted to leave the EU for such reasons. Ultimately the UK government has several powers at its disposal to limit or remove EU immigrants but has so far chosen not to for financial and political reasons. The Home Office has now upped its actions in the deportation area but as far as I am aware there is little in the way of Home Office officials rounding up the homeless. It certainly isn't an area the government is in control of even though they really ought to be.
I have seen statistics suggesting up to 60% of the capital's rough sleepers are non-UK EU nationals.
I'm not sure what any government (Tory or otherwise) is supposed to do when the EU's ridiculous free movement policy allows anybody from 27 countries (some of them still very much 'developing' ones) to turn up with no means to support themselves yet maintain an absolute legal right to be here.
Except that under EU Law it is permissible to remove people who are unable to support themselves.
Like we ever remove anybody, bloody sure even those who would like to go home can't get out ! Plus most likely find that begging, shop lifting, drugs, pick pocketing etc is classified as an occupation and therefore means you can support yourself.
Without further derailing what started as a chat about food banks.....
It's appealing for someone from say, Romania to come here and make a pretty lucrative income from pick pocketing, shoplifting, car theft, metal theft because the punishment isn't there. Whist these crimes exist in many cities the punishment is a bit more 'robust' in Germany than in the UK. Get caught stealing there and you stand a good chance of being hit by a policeman with a stick who also carries a firearm. Same in Spain
At the moment we have people videoing the police when they are being dealt with and screaming about police brutality. You haven't even experienced police brutality until you have seen the Polizei shutting down someone giving them aggro. This weakening of the police force and turning them into some sort of all encompassing service is to blame.
And I will heap the blame for a lot of that on a succession of home secretaries the current prime minister included
I have seen statistics suggesting up to 60% of the capital's rough sleepers are non-UK EU nationals.
I'm not sure what any government (Tory or otherwise) is supposed to do when the EU's ridiculous free movement policy allows anybody from 27 countries (some of them still very much 'developing' ones) to turn up with no means to support themselves yet maintain an absolute legal right to be here.
I have seen statistics suggesting up to 60% of the capital's rough sleepers are non-UK EU nationals.
I'm not sure what any government (Tory or otherwise) is supposed to do when the EU's ridiculous free movement policy allows anybody from 27 countries (some of them still very much 'developing' ones) to turn up with no means to support themselves yet maintain an absolute legal right to be here.
Except that under EU Law it is permissible to remove people who are unable to support themselves.
It would be better if they didn't get here in the first place without proving that but anyhow, off topic!
So all tourists from EU countries should provide payslips, bank statements, proof of employment etc. before coming to the UK?
Also I think it is more the case that people have come here from the EU either with a job secured or with enough money and subsequently fall into homelessness, rather than come here just to be homeless on our streets.
Tourists don't come here to live obviously.
Obviously. But what is stopping someone coming here as a tourist and staying here permanently as homeless?
EU freedom of movement isn't the issue here. Not unless we vet literally every single person entering the country for financial viability.
I presume that tourists from developing countries will generally need a visa to visit (thus requiring some Q&A at the embassy) and more generally any visitor can be questioned on arrival regarding the purpose of their visit etc.. ie. the same process that any visitors from the UK (generally under the visa-waiver) to the US will recall from their ever-friendly immigration officers.
When I lived in the US my visa implied that if I lost the particular job I had then I would have been required to leave the country else I was breaking the law - I'm not sure why the burden should have fallen on the US government to forcibly remove me.
How do you envisage the bit I have bolded to apply on the land border with the EU in Ireland?
Been hearing a lot about these food banks, what sort of returns do I get on a a packet of custard creams and a pot noodle?
If you would like to deposit all of your custard creams and the entire pot of noodles into our no frills current account we can guarantee in as little as five years you will have 1 x custard cream and 1 x strand of plain pasta left.
I'm honestly a bit shocked to be reading people talking about EU freedom of movement as though it's going to be a neverending thing. It's going to be over very soon, guys.
It's shameful that in a country such as ours there is the necessity for Food banks but to suggest that this is unique to the UK is just not accurate, the US has a far greater percentage of it's population relying on such charitable organisations and indeed Germany has a problem that is growing and they are the economically most successful country in Europe. I witnessed first hand a lot of rough sleepers in Russia when I was there this year so this isn't just a problem we have.
There are a number of issues that contribute to this I believe, the first is that wages have stagnated more or less since 2008, new jobs are nearly always with low pay hence a lot of working people struggle, there is a lack of affordable housing hence a lot of peoples wages are taken up with rent and utilities. You can call this austerity and certainly it has affected the lower paid very badly. Do I feel substantially worse off? Not really so I am fortunate.
Mismanagement of the economy in whatever guise seems to be the common denominator throughout my life by successive governments, Harold Wilson practically bankrupted the country twice and led to us going to the IMF cap in hand, the Blair government took us into a war that was not legal, sold off our gold reserves at the bottom of the market and worse of all destroyed the pensions provision of millions of people (not everyone with a pension is a billionaire) by raiding the dividends to the tune of £4B/annum and duly wasting it. We now have a Tory party that has squeezed the pips dry in an effort not to increase taxes when they patently needed to be, to pay for services such as the NHS, Police and Prisons but as Greenie pointed out they didn't want to upset their rich supporters so taxes stayed low.
How else could the country deal with it's massive deficit? You could have followed Keynesian ideas i.e. pay someone to dig a hole and then pay someone else to fill it in. Capital projects? Develop infrastructure (much needed) give me a break we have to go through 10 years of consultation, twenty judicial enquiries and get past the fucking tree huggers before you can put a shed up in your garden.
All this leads to social unfairness and that is why the differential between the poorer and the richer is now so massively high. That said look at any socialist utopia and you see failed states, is there any bigger polarisation of rich versus poor than Russia? I went to Cuba and that is a great example of equality nobody has a thing. School kids sharing pens, not able to get Aspirin etc. OK US embargoes created a lot of that problem I have to say but there was at the time a great deal of dissatisfaction with the Castro government at the time I was there.
In conclusion I don't believe we can make the situation better by spending like crazy, which it would appear is the Labour parties policy and anyone believes long terms that taxes will only increase for the rich think again, on the other hand I do not agree that we need this level of austerity to provide long term economic stability because despite the spin it hasn't worked and never will. Who will I vote for next time? No idea.
Another independent study, just published, critical of austerity:
“There were a lot of choices, and the government chose to balance the budget on the backs of the poorest,” said the study’s co-author, Jonathan Portes, a professor of economics at King’s College London. ... The study examined the impact of spending on the NHS, social care, police, transport, housing and education between 2010 and 2015 on various groups in England, Scotland and Wales... On a per-head basis, reductions since 2010 were significantly higher in England – equivalent to about 18% – than in Wales (5.5%) and Scotland (1%), in part because the devolved governments chose to mitigate some effects of the cuts, it said. ...
Of course, the authors obviously didn't have the "full facts", so it's fake news. As for comparing us to the USA, it has long been a land of massive inequalities, although it's always been free to dream. That's one country I definitely don't want the UK to be like.
I have seen statistics suggesting up to 60% of the capital's rough sleepers are non-UK EU nationals.
I'm not sure what any government (Tory or otherwise) is supposed to do when the EU's ridiculous free movement policy allows anybody from 27 countries (some of them still very much 'developing' ones) to turn up with no means to support themselves yet maintain an absolute legal right to be here.
Except that under EU Law it is permissible to remove people who are unable to support themselves.
It would be better if they didn't get here in the first place without proving that but anyhow, off topic!
So all tourists from EU countries should provide payslips, bank statements, proof of employment etc. before coming to the UK?
Also I think it is more the case that people have come here from the EU either with a job secured or with enough money and subsequently fall into homelessness, rather than come here just to be homeless on our streets.
Tourists don't come here to live obviously.
Obviously. But what is stopping someone coming here as a tourist and staying here permanently as homeless?
EU freedom of movement isn't the issue here. Not unless we vet literally every single person entering the country for financial viability.
I presume that tourists from developing countries will generally need a visa to visit (thus requiring some Q&A at the embassy) and more generally any visitor can be questioned on arrival regarding the purpose of their visit etc.. ie. the same process that any visitors from the UK (generally under the visa-waiver) to the US will recall from their ever-friendly immigration officers.
When I lived in the US my visa implied that if I lost the particular job I had then I would have been required to leave the country else I was breaking the law - I'm not sure why the burden should have fallen on the US government to forcibly remove me.
How do you envisage the bit I have bolded to apply on the land border with the EU in Ireland?
Given that Ireland is richer than the UK, I would imagine that a individual free movement agreement between the two countries could be agreed without the UK needing to worry about Irish workers suddenly becoming a burden on the UK (the Irish might have to worry about the movement in the opposite direction but anyhow!).
But I didn't see the spending like Crazy bit in their last manifesto. There are a couple of rules on spending, increases to services such as the NHS etc... should come from taxation - this Labour claimed would be achieved without taxing those even earning up to £80k a year any more. And then raises in taxes above that would be gradual. They costed this in their manifesto probably more clearly than any other party has before.
But you need to grow the economy. As Keynes suggested, the best time to put money aside and paying off debts is when you are doing well, not when you need to grow the economy. And you grow the economy by borrowing (part of the same economic rule) and spending on infrastructure. Not sure I saw any of this marked under Crazy, but the concept of Austerity is crazy. It shrinks the economy and you never end up paying debts back in the time you state if at all - I think the government originally suggested 5 years in 2010.
The conservative party have sold people a big lie - I nearly said one big lie, but sadly it is amongst others. That is that the nations economy should be managed like a household budget. If I have enough for two pints tonight, I can't buy three. It is logical in the context of me buying pints. But the Conservatives play on this fact, knowing full well it doesn't apply to the country. Sorry for the short clip below, but it shows how many people think and how it doesn't work like that.
Nobody can argue that the US is one of the richest countries in the world, but the last time it didn't have a budget deficit was before its civil war. Don't be duped by these liars and manipulators.
The problem we have now, is the wealth that Thatcher so eloquently illustrated, trickled down, is now not trickling down. It is getting stuck at the top and it is getting worse, not better. Lots of people are losers, and some quite well off people will be losers in the future, with inherited wealth suffocating gained wealth. Sorry, but that is the way it is going. And what we have now is the poor getting poorer and we need somebody to do something about it. That is a reason why when they were told how well they were doing being part of he EU, they stuck two fingers up. And it will get worse, if something radical is not done to fix it. And sorry, that is not going to come from this disfunctional government!
I don't have much smart stuff to say on politics, so I try and keep my mouth shut and read what you lot say instead. But there is one thing I want to say...
But I didn't see the spending like Crazy bit in their last manifesto. There are a couple of rules on spending, increases to services such as the NHS etc...
It's on this bit.
I got an iPhone update a month or two before the last election. In that update was a news feed thing, where I was - without my consent - being delivered news headlines to my lock screen from multiple news outlets. I kept meaning to turn the notifications off, but then I noticed something - the headlines I was receiving were all pro-Tory. All of them. And further, anything Labour did was met with a headline of incredulity. "Labour's ludicrous manifesto released!" vs "Tory's amazing manifesto will save the country".
I've long worked in the media, I am well aware of how bias works and how sneaky (or even brazen) Murdoch and co. can be. But even still, there was something about the way my iPhone was behaving that I found incredibly suspicious, and it really hammered home exactly how poorly Labour were being treated by the press. And not just the right wingers. The BBC were just as bad. And iPhone was prioritising anything negative on Labour, be it from the BBC or HuffPo.
The stuff about Labour's spending was almost like a meme that the outlets jumped on. A Trump-like line of bullshit that, if they repeated often enough, would become fact. So I started paying real attention. Reading the stories to see if there was anything substantial there. Reading or listening to what Corbyn was saying in response, and it seemed fairly clear they had a perfectly reasonable plan to pay for stuff. But that was NEVER reported.
Anytime someone mentions the Labour spending thing, I see it as evidence that the media campaign against them worked a treat. The same thing happened with "Corbyn won't fire a nuke if he's in power". It's really fucking scary that that's how things are.
Since 2009, the UK government has spent £776bn more than it has earned in taxes (source: ONS) - there is an argument as Muttley notes that it should have been even more (given that presently for example they can borrow for 30 years at just 2%), but the description of this period as one of 'austerity' is strange to me.
For real austerity look to Greece which has gone from a 15% GDP fiscal deficit in 2009 to a surplus today (and if you have been to the country during this period you notice it everywhere from Athens to the islands).
There has been real austerity and trying to say otherwise is disagreeing with the government's own position- you only have to look around you to see it. I agree that Greece has an infinitely worse form of austerity, one it can never recover from imposed on it by the EU as a punishment, but not sure how finding something worse vindicates the UKs position. The government has borrowed and followed Keynesian policies such as HS2 , but it is a matter of degree.
I don't have much smart stuff to say on politics, so I try and keep my mouth shut and read what you lot say instead. But there is one thing I want to say...
But I didn't see the spending like Crazy bit in their last manifesto. There are a couple of rules on spending, increases to services such as the NHS etc...
It's on this bit.
I got an iPhone update a month or two before the last election. In that update was a news feed thing, where I was - without my consent - being delivered news headlines to my lock screen from multiple news outlets. I kept meaning to turn the notifications off, but then I noticed something - the headlines I was receiving were all pro-Tory. All of them. And further, anything Labour did was met with a headline of incredulity. "Labour's ludicrous manifesto released!" vs "Tory's amazing manifesto will save the country".
I've long worked in the media, I am well aware of how bias works and how sneaky (or even brazen) Murdoch and co. can be. But even still, there was something about the way my iPhone was behaving that I found incredibly suspicious, and it really hammered home exactly how poorly Labour were being treated by the press. And not just the right wingers. The BBC were just as bad. And iPhone was prioritising anything negative on Labour, be it from the BBC or HuffPo.
The stuff about Labour's spending was almost like a meme that the outlets jumped on. A Trump-like line of bullshit that, if they repeated often enough, would become fact. So I started paying real attention. Reading the stories to see if there was anything substantial there. Reading or listening to what Corbyn was saying in response, and it seemed fairly clear they had a perfectly reasonable plan to pay for stuff. But that was NEVER reported.
Anytime someone mentions the Labour spending thing, I see it as evidence that the media campaign against them worked a treat. The same thing happened with "Corbyn won't fire a nuke if he's in power". It's really fucking scary that that's how things are.
Great post, its astonishing how many alleged intelligent people dont see through political manipulation, then embellish their naivety and go and vote for the party that will do least for them, other people and the country. Of course, and to add balance, if a person is extremely wealthy, and doesn't really give a toss about the lower end of the wealth scale, then the Tories are the party for them.
The most developed country in the world, Norway, has food banks. 130,000 meals distributed last year by one organisation in cities such as Oslo,Trondheim and Bergen.
So what do we need to do to ensure there is no longer any need for food banks @Greenie ?
How about increasing all benefits by 25%?
Make 10% of total benefits payable in cash and the rest in credits for food, housing, fuel/energy, clothing, transport, household goods, personal hygiene products - percentage of each to be chosen by the claimer.
All medication to be free along with sanitary products?
That would put to a stop the moaners and groaners who say it's all spent on booze, fags and gambling.
So what do we need to do to ensure there is no longer any need for food banks @Greenie ?
How about increasing all benefits by 25%?
Make 10% of total benefits payable in cash and the rest in credits for food, housing, fuel/energy, clothing, transport, household goods, personal hygiene products - percentage of each to be chosen by the claimer.
All medication to be free along with sanitary products?
That would put to a stop the moaners and groaners who say it's all spent on booze, fags and gambling Charlton.
Comments
I'm not sure what any government (Tory or otherwise) is supposed to do when the EU's ridiculous free movement policy allows anybody from 27 countries (some of them still very much 'developing' ones) to turn up with no means to support themselves yet maintain an absolute legal right to be here.
Also I think it is more the case that people have come here from the EU either with a job secured or with enough money and subsequently fall into homelessness, rather than come here just to be homeless on our streets.
EU freedom of movement isn't the issue here. Not unless we vet literally every single person entering the country for financial viability.
I'm aware that the cost of some important goods/services have risen faster than inflation (eg. rail fares, energy, petrol) but on the flipside the price of other goods/services have not just risen slower than inflation but in many cases have fallen (eg. clothing, electronics, air fares, taxis etc.).
I suspect there are plenty of outgoings which should be viewed as part of the 'disposable income' budget but are instead now viewed as essentials.
When I lived in the US my visa implied that if I lost the particular job I had then I would have been required to leave the country else I was breaking the law - I'm not sure why the burden should have fallen on the US government to forcibly remove me.
It's appealing for someone from say, Romania to come here and make a pretty lucrative income from pick pocketing, shoplifting, car theft, metal theft because the punishment isn't there. Whist these crimes exist in many cities the punishment is a bit more 'robust' in Germany than in the UK. Get caught stealing there and you stand a good chance of being hit by a policeman with a stick who also carries a firearm. Same in Spain
At the moment we have people videoing the police when they are being dealt with and screaming about police brutality. You haven't even experienced police brutality until you have seen the Polizei shutting down someone giving them aggro. This weakening of the police force and turning them into some sort of all encompassing service is to blame.
And I will heap the blame for a lot of that on a succession of home secretaries the current prime minister included
Interested.......please sign here!
And perhaps back to food banks.
There are a number of issues that contribute to this I believe, the first is that wages have stagnated more or less since 2008, new jobs are nearly always with low pay hence a lot of working people struggle, there is a lack of affordable housing hence a lot of peoples wages are taken up with rent and utilities. You can call this austerity and certainly it has affected the lower paid very badly. Do I feel substantially worse off? Not really so I am fortunate.
Mismanagement of the economy in whatever guise seems to be the common denominator throughout my life by successive governments, Harold Wilson practically bankrupted the country twice and led to us going to the IMF cap in hand, the Blair government took us into a war that was not legal, sold off our gold reserves at the bottom of the market and worse of all destroyed the pensions provision of millions of people (not everyone with a pension is a billionaire) by raiding the dividends to the tune of £4B/annum and duly wasting it. We now have a Tory party that has squeezed the pips dry in an effort not to increase taxes when they patently needed to be, to pay for services such as the NHS, Police and Prisons but as Greenie pointed out they didn't want to upset their rich supporters so taxes stayed low.
How else could the country deal with it's massive deficit? You could have followed Keynesian ideas i.e. pay someone to dig a hole and then pay someone else to fill it in. Capital projects? Develop infrastructure (much needed) give me a break we have to go through 10 years of consultation, twenty judicial enquiries and get past the fucking tree huggers before you can put a shed up in your garden.
All this leads to social unfairness and that is why the differential between the poorer and the richer is now so massively high. That said look at any socialist utopia and you see failed states, is there any bigger polarisation of rich versus poor than Russia? I went to Cuba and that is a great example of equality nobody has a thing. School kids sharing pens, not able to get Aspirin etc. OK US embargoes created a lot of that problem I have to say but there was at the time a great deal of dissatisfaction with the Castro government at the time I was there.
In conclusion I don't believe we can make the situation better by spending like crazy, which it would appear is the Labour parties policy and anyone believes long terms that taxes will only increase for the rich think again, on the other hand I do not agree that we need this level of austerity to provide long term economic stability because despite the spin it hasn't worked and never will. Who will I vote for next time? No idea.
“There were a lot of choices, and the government chose to balance the budget on the backs of the poorest,” said the study’s co-author, Jonathan Portes, a professor of economics at King’s College London.
...
The study examined the impact of spending on the NHS, social care, police, transport, housing and education between 2010 and 2015 on various groups in England, Scotland and Wales... On a per-head basis, reductions since 2010 were significantly higher in England – equivalent to about 18% – than in Wales (5.5%) and Scotland (1%), in part because the devolved governments chose to mitigate some effects of the cuts, it said.
...
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/nov/28/spending-cuts-uk-human-rights-obligations-report
Of course, the authors obviously didn't have the "full facts", so it's fake news. As for comparing us to the USA, it has long been a land of massive inequalities, although it's always been free to dream. That's one country I definitely don't want the UK to be like.
But you need to grow the economy. As Keynes suggested, the best time to put money aside and paying off debts is when you are doing well, not when you need to grow the economy. And you grow the economy by borrowing (part of the same economic rule) and spending on infrastructure. Not sure I saw any of this marked under Crazy, but the concept of Austerity is crazy. It shrinks the economy and you never end up paying debts back in the time you state if at all - I think the government originally suggested 5 years in 2010.
The conservative party have sold people a big lie - I nearly said one big lie, but sadly it is amongst others. That is that the nations economy should be managed like a household budget. If I have enough for two pints tonight, I can't buy three. It is logical in the context of me buying pints. But the Conservatives play on this fact, knowing full well it doesn't apply to the country. Sorry for the short clip below, but it shows how many people think and how it doesn't work like that.
Nobody can argue that the US is one of the richest countries in the world, but the last time it didn't have a budget deficit was before its civil war. Don't be duped by these liars and manipulators.
The problem we have now, is the wealth that Thatcher so eloquently illustrated, trickled down, is now not trickling down. It is getting stuck at the top and it is getting worse, not better. Lots of people are losers, and some quite well off people will be losers in the future, with inherited wealth suffocating gained wealth. Sorry, but that is the way it is going. And what we have now is the poor getting poorer and we need somebody to do something about it. That is a reason why when they were told how well they were doing being part of he EU, they stuck two fingers up. And it will get worse, if something radical is not done to fix it. And sorry, that is not going to come from this disfunctional government!
I got an iPhone update a month or two before the last election. In that update was a news feed thing, where I was - without my consent - being delivered news headlines to my lock screen from multiple news outlets. I kept meaning to turn the notifications off, but then I noticed something - the headlines I was receiving were all pro-Tory. All of them. And further, anything Labour did was met with a headline of incredulity. "Labour's ludicrous manifesto released!" vs "Tory's amazing manifesto will save the country".
I've long worked in the media, I am well aware of how bias works and how sneaky (or even brazen) Murdoch and co. can be. But even still, there was something about the way my iPhone was behaving that I found incredibly suspicious, and it really hammered home exactly how poorly Labour were being treated by the press. And not just the right wingers. The BBC were just as bad. And iPhone was prioritising anything negative on Labour, be it from the BBC or HuffPo.
The stuff about Labour's spending was almost like a meme that the outlets jumped on. A Trump-like line of bullshit that, if they repeated often enough, would become fact. So I started paying real attention. Reading the stories to see if there was anything substantial there. Reading or listening to what Corbyn was saying in response, and it seemed fairly clear they had a perfectly reasonable plan to pay for stuff. But that was NEVER reported.
Anytime someone mentions the Labour spending thing, I see it as evidence that the media campaign against them worked a treat. The same thing happened with "Corbyn won't fire a nuke if he's in power". It's really fucking scary that that's how things are.
For real austerity look to Greece which has gone from a 15% GDP fiscal deficit in 2009 to a surplus today (and if you have been to the country during this period you notice it everywhere from Athens to the islands).
Of course, and to add balance, if a person is extremely wealthy, and doesn't really give a toss about the lower end of the wealth scale, then the Tories are the party for them.
130,000 meals distributed last year by one organisation in cities such as Oslo,Trondheim and Bergen.
How about increasing all benefits by 25%?
Make 10% of total benefits payable in cash and the rest in credits for food, housing, fuel/energy, clothing, transport, household goods, personal hygiene products - percentage of each to be chosen by the claimer.
All medication to be free along with sanitary products?
That would put to a stop the moaners and groaners who say it's all spent on booze, fags and gambling.