I’ve always been against the sale of council housing. But now I own and live in a fabulous 30s built one, a small semi - so I’m a third hand beneficiary. Funny how life goes sometimes.
I’ve always been against the sale of council housing. But now I own and live in a fabulous 30s built one, a small semi - so I’m a third hand beneficiary. Funny how life goes sometimes.
At least you’re using it for what it was intended i.e living in it. What annoys me is when landlords buy cheap council housing stock and then rent them out at an extortionate price.
I never understand why the discounts were so generous.
The discounts were generous because it was government policy at the time to encourage the growth of home ownership - in effect it was a massive one-off subsidy from the public purse to a particular set of individuals.
Not only those individuals, but when they die, their children too.
The sell-off of council housing was an outworking of a political philosophy, preference for private over public ownership - it ran along with privatisation of utilities and public transport. All these privatisation schemes sold off public assets at a significant discount (quite a lot of people got their shares in, say, British Gas, and immediately sold them off at a substantial profit). The discount was an essential requirement to ensure the sell-off worked - if houses or shares were sold without a discount then they wouldn't be a sure-thing, and there would be too many people looking at the risk and deciding to not take the chance. It would have been politically too embarrassing for the government to find that they couldn't sell off all of British Gas because not enough people wanted to take the chance of owning the shares.
In addition, especially in relation to the sale of council houses, the Conservatives would be aware that home owners are more likely to vote Conservative than renters, especially renters of council housing. So, it had the added advantage of gerrymandering the electoral landscape. The cost, of course, has been massive inflation in house prices and especially private rents fuelled by a totally inadequate supply of affordable rental properties.
In 1979 I was given a 34% pay rise. It won my vote
Training and equipping a larger police force were one of the steps outlined by the Ridley Plan. In following the recommendations of the independent pay review body at a time when the pressure was on to keep public sector pay rises below 5%, Thatcher brought in a bunch of new recruits into a police force, and kept the force on the side of government during the ensuing labour struggles.
In 1979 I was given a 34% pay rise. It won my vote
Training and equipping a larger police force were one of the steps outlined by the Ridley Plan. In following the recommendations of the independent pay review body at a time when the pressure was on to keep public sector pay rises below 5%, Thatcher brought in a bunch of new recruits into a police force, and kept the force on the side of government during the ensuing labour struggles.
In 1979 I was given a 34% pay rise. It won my vote
Training and equipping a larger police force were one of the steps outlined by the Ridley Plan. In following the recommendations of the independent pay review body at a time when the pressure was on to keep public sector pay rises below 5%, Thatcher brought in a bunch of new recruits into a police force, and kept the force on the side of government during the ensuing labour struggles.
The Police Service is always on the side of the government, no matter which party is in power.
In 1979 I was given a 34% pay rise. It won my vote
Training and equipping a larger police force were one of the steps outlined by the Ridley Plan. In following the recommendations of the independent pay review body at a time when the pressure was on to keep public sector pay rises below 5%, Thatcher brought in a bunch of new recruits into a police force, and kept the force on the side of government during the ensuing labour struggles.
The Police Service is always on the side of the government, no matter which party is in power.
Really? I thought they were supposed to be impartial.
I can't answer for @Schroedingers Cat, but probably because it is easy. Let asylum seekers buy tickets on a cross Channel ferry and have places set up where they can register when they get off on British soil. The ferry ticket costs less than the criminal gangs arranging boats charge, that would put the criminals, and hence availability of small boats, out of business.
I can't answer for @Schroedingers Cat, but probably because it is easy. Let asylum seekers buy tickets on a cross Channel ferry and have places set up where they can register when they get off on British soil. The ferry ticket costs less than the criminal gangs arranging boats charge, that would put the criminals, and hence availability of small boats, out of business.
Yep this is what I meant. Providing safe, legal routes to asylum would stop the boats.
It’s fairly obvious, at least to me, that “stop the boats” means “stop so many people coming here”. Setting things up so that even more people can come here even more easily is the opposite of solving that problem.
That would probably involve investing in peace building and infrastructure in the countries they are coming from - I.e. spending money.
However, if we have a labour shortage - why is it imperative to stop asylum seekers ? Why not stop issuing work visas, and recruit from amongst the asylum seekers ?
You could require employers in the UK to recruit in the UK. Eg. Asylum seekers can apply for any job not filled after 3 months of advertising and employers could advertise abroad only after unsuccessful duration of advertising of 6 months. (Also, ban gang masters.)
If I was growing up in a poor dysfunctional country with bleak prospects then I would want to make the journey to the UK. And I would count the small boat bit to the mid-channel as the easiest and least dangerous bit.
If I was growing up in a poor dysfunctional country with bleak prospects then I would want to make the journey to the UK. And I would count the small boat bit to the mid-channel as the easiest and least dangerous bit.
This. Because the reasons why people leave their homelands, cities, drought lands and refugee camps are so appalling they are ready for any risk.
It’s fairly obvious, at least to me, that “stop the boats” means “stop so many people coming here”. Setting things up so that even more people can come here even more easily is the opposite of solving that problem.
It's not at all obvious to me. If they want to say "stop so many people coming here" they could say "stop so many people coming here". In fact they do say that because they want to get net migration down. So saying they want to "stop the boats" means they want to "stop the boats". Only they ignore the humane and cheaper ways of doing this and pander to the racists and bigots in this country by paying more to effectively cause death and misery.
As a way of saying stop people coming here stop the boats is rather disingenuous.
Firstly, it implies that most people who are coming here are coming without prior permission, which is not the case.
Secondly, there is indeed a problem with refugees coming by boat, which is the danger to the people themselves from the sea and the gangs. So it allows the person saying it to pretend a concern to protect refugees from gangs when actually they're advocating treating the refugees as a problem.
Thirdly, it implies that there are a lot more people coming on small boats without prior permission than is in fact the case.
If I was growing up in a poor dysfunctional country with bleak prospects then I would want to make the journey to the UK. And I would count the small boat bit to the mid-channel as the easiest and least dangerous bit.
This. Because the reasons why people leave their homelands, cities, drought lands and refugee camps are so appalling they are ready for any risk.
If the aim is to reduce net migration, then stopping refugees isn't going to make much of an impact. IIRC, latest figures are a bit over 100,000 refugees entering the UK by legal routes per year (almost all from Ukraine or Hong Kong), with over 1.4 million people moving to the UK (split almost equally 600,000 workers and 600,000 students, with the rest dependents). And, about 30,000 people arriving by boat, back of lorry or other irregular means.
That 1.2 million students and workers are a deliberate choice by this government to support universities (they get larger fees than for UK students) and key employers (primarily health and care, but also agriculture). Of course, as the policy to significantly increase the numbers of overseas students was only introduced 3 years ago the contribution to net migration from student visas will rapidly diminish in a couple of years, as students finish their courses and return home. Especially as the policy is reversed, making it harder for overseas students to come here a couple of years after encouraging them to do so.
In 1979 I was given a 34% pay rise. It won my vote
Training and equipping a larger police force were one of the steps outlined by the Ridley Plan. In following the recommendations of the independent pay review body at a time when the pressure was on to keep public sector pay rises below 5%, Thatcher brought in a bunch of new recruits into a police force, and kept the force on the side of government during the ensuing labour struggles.
The Police Service is always on the side of the government, no matter which party is in power.
Really? I thought they were supposed to be impartial.
In 1979 I was given a 34% pay rise. It won my vote
Training and equipping a larger police force were one of the steps outlined by the Ridley Plan. In following the recommendations of the independent pay review body at a time when the pressure was on to keep public sector pay rises below 5%, Thatcher brought in a bunch of new recruits into a police force, and kept the force on the side of government during the ensuing labour struggles.
The Police Service is always on the side of the government, no matter which party is in power.
In 1979 I was given a 34% pay rise. It won my vote
Training and equipping a larger police force were one of the steps outlined by the Ridley Plan. In following the recommendations of the independent pay review body at a time when the pressure was on to keep public sector pay rises below 5%, Thatcher brought in a bunch of new recruits into a police force, and kept the force on the side of government during the ensuing labour struggles.
The Police Service is always on the side of the government, no matter which party is in power.
Really? I thought they were supposed to be impartial.
They are. As I have explained.
No, you haven't. Always being on the side of the government, no matter which party is in power, is not impartiality.
Meaning of impartiality in English (from Cambridge Dictionary)
The fact of not supporting any of the sides involved in an argument:
I assume it means that they're supposed to make it possible for all of us - no matter what government is in power - to go safely about our lawful business.
Whether that is still true, given the tories' desire to chip away at what used to be lawful business (like protesting peacefully against such things as the killing of children in Gaza), is another matter.
In 1979 I was given a 34% pay rise. It won my vote
Training and equipping a larger police force were one of the steps outlined by the Ridley Plan. In following the recommendations of the independent pay review body at a time when the pressure was on to keep public sector pay rises below 5%, Thatcher brought in a bunch of new recruits into a police force, and kept the force on the side of government during the ensuing labour struggles.
The Police Service is always on the side of the government, no matter which party is in power.
In 1979 I was given a 34% pay rise. It won my vote
Training and equipping a larger police force were one of the steps outlined by the Ridley Plan. In following the recommendations of the independent pay review body at a time when the pressure was on to keep public sector pay rises below 5%, Thatcher brought in a bunch of new recruits into a police force, and kept the force on the side of government during the ensuing labour struggles.
The Police Service is always on the side of the government, no matter which party is in power.
Really? I thought they were supposed to be impartial.
They are. As I have explained.
No, you haven't. Always being on the side of the government, no matter which party is in power, is not impartiality.
Meaning of impartiality in English (from Cambridge Dictionary)
The fact of not supporting any of the sides involved in an argument:
Can you unpack that a bit, please? A definition of what you mean by total chaos would be helpful.
Anarchy..a state of disorder due to absence or non-recognition of authority or other controlling systems.
Could they not enforce the law without fear or favour rather than support the government of the day? Surely the latter road leads to totalitarianism?
They support the government of the day because they have been democratically elected by the voters.
Have they? Who elected the current government? No. The voters elect MPs; MPs choose a PM, the Monarch appoints a government led by that PM. The link between voters and government is shaky at best.
They support the government of the day because they have been democratically elected by the voters.
Putin was democratically elected by the voters. He was just democratically reelected because the police supported him by arresting the leader of the opposition and sending him to Siberia (*).
This is a liberal democracy. Without liberalism democracy is merely a pretence.
Liberalism means that the government and the police are both bound by the law.
Can you unpack that a bit, please? A definition of what you mean by total chaos would be helpful.
Anarchy..a state of disorder due to absence or non-recognition of authority or other controlling systems.
Could they not enforce the law without fear or favour rather than support the government of the day? Surely the latter road leads to totalitarianism?
They support the government of the day because they have been democratically elected by the voters.
Have they? Who elected the current government? No. The voters elect MPs; MPs choose a PM, the Monarch appoints a government led by that PM. The link between voters and government is shaky at best.
Its even better than that. Those who stand as MPs have been carefully selected by a small number of that tiny minority of voters called party members. And of those members it is a small cabal who pick candidates.
Can you unpack that a bit, please? A definition of what you mean by total chaos would be helpful.
Anarchy..a state of disorder due to absence or non-recognition of authority or other controlling systems.
Could they not enforce the law without fear or favour rather than support the government of the day? Surely the latter road leads to totalitarianism?
They support the government of the day because they have been democratically elected by the voters.
Have they? Who elected the current government? No. The voters elect MPs; MPs choose a PM, the Monarch appoints a government led by that PM. The link between voters and government is shaky at best.
Its even better than that. Those who stand as MPs have been carefully selected by a small number of that tiny minority of voters called party members. And of those members it is a small cabal who pick candidates.
"Either a bunch of men in flat caps or a bunch of women with blue hair and silly hats" I think Sir Humphrey (possibly uncharitably) put it.
The education minister on TV this morning blaming the last Labour government for the desperate state of special needs education in the UK.
Pathetic.
If that is going to be the tack they take in the general election ......
Comments
At least you’re using it for what it was intended i.e living in it. What annoys me is when landlords buy cheap council housing stock and then rent them out at an extortionate price.
Not only those individuals, but when they die, their children too.
You might say that..................
In addition, especially in relation to the sale of council houses, the Conservatives would be aware that home owners are more likely to vote Conservative than renters, especially renters of council housing. So, it had the added advantage of gerrymandering the electoral landscape. The cost, of course, has been massive inflation in house prices and especially private rents fuelled by a totally inadequate supply of affordable rental properties.
My father was a Labour Councillor at the time. He found many of his constituents followed a similar pattern:
1. Vote Labour
2. Buy council house
3. Buy new fancy front door
4. Vote Tory
5. Complain there were no council houses for their children.
Surely that's worth selling your political soul for?
(IRONY)
(MORE IRONY)
Training and equipping a larger police force were one of the steps outlined by the Ridley Plan. In following the recommendations of the independent pay review body at a time when the pressure was on to keep public sector pay rises below 5%, Thatcher brought in a bunch of new recruits into a police force, and kept the force on the side of government during the ensuing labour struggles.
A very polite way of putting it...
The Police Service is always on the side of the government, no matter which party is in power.
Really? I thought they were supposed to be impartial.
Yep this is what I meant. Providing safe, legal routes to asylum would stop the boats.
However, if we have a labour shortage - why is it imperative to stop asylum seekers ? Why not stop issuing work visas, and recruit from amongst the asylum seekers ?
You could require employers in the UK to recruit in the UK. Eg. Asylum seekers can apply for any job not filled after 3 months of advertising and employers could advertise abroad only after unsuccessful duration of advertising of 6 months. (Also, ban gang masters.)
This. Because the reasons why people leave their homelands, cities, drought lands and refugee camps are so appalling they are ready for any risk.
The poem Home by British-Somali poet Warsan Shire:
you have to understand,
no one puts their children in a boat
unless the water is safer than the land
It's not at all obvious to me. If they want to say "stop so many people coming here" they could say "stop so many people coming here". In fact they do say that because they want to get net migration down. So saying they want to "stop the boats" means they want to "stop the boats". Only they ignore the humane and cheaper ways of doing this and pander to the racists and bigots in this country by paying more to effectively cause death and misery.
Firstly, it implies that most people who are coming here are coming without prior permission, which is not the case.
Secondly, there is indeed a problem with refugees coming by boat, which is the danger to the people themselves from the sea and the gangs. So it allows the person saying it to pretend a concern to protect refugees from gangs when actually they're advocating treating the refugees as a problem.
Thirdly, it implies that there are a lot more people coming on small boats without prior permission than is in fact the case.
These people?
That 1.2 million students and workers are a deliberate choice by this government to support universities (they get larger fees than for UK students) and key employers (primarily health and care, but also agriculture). Of course, as the policy to significantly increase the numbers of overseas students was only introduced 3 years ago the contribution to net migration from student visas will rapidly diminish in a couple of years, as students finish their courses and return home. Especially as the policy is reversed, making it harder for overseas students to come here a couple of years after encouraging them to do so.
They are. As I have explained.
No, you haven't. Always being on the side of the government, no matter which party is in power, is not impartiality.
Meaning of impartiality in English (from Cambridge Dictionary)
The fact of not supporting any of the sides involved in an argument:
They keep an eye on the queen?
I assume it means that they're supposed to make it possible for all of us - no matter what government is in power - to go safely about our lawful business.
Whether that is still true, given the tories' desire to chip away at what used to be lawful business (like protesting peacefully against such things as the killing of children in Gaza), is another matter.
If the Police did not support the government there would be total chaos.
Could they not enforce the law without fear or favour rather than support the government of the day? Surely the latter road leads to totalitarianism?
They support the government of the day because they have been democratically elected by the voters.
Meanwhile, the tories are getting desperate and careless:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/mar/25/tories-sadiq-khan-attack-ad-new-york-london
Do any London Shipmates recognise this lurid picture of their crime-ridden city?
Have they? Who elected the current government? No. The voters elect MPs; MPs choose a PM, the Monarch appoints a government led by that PM. The link between voters and government is shaky at best.
This is a liberal democracy. Without liberalism democracy is merely a pretence.
Liberalism means that the government and the police are both bound by the law.
(*) I am not certain it was literally Siberia.
Its even better than that. Those who stand as MPs have been carefully selected by a small number of that tiny minority of voters called party members. And of those members it is a small cabal who pick candidates.
"Either a bunch of men in flat caps or a bunch of women with blue hair and silly hats" I think Sir Humphrey (possibly uncharitably) put it.
Pathetic.
If that is going to be the tack they take in the general election ......
Long enough to fuck them up in a totally World-Beating™ manner, though.