Chris
All over the place
Nearly two-years into the New Government, and the National Tory Party can not restrain its Nasty Party roots. The Liberals are struggling with their long standing rejection by the electorate, which after over 100 years you think they would have understood by now. And Labour, failing to decide whether being the Party of the People or remaing a 2nd Class Tory Party is the route to success, are neither struggling nor restrained in their non-entityness.
Meanwhile, the housing sector remains in dissarray, as supply fails to even come close to demand, affordability even redefined remains unachieved for many.
As someone who has spent so many years working towards this point my main question is - why?
Recent activity
Comments (2342)
-
Comment on: Ministers to set out anti-social behaviour plans
I'm looking for another 4 would be complainants against Teresa May for her anti social behaviour.
For instance, cutting the ability of the Police to respond to crime is anti social, as is weakening the borders.
Indeed, a number of the Ministers are committing anti social acts - abolishing social housing, privatising the NHS, segregating schools, propagandarising division and demonisation of sectors of the community.
If five or more complaints against the same offence must now be acted upon at least the Police will have no option but to prosecute our anti social government ministers. -
Comment on: Councils still unhappy over right to buy
Michael - a challenge for you - please quote any reference where I've given support to Castro ... Pinochet.
I think you mistake me for a Thatcherite if you think I support these - and just who is Rakosi? -
Comment on: Councils still unhappy over right to buy
Yes Michael, the previous government encouraged developers too, but did not feel obliged to give public assets away to them for no return, even though Tory Blair's Blue Labour was less than a hair's breadth different from that which preceded it.
If you want information on Tory Friends and Arrangements look back in the Public Account Committee records. For instance, you will find the Minister for Works (a Costain brother) granting advantageous terms to a leading company run by the other Costain brother - and even compensating him for the inconvenience of delivering late and running over budget - bless.
Old boys and Bullingdon pals have been running this country as their own personal bank for generations.
And the Labour/Tory divide has been just as blurred for just as long - look further into the archives and you will discover that the 'arrangement' between the Costain brothers was 'hidden' under Wilson.
Time the rotten lot were replaced in my opinion. -
Comment on: Government to propose £60,000 ‘pay to stay’ limit
Is it right that high earners benefit from road subsidy, or rail subsidy, or even the NHS?
How about the massive subsidy paid to higher earner pension schemes, should that be stopped too?
Or what about savings tax relief, specifically designed to benefit the rich more than the poor, should that be ended?
The down side of course is that lower paid people also benefit from such subsidies, albeit for smaller sums, but if like with rail those subisidies are withdrawn it is those with the least ability to pay who are hurt the most.
In housing terms, rendering publicly let housing (because lets face it if Shapps has his way there will be no social housing) as a cess pit for the poor is hardly a progressive step. Ghettos are designed to trap and diminish. Shapps is on very dodgy ground as the inspiration behind forming the new ghettos, following those who trapped our ancestors in the same as a meand of control and extermination.
Apartheid, social cleansing, ghetto mentality; none of these things add to society, but detract from it greatly. Having neighbours who have prospered, who are leaders, who are examples for the aspiring is a positive that this proposal looks to take away.
If there is any credible opposition parties looking to form a future government they must get off of the fence and commit to restoring the ethos of social housing, end the stigma, dennounce the demonisation, and start putting our society back together. -
Comment on: Trash TV
If you looked in close up at Mr Pout's copy of IH you will see the address lable says:
Rt. Hon MR G Shapps MP,
The Camp Bed
Office 42.....
Discussions (10)
-
Does the 'Hastoe Experience' spell the end for Shapps 'Great Idea'?
Hastoe Housing Association, one of the four pilots of the Shapps initiative that would see tenants undertake their own repairs in exchange for money, has had to change its approach because of the
-
Does Westminster serve as an example of the dangers of Right-to-Buy?
Westminster Council has taken action to cut private rents after the lies of Cameron and Shapps have been shown by the persistance of Landlords in keeping rents as high as possible, despite the rec
-
Housing Action Collapse - the shape of things to come?
Does the collapse of Housing Action indicate that relying on charity to meet social need risks failure?
Suffolk-based Housing Action – which leased 300 properties from landlord -
Demise of rural populations
in some parts of the UK, the decrease in population of families is leading to the decreasing viability and sustainability of local services. For instance, communities are seeing local schools thre
-
Is it logical Captain?
The push towards market level rents and for homeless to be housed in the private sector has a social cost that is debatable - but what about the cost to the tax payer in funding Housing Benefit.
Posts (283)
-
Posted in: Fuel poverty
With rents set to multiply far beyond inflation, and general living costs escalating from the economic mismanagement (or rather management in favour of the few) even those falling outside of the traditional proportion of income level for fuel poverty will find it impossible to pay the ever increasing cost of the privatised utilities.
There is a simple theme across all of this, but it is too obvious to state. -
Posted in: Tackling domestic violence
For some, domestic violence is something to be kept behind closed doors, between those involved, not for the State to interfer in. This corrolates interestingly with views about other areas of policy, with the individual being responsible in a 'Big Society' guided by a 'Small Government'. Perhaps the subject of Domestic Violence is the area that will help the misguided understand why Government needs to 'interfere', or more precisely advocate for and enable to weak to have the rights of the strong.
Domestic violence is simply abuse, the misuse of power, unacceptable. Although traditionally seen as male perpetraitors abusing female victims (a position that society seems to find easier to accept), the reality is that any gender can be the vicitim, and any gender the perpetraitor of the abuse. I know this first hand having been able to select two abusive partners over the years, each with their own mode of operation, and each having left their own very special scars. It is the emotional ones that are hardest to heal.
I am prepared to put such a personal slant out there because this subect is so important for people to understand. This is not something that happens to someone else. It may happen to you, it may be happening to someone you know well, you may even be a perpetraitor but not recognise the effects of your behaviour.
The suffering and cycles of abuse will continue to ruin lives until such time as it is perfectly acceptable for a friend to discuss how they are treated with another friend, until a victim can report to a police station and be taken seriously regardless of their own gender or perceived 'strength', until there is no where for perpetraitors to hide.
This would mean that victims no longer adopt the victim identity but are able to quickly and confidently say no, be supported in that, and have access to help in making life safe. This is not about rushing to lock up my ex-wife, or any other abuser. What it needs to be about is helping both victim and perpetraitor come to understand why the imbalance exists, what drives the behaviours, so that where possible they may be put right and people can go forward in their lives, even with the 'former' abusive partner where such is appropriate.
The removal of support services, legal advice, even Council Housing, have all played into the hands of the strong and moved victims into darker silence. The value of healing people and families is immeasurable and an obvious priority; but it is as an aspect of every policy area that challenging and eventually ending domestic violence will be achieved.
The 'life stress' triggers of abuse are very real. They are not an excuse, but for an abusive personality they are a victim of their own response to such circumstance - yet we unessecarily pile stress after stress on people until they break. The victim needs an immediate safety line to turn to. That means spending on support services. But it also means education from first years, public service education to reinforce the message, employment responsibility for wider wellbeing to include freedom from domestic violence, social responsibility to include protecting all from abuse.
The tendency for the strong to exploit the weak as a centre around which we build social and economic policy reinforces the 'correctness' of domestic violence. As such the very basis of our society needs to shift to strengthening those in need of support, channeling the strength of the strongest into enabling others. With Darwinism as the only alternative, systematically removing abuse from our society is the only viable option.
[As a footnote I've used the terms strong and weak for context. As I am completely aware there is no weakness in being the victim, no weakness in ceasing to being a victim, and no weakness in escaping with one's personality scared but surviving. The conflict is one of power, but language is a limitator.] -
Posted in: Monitoring costs
email IH and ask them to pass on the request with your contact details to the contact details that they have on file for Raindrop - if you address the request 'Dear Aunty Tom' it is likely to be dealt with more quickly (that last bit is untrue, but links back to an humourous post from the past!)
-
Posted in: Housing Benefit cap
Did the MP ever acknowledge how the policies that he supports would not lead to rent reductions but would instead lead to the mass displacement of the poor?
It would be interesting now those things have come to pass if the MP in question has accepted his error and is now willing to change argument. -
Posted in: The maddly twittering twit
With the games fast approaching, has anyone heard anymore from the Hairbrained Minister on this one of his many explosions in the media?