Current Affairs The Conservative Party

[sbbefc]

I don't want children yet because I don't think I have the means to do so despite having a fairly secure local government job. But that's not the point is it, you can't punish children for the actions of their parents. It's that simple.

*especially during a pandemic.

 

[orchard]

 

[orchard]

Anyone else bothered by the Pirates insisting that they're publicly thanked or praised in order to receive our taxes, like it's their money ?

 

[zzr45]

This sort of twee bollocks makes me support the Tories and insist welfare claimants are forced to subsidise my dinner instead.

very reminiscent of that scene from Blackadder goes Forth...

 

[JimmyJeffers]

This sort of twee bollocks makes me support the Tories and insist welfare claimants are forced to subsidise my dinner instead.

very reminiscent of that scene from Blackadder goes Forth...

View attachment 106072

Eurgh. Pretty misguided. The whole ‘starving kids’ debate is a bit guilty of hyperbolic language, in my opinion. Turns people away from the real issues at hand. Tories still scum though.

 

[zzr45]

Eurgh. Pretty misguided. The whole ‘starving kids’ debate is a bit guilty of hyperbolic language, in my opinion. Turns people away from the real issues at hand. Tories still scum though.

Definitely agree with that. There’s issues that have been generations in the making with regards to housing, poor prospects, a lack of life skills that are creating these problems now and indeed what actually constitutes food ‘poverty’ as the definition can be a bit all over the place.

Whilst paying for extra meals over the break is a short term solution it isn’t the long term answer. There just doesn’t seem to be an appetite to start looking for novel solutions aside from top ups and giveaways.

 

[DanEFC92]

 

[catcherintherye]

Definitely agree with that. There’s issues that have been generations in the making with regards to housing, poor prospects, a lack of life skills that are creating these problems now and indeed what actually constitutes food ‘poverty’ as the definition can be a bit all over the place.

Whilst paying for extra meals over the break is a short term solution it isn’t the long term answer. There just doesn’t seem to be an appetite to start looking for novel solutions aside from top ups and giveaways.

Looking at it objectively, I am not sure what solution there can be that is not a giveaway where is comes to feeding the nations children.

What I also don't undertand, is the lack of support Rashfords policy has from policy makers and that angle. It's presented as a morally good thing to do. But actually, it's just a really sensible strategy. It's targetted, it's not massively expensive, there's no crazy margins being paid to people, the infastructure already exists to role it out etc. I'm not sure why, from a policy perspective you'd want to reinvent the wheel on this one if you were the government.

 

[JimmyJeffers]

Christ I knew that guy. Very bad drug problem. (The homeless guy that is). A lot of ex servicemen on the streets and they generally have access to better support networks and charities than most. It’s a far more complex problem to solve than just giving someone a house.

 

[NilSatisOptimum]

Eurgh. Pretty misguided. The whole ‘starving kids’ debate is a bit guilty of hyperbolic language, in my opinion. Turns people away from the real issues at hand. Tories still scum though.

With regards to the dinners it's an abhorrent decision in the context of this pandemic/endemic . I'm all for having conversations and action about the fuller picture as to why some parents cannot feed their children. However, no-one in power is grown up enough to start one. But the way things are at the moment just make the exception and do it. It's peanuts in comparison to the billions this Tory shower are pouring down the toilet right now.

 

[zzr45]

Looking at it objectively, I am not sure what solution there can be that is not a giveaway where is comes to feeding the nations children.

What I also don't undertand, is the lack of support Rashfords policy has from policy makers and that angle. It's presented as a morally good thing to do. But actually, it's just a really sensible strategy. It's targetted, it's not massively expensive, there's no crazy margins being paid to people, the infastructure already exists to role it out etc. I'm not sure why, from a policy perspective you'd want to reinvent the wheel on this one if you were the government.

Yeah, I get that really in order to solve the issues money needs to be spent, but essentially all that’s happening is that it’s just one thing after another. We just don’t seem to be able to solve one issue before the next one crops up.

Honestly, I do wonder if it’s time to start exploring a Universal Basic Income route, especially paired with more state owned private accommodation to essentially allow for better provision of affordable rents, which would hopefully trickle down into better food provision etc. It’s been shown to work in pilot studies, so would be an interesting look here.

 

[catcherintherye]

Yeah, I get that really in order to solve the issues money needs to be spent, but essentially all that’s happening is that it’s just one thing after another. We just don’t seem to be able to solve one issue before the next one crops up.

Honestly, I do wonder if it’s time to start exploring a Universal Basic Income route, especially paired with more state owned private accommodation to essentially allow for better provision of affordable rents, which would hopefully trickle down into better food provision etc. It’s been shown to work in pilot studies, so would be an interesting look here.

I think the two discussions are important and are certainly linked.

Longer term there has to be a serious look at proper legislation around rental agreements, increases etc. It's still very hard to build social houses for councils, some say almost impossible to me, which again seems very odd. If the market is so wonderful and efficient, why are we essentially hamstringing the state in being able to build housing that could be affordable and targetted at the areas it's required?

UBI I can go either way on, and I saw Jordan Peterson critique it, but at least acknowledge it's asking the right questions and at least seeking an answer to them. I felt that was fair. I really see very little from governments post 2010 to address the problems, beyond the odds bit of very wooly statements.

Of course there needs to be long term answers but you also need short term solutions. I heard one guy on the radio today make out the policy was ridiculous as a short term option. I thought aboout it for a bit in the car, and kind of thought it's wholly untrue. I can understand the position that we don't want to waste money on short termism if you have this great long term vision to solve it. However I have seen precious little to suggest they do, and at 20m pounds it just seems an incredible value for money sticking plaster to me.

They've played it badly. They will probably spend more than 20m as an organisation on advertising to try and make themselves look in touch with young people andthose from a BAME background. It feels a missed open goal. It's not going to massively spiral as the kids go back to school a couple of weeks later, so it's costs already allocated.

I could understand if they were discussing rolling out FSM's from scratch, and a debate whether schools or LA's are the best people to do it. But schools already do it, and in terms of value for money, tend to do it very well. It seems anarchic to spite your face off on this to make some complex argument a mixture of UC, LEA's and local governments should put some sort of rival package together together cover for it when they are not in school.

 

[roydo]

Longer term there has to be a serious look at proper legislation around rental agreements, increases etc. It's still very hard to build social houses for councils, some say almost impossible to me, which again seems very odd. If the market is so wonderful and efficient, why are we essentially hamstringing the state in being able to build housing that could be affordable and targetted at the areas it's required?

Councils dont build houses. Developers do, and rules state a % of these are made affordable. These are then usually bought off plan by housing associations, and rented (usually), to those that need them. Unless you live in one, are a postie or a delivery lad, chances are you would never see them. "Hidden" is too strong a term, but discreetly positioned probably gets closer.

Older properties that may well have been council built/owned at some point, are also either now owned by, or managed by, same housing associations.

Near me, a developer has built a large, over 65s complex of tons of flats. Trouble is, their target market of elderly customers is no longer as vibrant as it has been for 20 years or so. So, currently empty, it has been bought by, you guessed it, a housing association, rinse and repeat.

 

[catcherintherye]

Councils dont build houses. Developers do, and rules state a % of these are made affordable. These are then usually bought off plan by housing associations, and rented (usually), to those that need them. Unless you live in one, are a postie or a delivery lad, chances are you would never see them. "Hidden" is too strong a term, but discreetly positioned probably gets closer.

Older properties that may well have been council built/owned at some point, are also either now owned by, or managed by, same housing associations.

Near me, a developer has built a large, over 65s complex of tons of flats. Trouble is, their target market of elderly customers is no longer as vibrant as it has been for 20 years or so. So, currently empty, it has been bought by, you guessed it, a housing association, rinse and repeat.

Some really interesting insights there mate.

Councils don't, but there's no reasons why councils couldn't. It is my understanding Councils were heavily involved previously, and in other places local governments takes a lot more hands on approach.

The issue you have, as is often the case is structural. Developers want to build places in areas where houses cost more money, as it's a lot better profit. Unforutnately these are rarely where there is enormous demand for houses (in poorer, urban areas). You are absolutely right to say there is some croynism involvedin what happens with the affordable ones. Increasingly too targets that are set for local governments mean developers know if they take them to court, they almost always win. So while there may be a desire for x amount of "affordable" houses the number can come in much lower and the price of what is considered afforable can be pushed higher.

There's just not any real market to want to build houses for the poorest in society as they won't gain value and just aren't worth as much to build.

 

[LostLegend]

Wish CERN would hurry up and discover time travel so we can send these despicable shopping list Tories “I made a pan of gruel that could feed 3 chimney sweeps for a week and it only cost 50p” back to Normandy circa 1945, seeing as though they all keep banging on about how great things were back then.