Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on September 14, 2017, 05:28:36 PM
-
I doubt J R-M meant this to read people know about food banks because the Tory govt said we hate you poor cunts but hey that's my reading
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41264965
-
I'd have a punt on him to be next PM immediately. Especially if he suggests a wall to keep the Poles out.
-
What the twatting fuckety fuck is wrong with thede greasy cock wanking bastards.
-
Far be it for me to tell the Pope what to do but he should excommunicate Rees-Mogg, the precedence being the fuck up the church made in supporting Franco.
-
I'd have a punt on him to be next PM immediately. Especially if he suggests a wall to keep the Poles out.
Ah but he'll need Poles to build the wall!
-
I doubt J R-M meant this to read people know about food banks because the Tory govt said we hate you poor cunts but hey that's my reading
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41264965
I think that he is enjoying himself whilst playing to the gallery.
-
Appeals to the "burn a tenner in front of a homeless person contingent".
-
Far be it for me to tell the Pope what to do but he should excommunicate Rees-Mogg, the precedence being the fuck up the church made in supporting Franco.
"From me", not "for me"; "precedent", not "precedence"; "fuck-up", not "fuck up"; and a precedent is something similar that happened earlier, so the church's failure to deal with Franco is not a precedent. If the church had excommunicated Franco, that would be a precedent.
-
I doubt J R-M meant this to read people know about food banks because the Tory govt said we hate you poor cunts but hey that's my reading
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41264965
J R MOG ; Minister for The 19 Cectury
-
I doubt J R-M meant this to read people know about food banks because the Tory govt said we hate you poor cunts but hey that's my reading
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41264965
The good news is that the last couple of weeks have outed JRM as a deeply objectionable man. I think previously there was a perception that he bizarre toff bastard child of Walter from Dennis the Menace and Lord Snooty, but somehow harmless. He is no such thing - he is a deeply reactionary right-wing extremist, but one who is establishment to the core and therefore will have friends and influence in very high places.
-
He was on a question time and managed to tickle the fancy of a group of thick set men all with shaven heads and right of centre opinions. Whether they are following him as a fan base or whether he 'grabbed' them that night the implications struck me as sinister.
-
God knows, I'm not in the habit of defending Tories, least of all Jacob Rees-Smug, but what he actually said about food banks, if you read his words, is not particularly objectionable.
-
God knows, I'm not in the habit of defending Tories, least of all Jacob Rees-Smug, but what he actually said about food banks, if you read his words, is not particularly objectionable.
Having already 'read his words' as you so kindly suggest, when I posted the OP, I disagree.
-
Having already 'read his words' as you so kindly suggest, when I posted the OP, I disagree.
I was speaking generally, not specifically addressing you, so your sarcastic tone is uncalled-for. Btaim, perhaps you could explain why you disagree.
-
So you indulge in a little sarcasm about people not having read what he said, but a reply in kind is somehow 'uncalled for'. Mmm..
The issue that there is no acceptance of Tory govt policy causing any problem. It portrays the bedroom tax, wage austerity and the hounding of the ill as a nothing but good.
-
I said nothing sarcastic, and I am certainly not trying to defend the Tories in general, or Rees-Smug in particular.
-
I said nothing sarcastic, and I am certainly not trying to defend the Tories in general, or Rees-Smug in particular.
Come now, darling, the sarcasm in the 'if you read his words' is making a vasty puddle below the screen.
-
One of the reasons why, after voting Labour all my life I will never vote for them again. A town in my neck of the woods, historical house prices taken from
https://tinyurl.com/yd5mxuho
£61,000 Terraced, Freehold, Residential 25 May 2017
£70,000 Terraced, Freehold, Residential 04 Aug 2006
£24,500 Terraced, Freehold, Residential 21 Jun 2001
£21,000 Terraced, Freehold, Residential 16 Dec 1997
Working mans housing. Terraced house, affordable.
Note the almost trebling in price in the Labour years. That page alone is full of them. Ask yourself if the debt people are saddled with may, or may not be one of the reasons they use a food bank
-
Note the almost trebling in price in the Labour years.
There haven't been any Labour years since the mid 1970s.
For the avoidance of any doubt, when I say 'Labour years' I refer to the years under any politician serving as Prime Minister who adheres to democratic socialism with the emphasis on socialism, who doesn't piss from a great height on the constitution of the Labour Party and whose political idol and spank-bank wet dream isn't Margaret Thatcher.
-
Ah yes, the 70's. The decade the grip of the unions was complete. The decade of strikes, electricity shortages and piles of rotting rubbish on the street. Makes you wonder how Thatcher ever won.
Had I not been so young and politically naïve maybe I should have seen things for what they were then.
-
Ah yes, the 70's. The decade the grip of the unions was complete. The decade of strikes, electricity shortages and piles of rotting rubbish on the street. Makes you wonder how Thatcher ever won.
Had I not been so young and politically naïve maybe I should have seen things for what they were then.
Actually the 1979-90 Thatcher period was just as bad for numbers of days lost as the 1974-79 Labour period. The thatcher period had 2 huge peaks of strike days lost, one at the beginning of her period in office, and then another virtually as large in the mid 80s. See the link below, scroll to number 13.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/4446012.stm
Interesting to see things in a longer historical context. While the 70s and 80s were really bad for strikes by modern comparisons, they pale into insignificance compared to the first part of the 20thC. Also worth noting that the past 25 years or so (under both Labour and Tories) have been historically low for days lost to strikes. See the link and scroll down to Fig. 3
https://cy.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/workplacedisputesandworkingconditions/articles/labourdisputes/2015-07-16
-
Thanks for the stats, but I don't really care.
What I do care about is that my daughter, who happens to be a nurse working in the NHS, had to pay 110K for her first home that was selling for 44K before the Blair bubble.
Where we are now began way back then.
-
Thanks for the stats, but I don't really care.
Well doesn't that just say it all.
"Evidence? We don' need no steenking evidence."
-
Makes you wonder how Thatcher ever won.
Never underestimate the power of fundamentally selfish, socially illiberal, typically elderly, sclerotic and fearful-of-change bigots with all the social conscience of a Jaffa cake in democratically untenable groups.
-
Ah yes, the 70's. The decade the grip of the unions was complete. The decade of strikes, electricity shortages and piles of rotting rubbish on the street. Makes you wonder how Thatcher ever won.
Maggie won because Sunny Jim made the wrong call.
-
Well doesn't that just say it all.
"Evidence? We don' need no steenking evidence."
I see you choose to ignore the rest, the bit, the main bit of my posting in this thread, where under labour houses became unaffordable for young people and this is the start of where we find ourselves today.
Labour did this. Labour sat back and watched the housing market spiral out of control. People use foodbanks because they pay huge rents or huge lifetime mortgages. The pay caps and austerity have compounded this but Labour putting house prices where they did started it all off.
-
House prices soared under Thatcher, then there was recession and the value dropped, home owners were left with negative equity. Plenty lost their houses - and their jobs. It was easier when Labour came in in 1997 for people to get on a rung on the housing ladder.
It's hard now for young people to buy their first house, they tend to do it later in life but they get there eventually.
I hope Rees-Mogg's rather naive comments do not stop people supporting food banks, they are a lifeline for people in difficulties.
-
House prices soared under Thatcher, then there was recession and the value dropped, home owners were left with negative equity. Plenty lost their houses - and their jobs. It was easier when Labour came in in 1997 for people to get on a rung on the housing ladder.
It's hard now for young people to buy their first house, they tend to do it later in life but they get there eventually.
I hope Rees-Mogg's rather naive comments do not stop people supporting food banks, they are a lifeline for people in difficulties.
Why is it hard now for young people to buy their first house?
-
I'd have said it was pretty easy to get on the property ladder under Major, I bought my first house in 1992 within walking distance of a mainline station into the City for a sum that wouldn't buy you a terrace in Grimsby now. Then they rocketed again under Blair.
http://www.cityam.com/214275/general-election-2015-how-tony-blair-presided-over-biggest-rise-house-prices-history
-
House prices plummeted during the Thatcher recession which made it easy for people to buy. 1992 was a good year for that. Earlier on in her reign they had sky rocketed! I can remember houses that had been worth, say, £100,000 soaring to £250,000. Just a few years later the owners had negative equity. That didn't matter if they weren't in any hurry to move, they could sit it out and wait for the price to rise but a lot of houses in that price range were not very big and for someone wanting a family house, it wasn't good news. Then there were the repossessions - houses were put up for auction and bought for peanuts. It was terribly unfair, so many left with nothing.
I bought my first house (with my husband), where we lived for a few years, in 1985 and it cost £55,000. Eight years before that the previous owners had bought it for £12,000! In no time at all the value had increased dramatically, a few more years and it had decreased.
It took a while for house prices to rise under Blair but everyone expects their home to go up in value, not down.
The recession, caps on pay rises, causes hardship for young people. Anyone who wants to live in London or surrounding area will have to find an enormous deposit and not many can save up £60,000+. There are other areas where housing is expensive. However not everyone wants to live in or near a city and there are areas where everything is cheaper. It's all about compromise but nothing lasts forever.
(I bothered to search for this post because it's been bugging me when I remembered I said I bought first house in 1986. It was October 1985, we (fiance and I) moved in early January 1986. Me being pedantic. )
-
It was one of Margaret Thatcher's core philosophies: a property owning democracy. A consequence of this was that houses began to be viewed as repositories of wealth - the main hope of house buyers was that property would increase in value. All that we are seeing now is the consequence of that philosophy.
Associated with this was the belief by (I believe) Keith Joseph that the housing stock owned by local authorities which was rented at affordable prices (council houses) was not cost effective.
Compared with many other countries, the percentage of the UK housing stock owned by occupiers is extremely high. In some countries the practice is for people to rent property during their working years and to buy when they retire. House ownership has disadvantages - one of which is that the prolonged process of selling a house militates against a mobile and flexible workforce.