homelessness soars

Well if we could free up the 6,000 council homes currently occupied by those earning over £100,000k pa they’d be some more property available.

Nu Lab voters can also give themselves a pat on the back

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

Personally, I thought Parris had it pretty much spot on in the Times:

We have been living beyond our means. We have been paying ourselves more than our efforts were earning. We sought political leaders who would assure us that the good times would never end and that the centuries of boom and bust were over; and we voted for those who offered that assurance.

We sought credit for which we had no security and we gave our business to the banks that advertised it.
We wanted higher exam grades for our children and were rewarded with politicians prepared to supply them by lowering exam standards. We wanted free and better health care and demanded chancellors who paid for it without putting up our taxes.

We wanted salacious stories in our newspapers and bought the papers that broke the rules to provide them. And now we whimper and snarl at MPs, bankers and journalists. Fair enough, my friends, but, you know, we really are all in this together.

Aye, well done socialists – if you hadn’t voted for a bunch of idiots who spaffed money at all the wrong things, we could have built some houses for those who don’t have a place to live.

Give yourselves a nice slow clap!

I really do find it a bit weird that all the non-tory voters seem to forget that their own chosen option spent over a decade in power and left as this started to kick off, then sit back and whine about how others choose to try to solve it, including trying to pin resultant homelessness figures on the current government. If everything had gone boobs up in May 2010 I could understand it, but the problems were already well under way then and the folk in charge then could see this and had plenty of time to get changes made.

Clearly no political party can work magic.

Nu Lab voters can also give themselves a pat on the back

Not really the same thing – they weren’t elected on a promise to sort out the middle east or liberate Iraq without killing anyone.

This govt however were elected on a promise to improve our economic situation.

I really do find it a bit weird that all the non-tory voters seem to forget that their own chosen option spent over a decade in power and left as this started to kick off

Hardly weird. People are pretty brainless at times, especially when things get tribal.

I really do find it a bit weird that all the non-tory voters seem to forget that their own chosen option spent over a decade in power

Non tory voters haven’t had a choice to make since the 80’s, nu labour were just tories in red ties, the policies of pandering to the rich elite have been in place for over 30 years now and are responsible for the current mess we are in.

This govt however were elected on a promise to improve our economic situation.

Perhaps they didn’t expect to find an empty safe, with a note inside it saying:

Ahhh I see, so labour were not really labour – that’s the excuse now is it. hehehe I love watching the excuses flow, people will convince themselves of pretty much anything (in all directions)

that’s the excuse now is it

Well I thought everyone knew that, Blair was nothing but a showman playing to the media and pandering to the Murdoch policy machine. Of course many of us were swept up in the euphoria at the begining with the promis of change but realised pretty soon that it was business as usual, boomtime for the rich and ever increasing pressure on the majority.

They only kept winning because of the lack of viable alternatives, which lets face it is also the tory coalitions only hope.

How many people in the last 10 years have thought, great this time it will be better, when given the chance to vote, or like myself do most think, oh god are these really my only choices.

Thats right – Blair and Co’s problem was their insistence on modernising the party, like that traitorous bastard Smith

what was really needed to appeal to the voters and give them an election win was a move to the left, as the leftist policies (unilateral disarmament, nationalisation of the banks) were so successful in the Eighties and Nineties,

Ahhh I see, so labour were not really labour – that’s the excuse now is it. hehehe I love watching the excuses flow, people will convince themselves of pretty much anything (in all directions)

John Major said he found it weird how Tony Blair was in many ways more right wing than he was. Tout it was pretty common knowledge that Labour moved to the centre(/right) when they became New Labour.

They certainly weren’t ‘socialist’.

what was really needed to appeal to the voters and give them an election win was a move to the left, as the leftist policies (unilateral disarmament, nationalisation of the banks) were so successful in the Eighties and Nineties

Well as those polocies were never implimented, we will never know if they would have worked or not.

Maybe you would like to celebrate the fantastic success that giving banks free reign has had on our economy and how spunking billions on trident is now helping the economic recovery.

No, its nothing to do with not being ‘socialist’ – the move to the centre was an inevitable result of the history of the Labour movement

During the 1960s and especially the 1970s, the Labour party in government had tried to do three things simultaneously:

first, generate as much growth and employment as possible;
second, move the economy, or society, in a more collectivist and egalitarian direction;
and third, it sought to do these things while keeping prices under control.

The problem was that the first two objectives largely contradicted the third.

Labour governments in Britain, like governments elsewhere, had very few mechanisms as hand for maintaining price stability. Even the Communist nations in the East were unable to control prices (read up on the Black Thursday massacre in the Gdansk Shipyards, which was down to food price protests)

All they could do was to ask the trade unions to help. Trade union leaders were not unwilling, but their members balked at being told ‘Jam Tomorrow’ once again – The effect was botched efforts to get trade union cooperation in controlling inflation being repeatedly undermined by the classic ‘I’m alright Jack’ approach of the members

In 1968 for example, the White Paper, In Place of Strife, which proposed that union leaders be given the power to rein in unofficial strikes and In return unions and their members would be accorded an impressive array of rights and privileges. The effort got nowhere and the government was forced into a retreat that showed its impotence in the fact of union resistance. A decade later, a still weaker Labour government tried to manage the economic crisis it faced by asking unions to agree to
another year of wage restraint. Such a policy had worked from 1974 through 1976, as the government had offered increases in the “social wage” – i.e., in pensions and social services – and in the wages of the poorest workers as part of a broad “social contract.” However the wheels came off with the approach to the IMF and finally culmanated In the winter of discontent.

The effect was not merely the election of Mrs. Thatcher. The inability to make the trade union connection work for Labour in power discredited Labour itself as well as the trade unions.

The fiasco demonstrated that trade union leaders wielded a de facto veto over Labour policy, and that Labour could not maintain and achieve power in government whilst serving a union paymaster with such fundamentally contradictory goals. Thats the context of why Labour had to modernise and move towards the centre, they were doomed without it.

Of course the problem was that deep down, much of the party hadn’t changed despite Blair’s leadership – and the reason why the project crashed into the ground in the economic crisis of 2008 onwards was that the lessons of the past hadn’t been learned, the battle still remained those three contradictory goals that Brown was chasing.

Make no mistake, a lean to the left wasn’t the solution, and the risk for the party is very much that Miliband sees the solution in promising people the unattainable – that he will promise to do all three, and by doing so, doom them to failure again.

i think the best way to fix this is a referendum on europe

maybe…

Good post Z11.

For balance you should also comment on the failure of Tory govts 🙂

This thread’s got everything.

The effect was botched efforts to get trade union cooperation in controlling inflation being repeatedly undermined by the classic ‘I’m alright Jack’ approach of the members

Thankfully right wing policies have brought everyone together in sharing success and failure equally, gone are the days of individualistic greed and avarice, as we all stride together hand in hand to a brighter future.

ps. controlling inflation by depressing wages is a big fat con.

Parris had it pretty much spot on in the Times

Parris is a stupid ****. Although those points may be valid. But just remember Parris is a ****.

+1 for everything Zulu-Eleven said.

nice try z11

we are in a recession because of the trade unions?!?

nothing to do with the banking sector and our dependence on it whatsoever, the money men have been paragons of decency striving to improve the lives of the homeless ever since maggie set them free…………

I thought he was explaining the shift to the right by Labour, rather than the recession.

Getting back on topic,
43% rise in homelessness is disgusting, especially when the leaders involved have pledged to eradicate London’s rough sleeping by the end of this year. It’s as if the policies involved are acting to do the complete opposite. 70% rise in new rough sleepers.
But its not surprising when you see peoples’ attitudes when the problem is raised. Too many want to ignore it and bang on about idealogical nonsense, or change the subject completely . There really are some disgusting scum about.
“Fair enough, my friends, but, you know, we really are all in this together.“
is complete bo11ox to the 3285 new rough sleepers.

molgrips – Member
I thought he was explaining the shift to the right by Labour, rather than the recession.

oh well in that case i thought they just moved to policies murdoch liked and he was wot won it for em

Let’s forget all the partisan bollocks. Whoever was in power between 2000 and 2007 would have done no different, any political leadership would have bowed in deference to ‘the city’ for how much money they were making and how much cheap credit they were making us all feel so rich with.

It was the system that caused the crash, not labour, nor would it have been the conservatives if they were in power.

It was the system that caused the crash, not labour, nor would it have been the conservatives if they were in power

And there lies the problem; the governments we vote for don’t run the country, just fail to regulate those who do

And there lies the problem; the governents we vote for don’t run the country, just fail to regulate those who do

No, its the inherent weakness of democracy, in that people will vote for the person who tells them that they can have whatever they want today, and pay for it tomorrow (or never at all) – the politician who sits there and says ‘we’ve got a problem here’ never gets elected.

We don’t really want the government to run the country. because that would involve saying no to people – that no, you can’t have that pay rise, or that benefit money, because in fact we cannot actually afford it – not enough people were putting not enough money into the pot that pays for it, and that to be honest, borrowing it is not a solution, because it will be us and our kids who have to pay it back. Don’t worry though, we can just inflate away the debt – in reality deflating the currency in the process.

Nope, we all wanted the politicians who said we can have it now, and worry about paying afterwards – both red and blue governments have been guilty of this, the only difference being that one put it on the national credit card, the other encouraged you to put in on your own.

ps. controlling inflation by depressing wages is a big fat con.

It may be, but unfortunately not controlling wages inevitably, as sure as eggs is eggs, results in inflation.

We don’t really want the government to run the country. because that would involve saying no to people – that no, you can’t have that pay rise, or that benefit money,

Lets be quite clear, the tory governments have been quite happy forcing an ideology of wage depression on the majority of the population, its only executive wages that have run riot. Most people will take the medicine when it really is being applied to everyone, but when its clearly being used as an excuse to just put more pressure on most while the richest are still increasing pay far above inflation we can see its just lies.

Its unfortunate that we have a media that spews out the same silly ideology as you do as if its actually true and it is lapped up by so many people.

It may be, but unfortunately not controlling wages inevitably, as sure as eggs is eggs, results in inflation.

Of course its the employees wages in the construction industry and the utility services that has caused such massive rises in prices over the past 40 years, absolutely nothing to do with free market greed.

You may move in circles which chooses debt to make sure the have the latest audi and a collection of jimmy choos, for most unacceptable levels of debt have been forced on them to cover the basics of living like housing.

Lets be quite clear, the tory governments have been quite happy forcing an ideology of wage depression on the majority of the population,

Do you think that in real terms wages got any better in the 1970’s under Callaghan?

You know, in 1975 Labour introduced a restriction on pay rises of £6 per week for all earning below £8,500 annually. Replaced in 1978 wih the 5% limit (Callaghan argued for a 3% limit, but Healey and the cabinet thought this politically unachievable) This at a time when inflation was running at over 10%

So, are you going to continue with your ridiculous proposition that Tory governments focused on a policy of “wage depression” or are you doing to disown Callaghan and Healey as not really representing the Labour party in the same way you’ve all disowned Blair and Brown?

You may move in circles which chooses debt to make sure the have the latest audi and a collection of jimmy choos, for most unacceptable levels of debt have been forced on them to cover the basics of living like housing.

Maybe I’m the only one who remembers when people had to rent televisions because they couldn’t afford them – I remember having to do this myself in fact… Have a look round this site and I guarantee that you could find a fair percentage of people who have bought rather expensive bicycles either on interest free credit (!) or credit cards. Much as I like bikes, I don’t think they fit into the ‘basics of living’ category…

So, are you going to continue with your ridiculous proposition that Tory governments focused on a policy of “wage depression”

Read what MSP wrote. He’s talking about wage depression biased towards the less well-paid only. That Tory ethic that the rich need higher wages to motivate them, and the poor need lower, sickens me. The sooner these self-serving, slack-jawed posh boys are booted out, the better.

You know, in 1975 Labour introduced a restriction on pay rises of £6 per week for all earning below £8,500 annually. Replaced in 1978 wih the 5% limit (Callaghan argued for a 3% limit, but Healey and the cabinet thought this politically unachievable)

Whats your point caller, you seem to want to blame labour for not saying no wage rises, then highlight when they do. Your floundering like a dying fish trying to apportion blame to socialist ideology when we have been living under thatcherite/murdoch polocies for over 40 years.

ps, televisions got cheaper because of technical advances, not because of government policy 😆

Well if we could free up the 6,000 council homes currently occupied by those earning over £100,000k pa they’d be some more property available.

No, what we should do is band the rental payments; you earn more, you pay more. It’s a good thing that the wealthier live with less-wealthy, but there should be a progressive element to the cost of doing so.

Aye, well done socialists – if you hadn’t voted for a bunch of idiots who spaffed money at all the wrong things, we could have built some houses for those who don’t have a place to live.

Yes, because the right wing parties are so well known for their compassion towards the poor and vulnerable and spending money on social housing and social improvement programmes.

Much as I like bikes, I don’t think they fit into the ‘basics of living’ category…

Your nasty mate Norman Tebbit might disagree.

Read what MSP wrote. He’s talking about wage depression biased towards the less well-paid only.

Yes, the Labour party wage restriction policy of the 70’s applied to workers earning less than £8,500. which shows that his own point that

tory governments have been quite happy forcing an ideology of wage depression on the majority of the population

Applied just as much to to the Labour part of the mid to late seventies as it dod to the eveil Tories – indeed, he then goes on to claim that

we have been living under thatcherite/murdoch polocies for over 40 years.

Which is pretty impressive – as Thatcherite policies seem to have now been introduced prior to 1972…

bumpy glitch

Parris is a stupid ****. Although those points may be valid. But just remember Parris is a ****.

Just in case anyone has overlooked this *very* valid point.

Yes, the Labour party wage restriction policy of the 70’s applied to workers earning less than £8,500

…and they did nothing to increase progressive taxation??

I think we can see where the torries are steering the country

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/9365087/Unemployed-man-sets-himself-alight-outside-Birmingham-Jobcentre.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jun/25/breadline-britain-growth-food-parcels?intcmp=239

and last year cameron’s friend – boss of the fraudulent A4E company paid herself £8.6million for cutting the benefits of so many claimants

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/camerons-family-champion-emma-harrison-quits-after-police-probe-7440153.html