The Conservative Party

[SWP's back]

yes

Will you?

 

[Fame Monster]

So what you're claiming is that after 6 years of Labour, it's down to the Tories, but after 13 years of truly pathetic house building and provision by Labour, the subsequent rise under the coalition is down to, oh yes, the Tories.

As for your "accepted homeless" figure, if I'm not mistaken you're taking the entirely different set of figures from Shelter that were an amalgamation of different measures and statistics, and absolutely not the like for like ONS measure. Nice stat mining there.

The reality is that most governments have been woefully inadequate in terms of their housing provision, and Labour especially so given that during the period of their abysmal policies that led to sweet FA in construction, they also oversaw a huge rise in population and failed to deal with it.

Their belated realisation of the godawful mess they'd made of it and decision to build houses again at the tail end of their administration was continued by the coalition. And no, it still isn't enough. But your determination to lay the blame on one side and exonerate the other, in a complete refusal to acknowledge the facts and culpability, is indeed partisan bollocks.

You've got to be joking, surely? You've waded in on a thread called 'The Conservative Party' to slag people off for criticising the Conservative Party's policies on housing and homelessness by saying 'what about Labour?'. Of course Labour are partly to blame for it as well but do you know where I go to slag off Labour? The Labour Party thread.

Btw my statistics aren't from Shelter, they're from a House of Commons briefing paper.

 

[Fame Monster]

Did a world wide recession and job losses not contribute to it a bit?

Yes.

Did selling off social housing not contribute to it, did halving local authorities budgets not contribute to it, did capping local authorities' borrowing powers not contribute to it?

As I said to @Henkeman, this is a thread about the Conservative Party's role in it but I'm beginning to think it should be named 'The Whatabout thread'.

 

[Henkeman]

You've got to be joking, surely? You've waded in on a thread called 'The Conservative Party' to slag people off for criticising the Conservative Party's policies on housing and homelessness by saying 'what about Labour?'. Of course Labour are partly to blame for it as well but do you know where I go to slag off Labour? The Labour Party thread.

Btw my statistics aren't from Shelter, they're from a House of Commons briefing paper.

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realise that this being a Conservative Party thread meant that only partisan slagging was allowed and no one could take issue with someone. Silly me.

Guess what? Issues apply to both governments over the last 30 years, the only reason Labour were brought into it was because you, sonny boy, "waded in'" in your phrase and tried to pretend it was all about the Evil Tories and only the Evil Tories.

From whom, based on what, and what is the like for like versus the ONS figures?

 

[Fame Monster]

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realise that this being a Conservative Party thread meant that only partisan slagging was allowed and no one could take issue with someone. Silly me.

Guess what? Issues apply to both governments over the last 30 years, the only reason Labour were brought into it was because you, sonny boy, "waded in'" in your phrase and tried to pretend it was all about the Evil Tories and only the Evil Tories.

From whom, based on what, and what is the like for like versus the ONS figures?

https://forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/threads/the-conservative-party.336692/page-12

You brought up Labour first mate, I even think you mention them on the page before that too.

 

[bluethrunthru]

The Nasty Party's assault on the poor continues - IDS and Grayling are both able to fuck anything up just by being associated with it never mind actually working in the departments in question

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45824590

 

[Henkeman]

https://forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/threads/the-conservative-party.336692/page-12

You brought up Labour first mate, I even think you mention them on the page before that too.

You mean the bit where I say I'm not going to point fingers at Labour on such a complex issue?

I see.

 

[urban genie]

Will you?

Okay.

The original 1911 NI act was based on the idea that a worker and employer paid in a contribution that would cover if they fell ill or lost work, this was expanded to include pensions.
This idea was based on you paid in a contribution and you got back the contribution when needed, and the money paid in was ring fenced, but over the years it has now become allowed to go in a general tax pot and governments have been able to borrow from it to support spending in other ministries(Osbourne loved messing with it)

Some argue we should scrap it and just have higher income tax rate to cover all government commitments, while other say it should go into a nationalised bank and each contributor has their own account to spend it as needed, but inly on the 3 welfare needs (so you couldn't take it out to go on the piss for example) like a savings account and what you personally pay in you get back when ill, unemployed or retired.

But basically bar all that above, the governments now and before have used NIF to invest in their own gilts at one point to the tune of nearly 50b, and as you know gilts are affected by the market, and such a ring fenced insurance scheme being used for investment that can go tits up to me is mismanagement.

I was gonna go into more detail but I am at work and need to stop skiving off on here or I will never get out.

 

[Fame Monster]

You mean the bit where I say I'm not going to point fingers at Labour on such a complex issue?

I see.

No the line before where you said 'homelessness was worse in 2003'. What has that got to do with the level of homelessness in 2018? How is that in any way a defence of the Tories' record on homelessness?

 

[Henkeman]

No the line before where you said 'homelessness was worse in 2003'. What has that got to do with the level of homelessness in 2018?

Yes that's the one. Where someone quotes the figure in 2018 and says "put that in your Tory pipe and smoke it" entirely oblivious to it being far higher under Labour, and in which I then specifically make the point that partisan rubbish is just that, and that I am not blaming Labour over a complex issue.

So?

 

[Fame Monster]

Yes that's the one. Where someone quotes the figure in 2018 and says "put that in your Tory pipe and smoke it" entirely oblivious to it being far higher under Labour, and in which I then specifically make the point that partisan rubbish is just that, and that I am not blaming Labour over a complex issue.

So?

My point is that it's completely irrelevant. Labour's 2003 record was bad, I agree but the relevant figure if you were trying to say that the Tories are an improvement to Labour or just as bad/good in relation to homelessness would have been the record low which the Tories inherited in 2010. But homelessness has risen for 7 consecutive years up to 16/17 and rough sleeping has risen for 8 consecutive years so that wouldn't necessarily be a good defence. Or is it partisan bollocks to point that out?

 

[SWP's back]

But basically bar all that above, the governments now and before have used NIF to invest in their own gilts at one point to the tune of nearly 50b, and as you know gilts are affected by the market, and such a ring fenced insurance scheme being used for investment that can go tits up to me is mismanagement.

UK Gilts aren’t an investment that can go tits up.

They are classed as a “risk free asset” fwiw.

So calling it mismanagement based on a false premise is pretty worthless.

 

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

both main parties would broadly support those aims and a lot of them will appear in upcoming manifesto's as policies - I am sure Mayday or whoever is leader at that stage isn't going to refer to their manifesto as just a list of cliche's.

conservatives would not want any of that under state control ..... only if was favouring their mates and they were trousering £MILLIONS

 

[Chippy_boy]

My point is that it's completely irrelevant. Labour's 2003 record was bad, I agree but the relevant figure if you were trying to say that the Tories are an improvement to Labour or just as bad/good in relation to homelessness would have been the record low which the Tories inherited in 2010. But homelessness has risen for 7 consecutive years up to 16/17 and rough sleeping has risen for 8 consecutive years so that wouldn't necessarily be a good defence. Or is it partisan bollocks to point that out?

It might be a bit of a distraction to point this out, but you do realise that the period you refer to above was one of austerity, with cuts - NHS aside - to pretty much all public spending. I think that backdrop is rather relevant. Blair took over a healthy economy in a period of worldwide economic strong growth. Quite the opposite of the crock his party handed over after they had done with it.

What I find a bit annoying is Labour supporters' penchant for sitting on the side lines protesting and saying what a shit job is being done about xyz, with not even the vaguest notion of what "affordability" means. Safe in their opposition bubble of not actually having to balance any tough choices because opposition land is a land where money grows on trees and anything and everything is possible.

Stiil, I suppose when your party leader epitomises that description, then what should we expect? Fortunately the electorate have you lot taped.

 

[Chippy_boy]

conservatives would not want any of that under state control ..... only if was favouring their mates and they were trousering £MILLIONS

Ah bless. Been reading the Janet and John Labour handbook for 7 year olds again have we.

 

[Fame Monster]

It might be a bit of a distraction to point this out, but you do realise that the period you refer to above was one of austerity, with cuts - NHS aside - to pretty much all public spending. I think that backdrop is rather relevant. Blair took over a healthy economy in a period of worldwide economic strong growth. Quite the opposite of the crock his party handed over after they had done with it.

What I find a bit annoying is Labour supporters' penchant for sitting on the side lines protesting and saying what a shit job is being done about xyz, with not even the vaguest notion of what "affordability" means. Safe in their opposition bubble of not actually having to balance any tough choices because opposition land is a land where money grows on trees and anything and everything is possible.

Stiil, I suppose when your party leader epitomises that description, then what should we expect? Fortunately the electorate have you lot taped.

I know it probably doesn't fit into your neat little world view that anyone who's disgusted by the levels of rough sleeping in this country and the Conservative Party's record on it is a dyed-in-the-wool Labour supporter/Jeremy Corbyn fan but guess what, they exist.

 

[urban genie]

UK Gilts aren’t an investment that can go tits up.

They are classed as a “risk free asset” fwiw.

So calling it mismanagement based on a false premise is pretty worthless.

Okay

 

[Henkeman]

My point is that it's completely irrelevant. Labour's 2003 record was bad, I agree but the relevant figure if you were trying to say that the Tories are an improvement to Labour or just as bad/good in relation to homelessness would have been the record low which the Tories inherited in 2010. But homelessness has risen for 7 consecutive years up to 16/17 and rough sleeping has risen for 8 consecutive years so that wouldn't necessarily be a good defence. Or is it partisan bollocks to point that out?

Of course it isn't irrelevant. Every government has to deal with the issues that they are left with by the previous incumbents. You can't on the one justify Labour by blaming the Tories and then blame the Tories while exculpating Labour, it's utter nonsense to do so. And that's why it is partisan.

But I am mildly amused by your post above saying that just because someone is critical of the Tories doesn't mean they're a card carrying Corbynite, well guess what, just because I consider governments of all hues to have been woefully neglectful of those whole subject, and that the current one is partly dealing with the abysmal Labour policy of the start of this century doesn't actually make me a Tory.

Physician, heal thyself.

 

[blueinsa]

Im old enough to have seen quite a few governments come and go and i will say just this, regardless of who is in power the lives of a vast majority of us will not change one bit meaning this Tory party is not as bad as some like to make out and the Labour party under Corbyn is not a magic bullet either.

 

[Chippy_boy]

I know it probably doesn't fit into your neat little world view that anyone who's disgusted by the levels of rough sleeping in this country and the Conservative Party's record on it is a dyed-in-the-wool Labour supporter/Jeremy Corbyn fan but guess what, they exist.

So presumably you're all in favour of the Tories' introducing the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 to help reduce it and you can wholeheartedly support that rather than sniping from the sidelines?

I won't hold my breath.