Churchlawtonblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Dec 2013
- Messages
- 14,823
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Labour Government
- Thread starter SkyBlueFlux
- Start date
Diplomatic like Trump?Agrees but when you're a politician, you have to be a bit more diplomatic than what Lammy and Johnson were.
If you mean he wants to stop people crossing the channel, it's one of the priorities. He's gone very quiet on providing "safe and legal routes" (which has been a bit of a mantra for Labour MPs) so that's probably going to be an internal battle. Even Yvette Cooper is reduced to talking about "controlled and managed but safe routes for children who have family in the UK" rather than a more general (or generous) way to apply for asylum here.The PM seems to think it's worth making a big fuss about it doesn't he?
Churchlawtonblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Dec 2013
- Messages
- 14,823
Well we are here again, three wrongs don't make a right. This thread is full of people trying to justify the unacceptable behaviour of their own side by saying the other side did it. Schoolboy defence.Diplomatic like Trump?
BrianW
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 6 Mar 2006
- Messages
- 5,917
- Team supported
- There's Only One City
It's not just population, it's the age of the population.
Currently, we have a higher percentage of retired folk than we had traditionally, and fewer babies being born. The proportion of retired is growing every year, and will until the boomer generation passes over. So the population is skewed towards the older age groups. Immigration partly redressed this. The only other 'solution' is to make people work longer. But many jobs are unsuited to those over 60. Builders, especially roofers and the like. Police. Fire. Arguably doctors and nurses. You want a surgeon with a shaky hand? You want a bloke of 74 driving your train at 125 mph? Or your bus at 30, for that matter?
With a restructure of society, we could put over-60s on 'light duties' and ask them to work longer. But such jobs are nowhere near as common as they used to be. Routine clerical jobs, for example, are a dying institution. Most have already gone. Bear in mind also that in a free market state it's very hard to restructure in this way, No mechanism exists.
Housing is squeezed because objectively we haven't built enough for decades. Thatcher smashed public sector housing as she imagined it would free up resources for the private sector. So it did, and that's why you get profitable 5 and 6-bedroom executive houses being built instead of what young families and single people need.
There are more single households because that's how society has evolved, like it or not. There are more divorces, and even many 'couples' live in separate houses because they don't want a closer relationship with the financial entanglement that involves. Again, a more aged society means more widows/widowers. It's OK saying downsize. If you can put all your possessions in one box it's easy. When you have a lifetime's accumulated possessions and you're on your tod, it isn't. It's also costly to move. I estimate 15k and upwards. I wouldn't do that just so I could live in a shoebox. I'd live on blind hash and baked beans first.
Currently, we have a higher percentage of retired folk than we had traditionally, and fewer babies being born. The proportion of retired is growing every year, and will until the boomer generation passes over. So the population is skewed towards the older age groups. Immigration partly redressed this. The only other 'solution' is to make people work longer. But many jobs are unsuited to those over 60. Builders, especially roofers and the like. Police. Fire. Arguably doctors and nurses. You want a surgeon with a shaky hand? You want a bloke of 74 driving your train at 125 mph? Or your bus at 30, for that matter?
With a restructure of society, we could put over-60s on 'light duties' and ask them to work longer. But such jobs are nowhere near as common as they used to be. Routine clerical jobs, for example, are a dying institution. Most have already gone. Bear in mind also that in a free market state it's very hard to restructure in this way, No mechanism exists.
Housing is squeezed because objectively we haven't built enough for decades. Thatcher smashed public sector housing as she imagined it would free up resources for the private sector. So it did, and that's why you get profitable 5 and 6-bedroom executive houses being built instead of what young families and single people need.
There are more single households because that's how society has evolved, like it or not. There are more divorces, and even many 'couples' live in separate houses because they don't want a closer relationship with the financial entanglement that involves. Again, a more aged society means more widows/widowers. It's OK saying downsize. If you can put all your possessions in one box it's easy. When you have a lifetime's accumulated possessions and you're on your tod, it isn't. It's also costly to move. I estimate 15k and upwards. I wouldn't do that just so I could live in a shoebox. I'd live on blind hash and baked beans first.
What a ridiculous comment, there's around 3 million widows/widowers who occupy their homes they shared with their spouses/partners, in the majority of cases there will be no kids there either.Those people should be taxed or incentivised out of occupying homes designed for families.
My Dad lived for over 3 years after my Mum died, all his memories were in that house and he had great neighbours who watched out for him, you'd have taxed him for living on his his own? Fuck me you post some shite but that takes the biscuit.
Shite is way to nice a descriptionWhat a ridiculous comment, there's around 3 million widows/widowers who occupy their homes they shared with their spouses/partners, in the majority of cases there will be no kids there either.
My Dad lived for over 3 years after my Mum died, all his memories were in that house and he had great neighbours who watched out for him, you'd have taxed him for living on his his own? Fuck me you post some shite but that takes the biscuit.
Mr Kobayashi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 1 Oct 2020
- Messages
- 17,011
What a ridiculous comment, there's around 3 million widows/widowers who occupy their homes they shared with their spouses/partners, in the majority of cases there will be no kids there either.
My Dad lived for over 3 years after my Mum died, all his memories were in that house and he had great neighbours who watched out for him, you'd have taxed him for living on his his own? Fuck me you post some shite but that takes the biscuit.
Do you think the increase in single person households is due to widows and widowers or spinsters and bachelors?
Mr Kobayashi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 1 Oct 2020
- Messages
- 17,011
May I suggest you put Eats,Shoots & Leaves and a dictionary on your Christmas wishlist.Shite is way too nice a description.
Pedestrian
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 15 Oct 2014
- Messages
- 1,932
His own VP called him hitler.Agrees but when you're a politician, you have to be a bit more diplomatic than what Lammy and Johnson were.