General Great British Politics Thread!

Skepticemea said:
I only half-reacted with an semi-accusation of your approving of the ghettoisation of Britain. :p
Click to expand...

We don't need to ghettoise Britain to do this - if we can just get it through to the British people who are on low incomes that they should be happy with hot-bunking in multiple-occupancy rooms and even garden sheds there would be no problems with them affording a "home" in London.
 
Darat said:
We don't need to ghettoise Britain to do this - if we can just get it through to the British people who are on low incomes that they should be happy with hot-bunking in multiple-occupancy rooms and even garden sheds there would be no problems with them affording a "home" in London.
Click to expand...
Indeed. There's an underused gas meter cupboard in front of the mansion block I live in. There's room for a least 3 narrow people in there. If they sleep in 8 hour shifts. Lazy sods.
 
Darat said:
We are talking about low income families aren't we - if so that option of relocation is very unlikely to be a possible option.
Click to expand...

As things currently stand, quite possibly. Which is why I would favour changing the system to help. I would have no objection to providing someone with funds to enable their move in lieu of benefits
 
Darat said:
We don't need to ghettoise Britain to do this - if we can just get it through to the British people who are on low incomes that they should be happy with hot-bunking in multiple-occupancy rooms and even garden sheds there would be no problems with them affording a "home" in London.
Click to expand...

It is my understanding that a lot of our illegal immigrants are already leading the way in this, so not only are they helping hard-pressed employers to avoid unnecessary costs like sickness benefit and holiday pay, they're also showing British Workers the Britain of The Future, with exciting new ways to share homes and build new communities on a room-by-room basis, while demonstrating a go-getting work ethic that means they work from dawn-to-dusk for below-minimum wage pay (once again helping plucky entrepreneurs with their costs in these difficult financial times).

Or at least they will be until we can deport the filthy foreign bastards.
 
90 minute commute? For my last job I had a 600 minute commute and had to pay for a Paris flat on top of my family home. I'd kill for a 90 minute commute!
 
Last of the Fraggles said:
As things currently stand, quite possibly. Which is why I would favour changing the system to help. I would have no objection to providing someone with funds to enable their move in lieu of benefits
Click to expand...

Working in a low income job is very difficult if you have kids and don't have extended family around to provide free childcare.
 
DrDave said:
90 minute commute? For my last job I had a 600 minute commute and had to pay for a Paris flat on top of my family home. I'd kill for a 90 minute commute!
Click to expand...

A 10 hour daily commute time?!
 
Professor Yaffle said:
Working in a low income job is very difficult if you have kids and don't have extended family around to provide free childcare.
Click to expand...

I don't think I ever said it wasn't and I'm not sure how this relates to what I posted. As a general point though, something being 'difficult' doesn't necessarily mean people shouldn't have to do it.
 
The Don said:
And drown the kids they have like unwanted puppies if they suddenly find themselves unemployed ? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Don't be so silly - that would be a waste of resources especially for the older kids, there is a lot of money to be had from selling those young organs.
 
commandlinegamer said:
Changes to the electoral register may leave many disenfranchised:

http://www.newstatesman.com/2011/10/electoral-registration-voters

Instead of per household, plans are to change to individual registration.
Click to expand...

Hmm why do they want to make this change I wonder? They claim it's because the per household method is open to fraud. Opponents claim that people won't bother to register, so will lose their vote.

But would people who wouldn't bother to register individually bother to register when the household form comes in? Is this really likely to affect anything?
 
richardm said:
Hmm why do they want to make this change I wonder? They claim it's because the per household method is open to fraud. Opponents claim that people won't bother to register, so will lose their vote.

But would people who wouldn't bother to register individually bother to register when the household form comes in? Is this really likely to affect anything?
Click to expand...

Well, it looks like there is evidence that this system leads to fewer registered voters than the existing one but I don't have much sympathy for an argument that basically says 'you are disenfranchising people who can't be arsed to complete a simple form to register themselves to vote'

Whether it would have much impact on actual voting anyway seems less clear - if you wouldn't register yourself, would you vote?
 
Last of the Fraggles said:
Whether it would have much impact on actual voting anyway seems less clear - if you wouldn't register yourself, would you vote?
Click to expand...

Indeed. The argument seems to be that the actual voting card carries more weight then the registration form, but... I dunno. Is the expectation that someone responsible in each household will register everyone, then they'll be carried along to the polls on polling day on a sudden wave of enfranchisement?
 
I think part of the of the concern of the change is to do with how it will be enforced, isn't the proposal that there will be no more compliance checking/enforcement?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom