Politics General Election 2017

[Bodhi]

The fourth reich is still on track.
Ben Bradley under fire for blogpost urging jobless people to have vasectomies

Don't disagree with anything he says there - if you can't afford kids, don't have them until you can.

 

[Scouse]

It's a shame that economics has come to dictate what humans should do.

In the past having very large families was the norm. Not saying that I'd particularly like to see it - I've no chip in that game as I've decided not to have them - but being dictated to by economics (when having a large family was economically beneficial in the past) is anti-human-nature.

Of course, we dress this pressure up as the "moral" and "right" thing - if you can't afford kids then fuck off, eh? But it's only become the right thing to do since we started living in an economy that makes large families un-economical.

 

[Job]

It doesnt matter how you deal with the incredibly complicated, overlapping arguments and causes.
Those who bang out the kids will take over...it tends to be the poor...either the rich go and live on a space station or we start culling.
Every young African girl Bill gates saves from Malaria is another 7 hungry mouths in 15 years time.

 

[Gumbo]

Big families weren't a problem when it meant more of them going out to work and be productive. It is a big problem when the sole life goals of generations is to get what benefits they can and procreate some more.

I'm a foster carer. I speak from a position of knowledge in this area. It's not all made up Daily Mail headlines, shit is happening out there, and my knowledge comes from fucking Norfolk!! Hardly the cess pool of the country. There is a growing underclass which is becoming impossible to cope with.

The carer who has some siblings of some that we have at the moment, was at a contact centre just before christmas. In came another carer with a newborn to see Mum. This was the 17th child that this woman had spawned. All of which were in care, or had passed through the care system. This child, like the last half dozen had been taken from her at birth. It will now cost something over £100k to get this child to adoption, or if it stays in foster care, well over a million quid over the next 18 years. She's had SEVENTEEN children each costing this much.

There is no mechanism to stop her having an 18th.

That can't be right.

 

[Scouse]

Invest in education and social services. Reduce poverty. Reduce the inequalities of income and wealth.

You know - the things that are proven to work.

 

[Bodhi]

It's a shame that economics has come to dictate what humans should do.

In the past having very large families was the norm. Not saying that I'd particularly like to see it - I've no chip in that game as I've decided not to have them - but being dictated to by economics (when having a large family was economically beneficial in the past) is anti-human-nature.

Of course, we dress this pressure up as the "moral" and "right" thing - if you can't afford kids then fuck off, eh? But it's only become the right thing to do since we started living in an economy that makes large families un-economical.

So now that economics suggests that only having the kids you can afford to look after it's anti human nature, but in the past when economics suggested having as large a family as possible, that was perfectly normal?

Wow, obvious contradictory reasoning is contradictory.

Of course the real reasons we used to have large families were more obvious than that - lower life expectancy and the Catholic Church's love of the rythym method. Now those are less of a factor, I see no reason why anyone needs a massive family, frankly. If they want one and can pay for it, awesome, fill yer boots. If you're expecting me to pay for it, fuck off.

 

[Scouse]

So now that economics suggests that only having the kids you can afford to look after it's anti human nature, but in the past when economics suggested having as large a family as possible, that was perfectly normal?

Large families weren't down to the catholic church. I'm looking at it on evolutionary timescales.

Large families have been a natural consequence of being human since we evolved. So "normal" (which is a relative term) for the human race is certainly to have very large families.

Our economic constructs are incredibly modern and the last few hundred years have seen unimaginable change regarding the "norms" of family life and expecations upon people.

 

[Gumbo]

God I want to type lots, but I can't because of the position I'm in. Suffice to say that from the inside there is already soooo much money being thrown at the problem which isn't helping. How about sending a social worker into a house EVERY school day to make sure the kids get fed and off to school FOR 5 YEARS? That the kind of investment you'd like? Didn't work. She still spawned two more, and neglected the children that she had. Education is free. Has been for over a century. Hasn't stopped this trend. Reduce poverty? Send more money to these people? Where's it to come from? I suppose you could until we're all completely level, pretty sure it won't work.

There is a simpler solution which could be reversible when the recipient demonstrated that they were in a position to not cause more misery and suffering to kids.

Society is terribly affected by this issue, and it's getting worse daily, BUT. And this is the first time I've used these words seriously. Won't someone think of the kids? You should see them when they arrive on your doorstep with not even shoes. No. You should smell them. Of course you're not allowed to bath them straight away, you have to let them settle in a bit first. A bath can be traumatic to a kid who only got washed every few months.

No one can ever look more than one move ahead. Think of the rights of the people to have the kids. Don't bother thinking of the lives these kids will have.

Social services are fucked. I'm sure that they could do with better budgets, but I don't know that would help too much. There's a desperate shortage of foster carers and adoptive parents in this country. Foster care is pretty well paid (Shit hourly rate, but if you just look at the payslip and forget that it's not bad) and yet there aren't enough of us, and children's homes are filling up, or they are having to delay the removal of children in desperate places.

It's a problem which needs addressing at source. I'm not suggesting sterilisation. There are many reversible contraceptive methods now. If a judge can order the removal of living children from desperate places, why can't a judge or panel thereof prevent another child taking the place of that removed one 9 months later, only to see the cycle repeat.

imho.

I wrote the first sentence and then my fingers went nuts. Sorry for long post. My piss is boiled. There's lots more I could relate, but a lot of what I have seen/know can't be shared on forums.

 

[Job]

The what the fuck?

Jeremy Corbyn announces Labour will buy every homeless person in the country a house

 

[Ormorof]

Its much cheaper to house the homeless than it is to have them be homeless

(He might need to work on his PR department though that kind of headline tends to agitate right wingers)

 

[Gwadien]

The what the fuck?

Jeremy Corbyn announces Labour will buy every homeless person in the country a house

Exactly what @Ormorof stated; you give them a chance, some homeless people these days aren't druggies, they're just people that are unable to get a fixed address and therefore can't have an income - sadly it's that true.

What's the alternative, we lock them all up?

 

[Moriath]

Exactly what @Ormorof stated; you give them a chance, some homeless people these days aren't druggies, they're just people that are unable to get a fixed address and therefore can't have an income - sadly it's that true.

What's the alternative, we lock them all up?

Locking them up is too expensive. Round em all up and stick them on an island some where. Lol. J/k incase you didnt realise

 

[Job]

Exactly what @Ormorof stated; you give them a chance, some homeless people these days aren't druggies, they're just people that are unable to get a fixed address and therefore can't have an income - sadly it's that true.

What's the alternative, we lock them all up?

The obvious problem with that is he is merely proving to all those people on the council waiting list that they just need to live on the street for a week to go the front of the queue.
I would say for most of the homeless a house would be of little use, they would turn it into drug dens,.shitholes or sub let it.
Its almost entirely a mental health problem.

 

[Gwadien]

The obvious problem with that is he is merely proving to all those people on the council waiting list that they just need to live on the street for a week to go the front of the queue.
I would say for most of the homeless a house would be of little use, they would turn it into drug dens,.shitholes or sub let it.
Its almost entirely a mental health problem.

I don't think it would be council housing - it would probably be more charity based than anything, they usually do an excellent job, they just need more support and money.

 

[Scouse]

@Job - ignoring the torygraph's obviously ridiculous headline (he isn't going to 'give' homeless people a house ffs) - TBH - let him try what he wants to do. We can't do any worse than under the Tories (unless we started taking random people who had a house and started kicking them out for shits n giggles). His suggestion might change a problem that, decade upon decade, has never really improved.

If it's a mental problem then having a home would certainly help with that. They've already pledged to improve mental care.

A government that actually gives a shit about doing something about homeless people? That'd be a change.

 

[Job]

Speaking on the BBC's Andrew Marr show Mr Corbyn said: "(We would) immediately purchase 8,000 properties across the country to give immediate housing to those people that are currently homeless.

It seems pretty clear cut unless the Telegraph have paraphrased him or adjusted the context.
Either way it would be decievery level 10 if he wasnt going to getceach and every homeless person their own house in someway or another.

 

[Scouse]

FFS Job. He's not going to GIVE them a house. He's going to buy housing for them and require local authorities to buy more. Transfer of ownership to the homeless people in question is not on the cards.

The Torygraph says:

Jeremy Corbyn announces Labour will buy every homeless person in the country a house

The party leader said he would purchase 8,000 homes "immediately" and give them to people sleeping rough around the UK.

The Telegraph knows very well what language it is using and it's using it explicitly and deliberately.

You're a utterly clueless if you can't see this use of inflammatory language. (Which you obviously can't because "words" eh?)

The beeb has a different (and more realistic) take. As does the Grauniad (as you'd expect). Funny that the Torygraph is shit-stirring eh? Anyone would have thought that people living rough on the streets has skyrocketted under the Conservatives - this time and the last time they were in government.

BTW - Labour says even this is succesful there'll still be more rough sleepers on the streets than when the Tories took over in 2010.

Edit: Aside from any argument over the above (I've said what I'm gonna say on that) - it's absolutely right that government should take a real and hard go at bringing down rough sleeping in one of the worlds richest economies.

 

[Himse]

idk why you bother @Scouse hah

 

[Job]

Hardly claiming they are going to get a freehouse...obviously social housing...ffs give most of them a free house and it would be turned into drugs and they be dead in an alleyway.
Whatever way you spin it, its a fucking ludicrous statement and another nail in his coffin.

 

[DaGaffer]

If the Tories can bribe the DUP with 1 billion, spending the same on solving the homeless problem seems like a small price to pay. It would also put a rocket under some of the speculators, which can't be a bad thing, but then it looks like the foreign speculators are leaving the sinking ship anyway.

 

[Scouse]

idk why you bother @Scouse hah

Dunno why that was facepalmed. Must have been a slip of the phone.

Amended.

 

[Job]

The biggest privatisation you’ve never heard of: land | Brett Christophers

 

[BloodOmen]

Love the latest smear campaign against Labour - shame its just been shot to pieces by the director of the SSA
Corbyn nemohl spolupracovat s StB ani kdyby chtěl. Šéf naší rezidentury byl britský agent, říká vědec (google translate it)

 

[Bodhi]

Love the latest smear campaign against Labour - shame its just been shot to pieces by the director of the SSA
Corbyn nemohl spolupracovat s StB ani kdyby chtěl. Šéf naší rezidentury byl britský agent, říká vědec (google translate it)

So it's one dodgy spy's word against the other. Not entirely convincing, but add in all the other "smears", a serious issue with antisemitism and bullying within his own party, and a right hand man with a worse grip of economics than my last shit, then I'm fairly certain he would make a disastrous PM.

 

[BloodOmen]

So it's one dodgy spy's word against the other.

Pretty much. I still reckon it's a smear campaign though, I noticed how Boris Johnson's meeting with various Russian intelligence people got a free pass but this is being treated like Corbyn rolled up on the Queen and shit on her slippers.

 

[BloodOmen]

Jeremy Corbyn demands apology from Tory MP who said he 'sold British secrets to spies'

 

[Bodhi]

Strange how the absolute boy is demanding apologies rather than instructing his lawyers if the allegations are that wide of the mark?

Still, no idea where these allegations he admired the enemy during the Cold War came from.

Oh. That will be where.

 

[BloodOmen]

Annnnd more.
Jeremy Corbyn says his records disprove 'Communist spy' claim

 

[Bodhi]

Yet he isn't willing to release the files that could instantly clear him?

Or, more than likely, instantly incriminate him.

So far we have the IRA, Hezbollah, Iran, the Czechs and Venezuela. Any more undesirables he's mates with?

But remember folks, following Jeremy Corbyn is not a cult. Not at all.

 

[BloodOmen]

More will come out I'm sure, should be an interesting few weeks.