On the "many of them foreign" bit. She's clearly right. But. In what world is choosing to live in a tent in a major city "a lifestyle choice?" Who? Apart from the severely mentally ill would choose to do that? Why would they? Once again. Focusing on the wrong part of the speech.
The issue with “many of them from abroad” was that it was a completely gratuitous, irrelevant comment aimed purely at dog whistling to her assumed base. There was no reason to mention it other than bigotry.
And yes, the lifestyle choice bit was the most ludicrous statement of all.
The whole thing doesn’t even succeed on its own terms, which were to garner populist votes. She doesn’t understand her electorate because she’s too trapped in her own very small bubble of fellow bigots.
Am I going mad or is Braverman's tent crusade simply terrible politics?
You are not the target audience
Yes I get that. But my question is: is the electorate at large the target audience? Because if so, I think the electorate at large won't like it very much at all.
Not sure if it's been commented on, but Braverman's tweet included: We cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice. Many of then from abroad, indeed. That's a disgraceful, deliberate dog whistle to the far right. I don't imagine Braverman has any data at all to prove that many of the 'tent homeless' are from abroad. She's made it up.
Sunak should sack her. He won't, of course.
Many of them are - I know this because I have friends who have, and still do, volunteer for homeless charities, shelters, and street outreach, and I can assure you this is absolutely the case.
I suspect the fact it's Braverman saying it will simply blind you to any sensible engagement on this, but it shouldn't.
Rather than anecdote, do you have any actual data? Because anecdotally, where I live there's a lot of 'tent people' and they're all true-born Brits, including a fair number of ex-army PTSD folk.
So, like I said, if Braverman is correct I'd like to see some actual data rather than your anecdote.
I did a little volunteering for a homeless charity in London back in the early 90s, and the issues faced by the homeless were as varied as the people themselves. Yes, there were the usual drinks/drugs issues for some/many, but also histories of physical and/or sexual abuse, bad families, job losses, various addictions, financial issues, relationship breakdowns, bad luck, and sadly, stupidity. I wasn't a qualified counselor so could not give advice, but I did listen, and their stories varied from tragic to humorous. Some seemed to have escape routes (or claimed to) that they were too proud/ashamed to take. I've little doubt that some of the stories I were told were fiction, or sob stories; others seemed far too genuine.
It struck me (and still does) that homelessness is a massively complex issue, and one that probably needs interventions at an individual level to get anywhere near 'solving'. permanently for any individual.
But I am sure that taking away tents, if that is what is proposed, is a *really* bad and crass idea. That's not about helping the homeless; it's about hurting them.
I see similar working with the local food bank. In spite of the apparent safety net which the post war settlement was supposed to provide there are a horrible number of people falling through the gaps and ending up with absolutely nothing. Our whole social security system is failing because it is being used as a bribe for certain sections of society (which vary depending on which party you are talking about) rather than actualy working to help those in genuine dire need - and there are an increasing number of those year on year.
And Universal Credit is being used as a subsidy for those in full time work on low pay and facing high rents. Often working for the government and living in Council accommodation.
This is one of tghe reasons I think a proper minimum/living wage is such a good idea. Currently we have a stuation where employers can get away with paying people less than they can live on and expect the tax payer to make up the difference. It is effectively the tax payer subsiding company pay rolls.
The big complication then is housing costs as they can vary so much in different areas and for different people.
One of the issues I've been noticing is HA's. They've been bumping the rents up to the maximum covered by the housing component of UC. It's now far more expensive to live in HA property up here than privately. (I live in one of the cheapest areas of the UK).
The housing component of UC is a bung to landlords. Whether they be private landlords, or HA landlords.
That people can use UC to pay for rent and someone else's mortgage, but not their own, is utter madness. Especially when their own would be normally cheaper.
On the "many of them foreign" bit. She's clearly right. But. In what world is choosing to live in a tent in a major city "a lifestyle choice?" Who? Apart from the severely mentally ill would choose to do that? Why would they? Once again. Focusing on the wrong part of the speech.
It might well be a lifestyle choice but for people with unfortunately unpleasant options.
Though there was a Sherlock Holmes story in which a seemingly respectable man was actually working as beggar:
Not sure if it's been commented on, but Braverman's tweet included: We cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice. Many of then from abroad, indeed. That's a disgraceful, deliberate dog whistle to the far right. I don't imagine Braverman has any data at all to prove that many of the 'tent homeless' are from abroad. She's made it up.
Sunak should sack her. He won't, of course.
Many of them are - I know this because I have friends who have, and still do, volunteer for homeless charities, shelters, and street outreach, and I can assure you this is absolutely the case.
I suspect the fact it's Braverman saying it will simply blind you to any sensible engagement on this, but it shouldn't.
Rather than anecdote, do you have any actual data? Because anecdotally, where I live there's a lot of 'tent people' and they're all true-born Brits, including a fair number of ex-army PTSD folk.
So, like I said, if Braverman is correct I'd like to see some actual data rather than your anecdote.
I did a little volunteering for a homeless charity in London back in the early 90s, and the issues faced by the homeless were as varied as the people themselves. Yes, there were the usual drinks/drugs issues for some/many, but also histories of physical and/or sexual abuse, bad families, job losses, various addictions, financial issues, relationship breakdowns, bad luck, and sadly, stupidity. I wasn't a qualified counselor so could not give advice, but I did listen, and their stories varied from tragic to humorous. Some seemed to have escape routes (or claimed to) that they were too proud/ashamed to take. I've little doubt that some of the stories I were told were fiction, or sob stories; others seemed far too genuine.
It struck me (and still does) that homelessness is a massively complex issue, and one that probably needs interventions at an individual level to get anywhere near 'solving'. permanently for any individual.
But I am sure that taking away tents, if that is what is proposed, is a *really* bad and crass idea. That's not about helping the homeless; it's about hurting them.
I see similar working with the local food bank. In spite of the apparent safety net which the post war settlement was supposed to provide there are a horrible number of people falling through the gaps and ending up with absolutely nothing. Our whole social security system is failing because it is being used as a bribe for certain sections of society (which vary depending on which party you are talking about) rather than actualy working to help those in genuine dire need - and there are an increasing number of those year on year.
And Universal Credit is being used as a subsidy for those in full time work on low pay and facing high rents. Often working for the government and living in Council accommodation.
This is one of tghe reasons I think a proper minimum/living wage is such a good idea. Currently we have a stuation where employers can get away with paying people less than they can live on and expect the tax payer to make up the difference. It is effectively the tax payer subsiding company pay rolls.
The big complication then is housing costs as they can vary so much in different areas and for different people.
One of the issues I've been noticing is HA's. They've been bumping the rents up to the maximum covered by the housing component of UC. It's now far more expensive to live in HA property up here than privately. (I live in one of the cheapest areas of the UK).
Not the case down here in the South West - private rents are much higher than HA.
Am I going mad or is Braverman's tent crusade simply terrible politics?
How many people see tents on streets as a major issue atm, compared with paying their mortgage, heating their homes etc.?
And how many think forcing people out of tents and into cardboard boxes is the right thing to do?
It's astonishingly bad politics. Annoys economic and social liberals - who the Tories aren't getting back but were a part of Cameron's coalition. Leaves patrician Tories who believe in charity and do-gooding horrified. And shores up Keir Starmer's left flank as a reason for those who dislike him for moving to the centre to vote Labour anyway.
All for an issue that barely registers in people's top concerns, and when it does is an example of Tory failure. Except now symbolically Braverman is now the Home Secretary who wanted to freeze the homeless. Utterly ludicrous on every level.
Not sure if it's been commented on, but Braverman's tweet included: We cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice. Many of then from abroad, indeed. That's a disgraceful, deliberate dog whistle to the far right. I don't imagine Braverman has any data at all to prove that many of the 'tent homeless' are from abroad. She's made it up.
Sunak should sack her. He won't, of course.
Many of them are - I know this because I have friends who have, and still do, volunteer for homeless charities, shelters, and street outreach, and I can assure you this is absolutely the case.
I suspect the fact it's Braverman saying it will simply blind you to any sensible engagement on this, but it shouldn't.
Rather than anecdote, do you have any actual data? Because anecdotally, where I live there's a lot of 'tent people' and they're all true-born Brits, including a fair number of ex-army PTSD folk.
So, like I said, if Braverman is correct I'd like to see some actual data rather than your anecdote.
I did a little volunteering for a homeless charity in London back in the early 90s, and the issues faced by the homeless were as varied as the people themselves. Yes, there were the usual drinks/drugs issues for some/many, but also histories of physical and/or sexual abuse, bad families, job losses, various addictions, financial issues, relationship breakdowns, bad luck, and sadly, stupidity. I wasn't a qualified counselor so could not give advice, but I did listen, and their stories varied from tragic to humorous. Some seemed to have escape routes (or claimed to) that they were too proud/ashamed to take. I've little doubt that some of the stories I were told were fiction, or sob stories; others seemed far too genuine.
It struck me (and still does) that homelessness is a massively complex issue, and one that probably needs interventions at an individual level to get anywhere near 'solving'. permanently for any individual.
But I am sure that taking away tents, if that is what is proposed, is a *really* bad and crass idea. That's not about helping the homeless; it's about hurting them.
I see similar working with the local food bank. In spite of the apparent safety net which the post war settlement was supposed to provide there are a horrible number of people falling through the gaps and ending up with absolutely nothing. Our whole social security system is failing because it is being used as a bribe for certain sections of society (which vary depending on which party you are talking about) rather than actualy working to help those in genuine dire need - and there are an increasing number of those year on year.
And Universal Credit is being used as a subsidy for those in full time work on low pay and facing high rents. Often working for the government and living in Council accommodation.
This is one of tghe reasons I think a proper minimum/living wage is such a good idea. Currently we have a stuation where employers can get away with paying people less than they can live on and expect the tax payer to make up the difference. It is effectively the tax payer subsiding company pay rolls.
Though its personal circumstances and welfare that are the issue, not companies.
A full-time childless couple on current minimum wage already isn't (AFAIK) entitled to any support.
A single parent working sixteen hours per week supporting multiple children is never going to earn enough on minimum wage to pay their bills.
So there will always need to be some sort of system to exist. That's why I prefer a negative income tax (aka UBI) with a flat rate then so we don't get cliff-edge skyscraper tax rates that discourage work.
To quote one of Smithson junior's excellent youtube presentations, what we actually need is a French system where having kids puts you at a financial advantage rather than ours where you are defintely at a disadvantage.
Am I going mad or is Braverman's tent crusade simply terrible politics?
You are not the target audience
Yes I get that. But my question is: is the electorate at large the target audience? Because if so, I think the electorate at large won't like it very much at all.
Don’t be coy. We all know who the target audience is; the 170,000-odd who will decide who leads the Tories after the next election.
Am I going mad or is Braverman's tent crusade simply terrible politics?
You are not the target audience
Yes I get that. But my question is: is the electorate at large the target audience? Because if so, I think the electorate at large won't like it very much at all.
No
The target audience is Tory members who will vote for the next leader.
Not sure if it's been commented on, but Braverman's tweet included: We cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice. Many of then from abroad, indeed. That's a disgraceful, deliberate dog whistle to the far right. I don't imagine Braverman has any data at all to prove that many of the 'tent homeless' are from abroad. She's made it up.
Sunak should sack her. He won't, of course.
Many of them are - I know this because I have friends who have, and still do, volunteer for homeless charities, shelters, and street outreach, and I can assure you this is absolutely the case.
I suspect the fact it's Braverman saying it will simply blind you to any sensible engagement on this, but it shouldn't.
Rather than anecdote, do you have any actual data? Because anecdotally, where I live there's a lot of 'tent people' and they're all true-born Brits, including a fair number of ex-army PTSD folk.
So, like I said, if Braverman is correct I'd like to see some actual data rather than your anecdote.
I did a little volunteering for a homeless charity in London back in the early 90s, and the issues faced by the homeless were as varied as the people themselves. Yes, there were the usual drinks/drugs issues for some/many, but also histories of physical and/or sexual abuse, bad families, job losses, various addictions, financial issues, relationship breakdowns, bad luck, and sadly, stupidity. I wasn't a qualified counselor so could not give advice, but I did listen, and their stories varied from tragic to humorous. Some seemed to have escape routes (or claimed to) that they were too proud/ashamed to take. I've little doubt that some of the stories I were told were fiction, or sob stories; others seemed far too genuine.
It struck me (and still does) that homelessness is a massively complex issue, and one that probably needs interventions at an individual level to get anywhere near 'solving'. permanently for any individual.
But I am sure that taking away tents, if that is what is proposed, is a *really* bad and crass idea. That's not about helping the homeless; it's about hurting them.
I see similar working with the local food bank. In spite of the apparent safety net which the post war settlement was supposed to provide there are a horrible number of people falling through the gaps and ending up with absolutely nothing. Our whole social security system is failing because it is being used as a bribe for certain sections of society (which vary depending on which party you are talking about) rather than actualy working to help those in genuine dire need - and there are an increasing number of those year on year.
And Universal Credit is being used as a subsidy for those in full time work on low pay and facing high rents. Often working for the government and living in Council accommodation.
This is one of tghe reasons I think a proper minimum/living wage is such a good idea. Currently we have a stuation where employers can get away with paying people less than they can live on and expect the tax payer to make up the difference. It is effectively the tax payer subsiding company pay rolls.
The big complication then is housing costs as they can vary so much in different areas and for different people.
One of the issues I've been noticing is HA's. They've been bumping the rents up to the maximum covered by the housing component of UC. It's now far more expensive to live in HA property up here than privately. (I live in one of the cheapest areas of the UK).
Not the case down here in the South West - private rents are much higher than HA.
Not disputing that at all. But up here a two/three bed terrace is c £350 a month privately. It is really cheap. You can pay less. A one bed HA flat is c £600 a month with service charges. Of course, a single person on minimum wage will get the difference back on UC. But wouldn't be eligible to have the extra bedroom/s. So. One hand is subsidising the other.
Not sure if it's been commented on, but Braverman's tweet included: We cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice. Many of then from abroad, indeed. That's a disgraceful, deliberate dog whistle to the far right. I don't imagine Braverman has any data at all to prove that many of the 'tent homeless' are from abroad. She's made it up.
Sunak should sack her. He won't, of course.
Many of them are - I know this because I have friends who have, and still do, volunteer for homeless charities, shelters, and street outreach, and I can assure you this is absolutely the case.
I suspect the fact it's Braverman saying it will simply blind you to any sensible engagement on this, but it shouldn't.
Rather than anecdote, do you have any actual data? Because anecdotally, where I live there's a lot of 'tent people' and they're all true-born Brits, including a fair number of ex-army PTSD folk.
So, like I said, if Braverman is correct I'd like to see some actual data rather than your anecdote.
I did a little volunteering for a homeless charity in London back in the early 90s, and the issues faced by the homeless were as varied as the people themselves. Yes, there were the usual drinks/drugs issues for some/many, but also histories of physical and/or sexual abuse, bad families, job losses, various addictions, financial issues, relationship breakdowns, bad luck, and sadly, stupidity. I wasn't a qualified counselor so could not give advice, but I did listen, and their stories varied from tragic to humorous. Some seemed to have escape routes (or claimed to) that they were too proud/ashamed to take. I've little doubt that some of the stories I were told were fiction, or sob stories; others seemed far too genuine.
It struck me (and still does) that homelessness is a massively complex issue, and one that probably needs interventions at an individual level to get anywhere near 'solving'. permanently for any individual.
But I am sure that taking away tents, if that is what is proposed, is a *really* bad and crass idea. That's not about helping the homeless; it's about hurting them.
I see similar working with the local food bank. In spite of the apparent safety net which the post war settlement was supposed to provide there are a horrible number of people falling through the gaps and ending up with absolutely nothing. Our whole social security system is failing because it is being used as a bribe for certain sections of society (which vary depending on which party you are talking about) rather than actualy working to help those in genuine dire need - and there are an increasing number of those year on year.
And Universal Credit is being used as a subsidy for those in full time work on low pay and facing high rents. Often working for the government and living in Council accommodation.
This is one of tghe reasons I think a proper minimum/living wage is such a good idea. Currently we have a stuation where employers can get away with paying people less than they can live on and expect the tax payer to make up the difference. It is effectively the tax payer subsiding company pay rolls.
Though its personal circumstances and welfare that are the issue, not companies.
A full-time childless couple on current minimum wage already isn't (AFAIK) entitled to any support.
A single parent working sixteen hours per week supporting multiple children is never going to earn enough on minimum wage to pay their bills.
So there will always need to be some sort of system to exist. That's why I prefer a negative income tax (aka UBI) with a flat rate then so we don't get cliff-edge skyscraper tax rates that discourage work.
Broadly true but a full-time working couple on minimum wage with two children and in rented accommodation do qualify for some UC. Which is pretty ridiculous - not that I doubt they need it, I just find it ridiculous they should need it.
The system is subsidising low paying companies.
I find that hard to believe, and just checked on entitledto.co.uk calculator with my postcode and with the rent we were paying last year, entering details for a childless couple working full time minimum wage with no other incomes or benefits and the calculator said the amount entitled to was £0.00 per week.
Full time (37.5 hours per week) minimum wage for 2 people is £390.75 per week per person before taxes, £781.50 per couple per fortnight. That is well above the UC threshold to be entitled to anything, even housing support, without children.
I don't know if the situation would be different in a different postcode as I know the system has different housing limits per household, but the limit here for a childless couple is £91.15 hour a 1 bedroom housing support here apparently, which is tapered away to nothing by £781.50 per fortnight.
Not sure if it's been commented on, but Braverman's tweet included: We cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice. Many of then from abroad, indeed. That's a disgraceful, deliberate dog whistle to the far right. I don't imagine Braverman has any data at all to prove that many of the 'tent homeless' are from abroad. She's made it up.
Sunak should sack her. He won't, of course.
Many of them are - I know this because I have friends who have, and still do, volunteer for homeless charities, shelters, and street outreach, and I can assure you this is absolutely the case.
I suspect the fact it's Braverman saying it will simply blind you to any sensible engagement on this, but it shouldn't.
Rather than anecdote, do you have any actual data? Because anecdotally, where I live there's a lot of 'tent people' and they're all true-born Brits, including a fair number of ex-army PTSD folk.
So, like I said, if Braverman is correct I'd like to see some actual data rather than your anecdote.
I did a little volunteering for a homeless charity in London back in the early 90s, and the issues faced by the homeless were as varied as the people themselves. Yes, there were the usual drinks/drugs issues for some/many, but also histories of physical and/or sexual abuse, bad families, job losses, various addictions, financial issues, relationship breakdowns, bad luck, and sadly, stupidity. I wasn't a qualified counselor so could not give advice, but I did listen, and their stories varied from tragic to humorous. Some seemed to have escape routes (or claimed to) that they were too proud/ashamed to take. I've little doubt that some of the stories I were told were fiction, or sob stories; others seemed far too genuine.
It struck me (and still does) that homelessness is a massively complex issue, and one that probably needs interventions at an individual level to get anywhere near 'solving'. permanently for any individual.
But I am sure that taking away tents, if that is what is proposed, is a *really* bad and crass idea. That's not about helping the homeless; it's about hurting them.
I see similar working with the local food bank. In spite of the apparent safety net which the post war settlement was supposed to provide there are a horrible number of people falling through the gaps and ending up with absolutely nothing. Our whole social security system is failing because it is being used as a bribe for certain sections of society (which vary depending on which party you are talking about) rather than actualy working to help those in genuine dire need - and there are an increasing number of those year on year.
And Universal Credit is being used as a subsidy for those in full time work on low pay and facing high rents. Often working for the government and living in Council accommodation.
This is one of tghe reasons I think a proper minimum/living wage is such a good idea. Currently we have a stuation where employers can get away with paying people less than they can live on and expect the tax payer to make up the difference. It is effectively the tax payer subsiding company pay rolls.
Though its personal circumstances and welfare that are the issue, not companies.
A full-time childless couple on current minimum wage already isn't (AFAIK) entitled to any support.
A single parent working sixteen hours per week supporting multiple children is never going to earn enough on minimum wage to pay their bills.
So there will always need to be some sort of system to exist. That's why I prefer a negative income tax (aka UBI) with a flat rate then so we don't get cliff-edge skyscraper tax rates that discourage work.
To quote one of Smithson junior's excellent youtube presentations, what we actually need is a French system where having kids puts you at a financial advantage rather than ours where you are defintely at a disadvantage.
Not sure if it's been commented on, but Braverman's tweet included: We cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice. Many of then from abroad, indeed. That's a disgraceful, deliberate dog whistle to the far right. I don't imagine Braverman has any data at all to prove that many of the 'tent homeless' are from abroad. She's made it up.
Sunak should sack her. He won't, of course.
Many of them are - I know this because I have friends who have, and still do, volunteer for homeless charities, shelters, and street outreach, and I can assure you this is absolutely the case.
I suspect the fact it's Braverman saying it will simply blind you to any sensible engagement on this, but it shouldn't.
Rather than anecdote, do you have any actual data? Because anecdotally, where I live there's a lot of 'tent people' and they're all true-born Brits, including a fair number of ex-army PTSD folk.
So, like I said, if Braverman is correct I'd like to see some actual data rather than your anecdote.
I did a little volunteering for a homeless charity in London back in the early 90s, and the issues faced by the homeless were as varied as the people themselves. Yes, there were the usual drinks/drugs issues for some/many, but also histories of physical and/or sexual abuse, bad families, job losses, various addictions, financial issues, relationship breakdowns, bad luck, and sadly, stupidity. I wasn't a qualified counselor so could not give advice, but I did listen, and their stories varied from tragic to humorous. Some seemed to have escape routes (or claimed to) that they were too proud/ashamed to take. I've little doubt that some of the stories I were told were fiction, or sob stories; others seemed far too genuine.
It struck me (and still does) that homelessness is a massively complex issue, and one that probably needs interventions at an individual level to get anywhere near 'solving'. permanently for any individual.
But I am sure that taking away tents, if that is what is proposed, is a *really* bad and crass idea. That's not about helping the homeless; it's about hurting them.
I see similar working with the local food bank. In spite of the apparent safety net which the post war settlement was supposed to provide there are a horrible number of people falling through the gaps and ending up with absolutely nothing. Our whole social security system is failing because it is being used as a bribe for certain sections of society (which vary depending on which party you are talking about) rather than actualy working to help those in genuine dire need - and there are an increasing number of those year on year.
And Universal Credit is being used as a subsidy for those in full time work on low pay and facing high rents. Often working for the government and living in Council accommodation.
This is one of tghe reasons I think a proper minimum/living wage is such a good idea. Currently we have a stuation where employers can get away with paying people less than they can live on and expect the tax payer to make up the difference. It is effectively the tax payer subsiding company pay rolls.
Though its personal circumstances and welfare that are the issue, not companies.
A full-time childless couple on current minimum wage already isn't (AFAIK) entitled to any support.
A single parent working sixteen hours per week supporting multiple children is never going to earn enough on minimum wage to pay their bills.
So there will always need to be some sort of system to exist. That's why I prefer a negative income tax (aka UBI) with a flat rate then so we don't get cliff-edge skyscraper tax rates that discourage work.
Broadly true but a full-time working couple on minimum wage with two children and in rented accommodation do qualify for some UC. Which is pretty ridiculous - not that I doubt they need it, I just find it ridiculous they should need it.
The system is subsidising low paying companies.
I find that hard to believe, and just checked on entitledto.co.uk calculator with my postcode and with the rent we were paying last year, entering details for a childless couple working full time minimum wage with no other incomes or benefits and the calculator said the amount entitled to was £0.00 per week.
Full time (37.5 hours per week) minimum wage for 2 people is £390.75 per week per person before taxes, £781.50 per couple per fortnight. That is well above the UC threshold to be entitled to anything, even housing support, without children.
I don't know if the situation would be different in a different postcode as I know the system has different housing limits per household, but the limit here for a childless couple is £91.15 hour a 1 bedroom housing support here apparently, which is tapered away to nothing by £781.50 per fortnight.
However. What about a single person? Working full-time in education which is pro-rata'd down to 32 hours? Also. You're assuming rent. Check out eligible service charges components. They can be as much as the nominal rent, and are also covered separately.
Not sure if it's been commented on, but Braverman's tweet included: We cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice. Many of then from abroad, indeed. That's a disgraceful, deliberate dog whistle to the far right. I don't imagine Braverman has any data at all to prove that many of the 'tent homeless' are from abroad. She's made it up.
Sunak should sack her. He won't, of course.
Many of them are - I know this because I have friends who have, and still do, volunteer for homeless charities, shelters, and street outreach, and I can assure you this is absolutely the case.
I suspect the fact it's Braverman saying it will simply blind you to any sensible engagement on this, but it shouldn't.
Rather than anecdote, do you have any actual data? Because anecdotally, where I live there's a lot of 'tent people' and they're all true-born Brits, including a fair number of ex-army PTSD folk.
So, like I said, if Braverman is correct I'd like to see some actual data rather than your anecdote.
I did a little volunteering for a homeless charity in London back in the early 90s, and the issues faced by the homeless were as varied as the people themselves. Yes, there were the usual drinks/drugs issues for some/many, but also histories of physical and/or sexual abuse, bad families, job losses, various addictions, financial issues, relationship breakdowns, bad luck, and sadly, stupidity. I wasn't a qualified counselor so could not give advice, but I did listen, and their stories varied from tragic to humorous. Some seemed to have escape routes (or claimed to) that they were too proud/ashamed to take. I've little doubt that some of the stories I were told were fiction, or sob stories; others seemed far too genuine.
It struck me (and still does) that homelessness is a massively complex issue, and one that probably needs interventions at an individual level to get anywhere near 'solving'. permanently for any individual.
But I am sure that taking away tents, if that is what is proposed, is a *really* bad and crass idea. That's not about helping the homeless; it's about hurting them.
I see similar working with the local food bank. In spite of the apparent safety net which the post war settlement was supposed to provide there are a horrible number of people falling through the gaps and ending up with absolutely nothing. Our whole social security system is failing because it is being used as a bribe for certain sections of society (which vary depending on which party you are talking about) rather than actualy working to help those in genuine dire need - and there are an increasing number of those year on year.
And Universal Credit is being used as a subsidy for those in full time work on low pay and facing high rents. Often working for the government and living in Council accommodation.
This is one of tghe reasons I think a proper minimum/living wage is such a good idea. Currently we have a stuation where employers can get away with paying people less than they can live on and expect the tax payer to make up the difference. It is effectively the tax payer subsiding company pay rolls.
Though its personal circumstances and welfare that are the issue, not companies.
A full-time childless couple on current minimum wage already isn't (AFAIK) entitled to any support.
A single parent working sixteen hours per week supporting multiple children is never going to earn enough on minimum wage to pay their bills.
So there will always need to be some sort of system to exist. That's why I prefer a negative income tax (aka UBI) with a flat rate then so we don't get cliff-edge skyscraper tax rates that discourage work.
Broadly true but a full-time working couple on minimum wage with two children and in rented accommodation do qualify for some UC. Which is pretty ridiculous - not that I doubt they need it, I just find it ridiculous they should need it.
The system is subsidising low paying companies.
I find that hard to believe, and just checked on entitledto.co.uk calculator with my postcode and with the rent we were paying last year, entering details for a childless couple working full time minimum wage with no other incomes or benefits and the calculator said the amount entitled to was £0.00 per week.
Full time (37.5 hours per week) minimum wage for 2 people is £390.75 per week per person before taxes, £781.50 per couple per fortnight. That is well above the UC threshold to be entitled to anything, even housing support, without children.
I don't know if the situation would be different in a different postcode as I know the system has different housing limits per household, but the limit here for a childless couple is £91.15 hour a 1 bedroom housing support here apparently, which is tapered away to nothing by £781.50 per fortnight.
However. What about a single person? Working full-time in education which is pro-rata'd down to 32 hours? Also. You're assuming rent. Check out eligible service charges components.
Back in July, Megan McArdle called my attention to a study that some of you may find disturbing: "Instead, I want to introduce a new argument: that higher minimum wages may be contributing to homelessness, a problem that is, of course, particularly bad in California.
This suggestion comes from Seth J. Hill, a professor of political science at the University of California San Diego, who recently published a striking analysis of cities that raised their minimum wages between 2006 and 2019. He found that in these cities homelessness grew by double-digit percentage points. The effect was larger for cities with bigger minimum-wage increases, and it also appeared to get stronger over time." source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/07/13/higher-minimum-wages-increase-homelessness/
Not sure if it's been commented on, but Braverman's tweet included: We cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice. Many of then from abroad, indeed. That's a disgraceful, deliberate dog whistle to the far right. I don't imagine Braverman has any data at all to prove that many of the 'tent homeless' are from abroad. She's made it up.
Sunak should sack her. He won't, of course.
Many of them are - I know this because I have friends who have, and still do, volunteer for homeless charities, shelters, and street outreach, and I can assure you this is absolutely the case.
I suspect the fact it's Braverman saying it will simply blind you to any sensible engagement on this, but it shouldn't.
Rather than anecdote, do you have any actual data? Because anecdotally, where I live there's a lot of 'tent people' and they're all true-born Brits, including a fair number of ex-army PTSD folk.
So, like I said, if Braverman is correct I'd like to see some actual data rather than your anecdote.
I did a little volunteering for a homeless charity in London back in the early 90s, and the issues faced by the homeless were as varied as the people themselves. Yes, there were the usual drinks/drugs issues for some/many, but also histories of physical and/or sexual abuse, bad families, job losses, various addictions, financial issues, relationship breakdowns, bad luck, and sadly, stupidity. I wasn't a qualified counselor so could not give advice, but I did listen, and their stories varied from tragic to humorous. Some seemed to have escape routes (or claimed to) that they were too proud/ashamed to take. I've little doubt that some of the stories I were told were fiction, or sob stories; others seemed far too genuine.
It struck me (and still does) that homelessness is a massively complex issue, and one that probably needs interventions at an individual level to get anywhere near 'solving'. permanently for any individual.
But I am sure that taking away tents, if that is what is proposed, is a *really* bad and crass idea. That's not about helping the homeless; it's about hurting them.
It depends. If the aspiration is to clear the street of tents and move them into shelters, then I agree. It does no-one any good to sleep rough.
If it's just to move them on without any alternative solution, then I'd question it.
Same. Offer someone a warm, safe room. If you can't do that, a tent is the least you can do - but I believe that people are being offered temporary accommodation as an alternative. Open to being shown to be wrong.
Not sure if it's been commented on, but Braverman's tweet included: We cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice. Many of then from abroad, indeed. That's a disgraceful, deliberate dog whistle to the far right. I don't imagine Braverman has any data at all to prove that many of the 'tent homeless' are from abroad. She's made it up.
Sunak should sack her. He won't, of course.
Many of them are - I know this because I have friends who have, and still do, volunteer for homeless charities, shelters, and street outreach, and I can assure you this is absolutely the case.
I suspect the fact it's Braverman saying it will simply blind you to any sensible engagement on this, but it shouldn't.
Rather than anecdote, do you have any actual data? Because anecdotally, where I live there's a lot of 'tent people' and they're all true-born Brits, including a fair number of ex-army PTSD folk.
So, like I said, if Braverman is correct I'd like to see some actual data rather than your anecdote.
I did a little volunteering for a homeless charity in London back in the early 90s, and the issues faced by the homeless were as varied as the people themselves. Yes, there were the usual drinks/drugs issues for some/many, but also histories of physical and/or sexual abuse, bad families, job losses, various addictions, financial issues, relationship breakdowns, bad luck, and sadly, stupidity. I wasn't a qualified counselor so could not give advice, but I did listen, and their stories varied from tragic to humorous. Some seemed to have escape routes (or claimed to) that they were too proud/ashamed to take. I've little doubt that some of the stories I were told were fiction, or sob stories; others seemed far too genuine.
It struck me (and still does) that homelessness is a massively complex issue, and one that probably needs interventions at an individual level to get anywhere near 'solving'. permanently for any individual.
But I am sure that taking away tents, if that is what is proposed, is a *really* bad and crass idea. That's not about helping the homeless; it's about hurting them.
I see similar working with the local food bank. In spite of the apparent safety net which the post war settlement was supposed to provide there are a horrible number of people falling through the gaps and ending up with absolutely nothing. Our whole social security system is failing because it is being used as a bribe for certain sections of society (which vary depending on which party you are talking about) rather than actualy working to help those in genuine dire need - and there are an increasing number of those year on year.
And Universal Credit is being used as a subsidy for those in full time work on low pay and facing high rents. Often working for the government and living in Council accommodation.
This is one of tghe reasons I think a proper minimum/living wage is such a good idea. Currently we have a stuation where employers can get away with paying people less than they can live on and expect the tax payer to make up the difference. It is effectively the tax payer subsiding company pay rolls.
Though its personal circumstances and welfare that are the issue, not companies.
A full-time childless couple on current minimum wage already isn't (AFAIK) entitled to any support.
A single parent working sixteen hours per week supporting multiple children is never going to earn enough on minimum wage to pay their bills.
So there will always need to be some sort of system to exist. That's why I prefer a negative income tax (aka UBI) with a flat rate then so we don't get cliff-edge skyscraper tax rates that discourage work.
Broadly true but a full-time working couple on minimum wage with two children and in rented accommodation do qualify for some UC. Which is pretty ridiculous - not that I doubt they need it, I just find it ridiculous they should need it.
The system is subsidising low paying companies.
I find that hard to believe, and just checked on entitledto.co.uk calculator with my postcode and with the rent we were paying last year, entering details for a childless couple working full time minimum wage with no other incomes or benefits and the calculator said the amount entitled to was £0.00 per week.
Full time (37.5 hours per week) minimum wage for 2 people is £390.75 per week per person before taxes, £781.50 per couple per fortnight. That is well above the UC threshold to be entitled to anything, even housing support, without children.
I don't know if the situation would be different in a different postcode as I know the system has different housing limits per household, but the limit here for a childless couple is £91.15 hour a 1 bedroom housing support here apparently, which is tapered away to nothing by £781.50 per fortnight.
However. What about a single person? Working full-time in education which is pro-rata'd down to 32 hours? Also. You're assuming rent. Check out eligible service charges components.
How is pay pro-rata'd down to 32 hours?
I'll do the calculation and get back to you.
Because of school holidays? It's an absolute standard as to how teaching assistants are paid.
Not sure if it's been commented on, but Braverman's tweet included: We cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice. Many of then from abroad, indeed. That's a disgraceful, deliberate dog whistle to the far right. I don't imagine Braverman has any data at all to prove that many of the 'tent homeless' are from abroad. She's made it up.
Sunak should sack her. He won't, of course.
Many of them are - I know this because I have friends who have, and still do, volunteer for homeless charities, shelters, and street outreach, and I can assure you this is absolutely the case.
I suspect the fact it's Braverman saying it will simply blind you to any sensible engagement on this, but it shouldn't.
Rather than anecdote, do you have any actual data? Because anecdotally, where I live there's a lot of 'tent people' and they're all true-born Brits, including a fair number of ex-army PTSD folk.
So, like I said, if Braverman is correct I'd like to see some actual data rather than your anecdote.
It depends where you are probably. In parts of London, there are indeed quite a few Eastern Europeans on the streets. I do wonder about the poor conditions and endemic use of drugs and drink in parts of the building trade.
The flip side to the cheap workers is things like seeing people who are old before their time, numbing pain from injuries and ill health.
It doesn’t take much of a stretch to see where that can end up.
The IDF are sending XL Bully type mega-dogs down the Hamas tunnels to eat the terrorists. Some have cameras attached
Do they have guns?
The tunnels look pitch black - I guess coz all the power has gone
In my nightmares there aren't many as scary as a XL Bully suddenly coming down a totally darkened tunnel and then commencing to eat my face. In the dark
How does the dog differentiate between a Hamas fighter and a hostage?
Seriously, it's perfectly possible these dogs have been trained to differentiate between captors and captives. Police dogs have been known to arrive at the scene of a crime and pick up the exact scent of the offender, even though dozens of other people have been passing by. It's quite uncanny.
"I've just been expelled from GBNews studio after being invited there to criticise Brian Rose, 2021 London mayoral candidate, & then - when asked why I thought Ofcom should close GBNews down - I said because it's a right wing channel dominated by Tory & Brexit Party politicians"
We don't need to debate this. The Tories are not proposing that homeless people be brought into hostels. The Tories are not proposing that homeless people be looked after by charities The Tories are not interested in homeless people at all. They just think that their remaining voter base wants her to be a ban hammer word to people.
And I don't get it. Her remaining voter base are the kind of people who complain that any money going to any foreigners should be given to "homeless veterans". There are endless "info"graphics that do the rounds on social media making this point.
And here she is. Kicking our homeless veterans. And thus kicking the very people she wants to attract...
Oooooh. I just did some knapping for many months, did the usual deals. But then today unexpectedly sold the design abroad in a very unusual place, not one I'd ever considered
£10k!
Is there anything in life more pleasing than a totally unexpected £10,000 landing in your account? Not sure there is
As Byron said, as you get older, and you can only drink so much superTuscan and your penis basically falls off, the only reliable vice is avarice
Amazingly, there is a Go Fund Me account set up to pay for a serious legal challenge to HMG's XL Bully legislation, and it has already made £60k, so they really are gonna try and scupper it
The government should tell these hell-hound loving imbeciles to go jump in a Hamas tunnel. Ban these fecking monsters, now
Interesting exercise, apparently at full time hours even a single person gets no housing or other support, but at 32 hours they do but only if aged 35+
40 year old single person, working 37.5 hours per week for National Minimum Wage, needing housing support, no children: Total entitlement £0.00
30 year old single person, working 32 hours per week for National Minimum Wage, needing housing support, no children: Total entitlement £0.00
40 year old single person, working 32 hours per week for National Minimum Wage, needing housing support, no children: Total entitlement £8.99 per week
This is in my own area, other people's areas may be different. Its based on a single person's 37.5 hour minimum wage salary with the following calculation: UC Standard Allowance and Housing Allowance = £763.72, Deductions due to earnings at minimum wage = £817.64, so net amount is £0.00
Why do we even allow civil judicial review of laws proposed and passed by a majority of MPs?
We are a democracy. If the democracy wills a law, through parliament, it should be enacted. I am tired of this endless endless process of delay, dither, review, revise, delay
It leads to so many bad outcomes for the UK, from national infra disasters like HS2 right down to our inability to deport foreign psycho-killers
If Starmer gets a big enough majority, perhaps he might do something about this. I I know it is monumentally unlikely - Starmer is a lawyer so he probably loves all this lawyering - but it is good to hope
... Anyone who goes on the march is responsible for their own views, not those around them.
"present but not involved"?
I vividly remember in my enthusiastic youth attending an anti capitalist demo in London. I was thoroughly surprised to see this very organised group of people, almost all men, flying black and red flags and with faces hidden. I had no idea I had bumbled across the really quite violent black bloc.
Being on the same march as them did not make me an anarchist, nor a criminal when they started smashing in bank windows.
Any big political statement will be broad brush and contain contradictions throughout.
We might as well argue that anyone who stays away from the protest is enabling genocide against Gazan children. It’s transparent nonsense.
Fair point, but stated baldly it shows the strain. Let's reify it to a doctrine: the "MaxH doctrine" or the "The individual responsibility doctrine" thus:
"The individual responsibility doctrine:any individual in an activity cannot be held responsible for any other individuals in that activity, nor for the group or groups in that activity, and vice versa"
Sorry for the slow reply - yeah I think the joint enterprise point is instructive in trying to get beyond sweeping judgements on this.
From your link: intended to encourage or assist them to commit the offence. This is a key point for me. Full disclosure-I went to the protest in central Bristol earlier today (with a healthy dose of trepidation but also with a quote from a Palestinian journalist in my ears that turning on the TV and seeing protest marches across the world made them feel less alone).
At the protest almost the first thing we heard was a solitary member of the crowd with a microphone trying to start a chant of ‘from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free’. The heartening thing was that no one joined in. Nevertheless I didn’t challenge his antisemitism (which I regret, also that I didn’t film it to send to the police) nor did others around me.
I think anyone joining in a chant like that is then responsible for the reprehensible views that statement encodes, as they are ‘encouraging’ the offender as per joint enterprise. But someone who is nearby but chooses not to participate in that chant is not responsible for the views of that protestor. (I do think it is incumbent on people nearby to challenge it, but that’s a different moral point in my view).
I'm not sure the principle is tenable in the real world (and it certainly will be decried by opponents) but you argue well for it. Thank you.
Why do we even allow civil judicial review of laws proposed and passed by a majority of MPs?
We are a democracy. If the democracy wills a law, through parliament, it should be enacted. I am tired of this endless endless process of delay, dither, review, revise, delay
It leads to so many bad outcomes for the UK, from national infra disasters like HS2 right down to our inability to deport foreign psycho-killers
If Starmer gets a big enough majority, perhaps he might do something about this. I I know it is monumentally unlikely - Starmer is a lawyer so he probably loves all this lawyering - but it is good to hope
Isn't it because one law may contradict another, so a judge needs to examine the alleged conflict and determine a way forward.
The IDF are sending XL Bully type mega-dogs down the Hamas tunnels to eat the terrorists. Some have cameras attached
Do they have guns?
The tunnels look pitch black - I guess coz all the power has gone
In my nightmares there aren't many as scary as a XL Bully suddenly coming down a totally darkened tunnel and then commencing to eat my face. In the dark
How does the dog differentiate between a Hamas fighter and a hostage?
Seriously, it's perfectly possible these dogs have been trained to differentiate between captors and captives. Police dogs have been known to arrive at the scene of a crime and pick up the exact scent of the offender, even though dozens of other people have been passing by. It's quite uncanny.
Why wouldn't Hamas simply shoot the dogs?
They sneak up in the dark, and quietly, judging by the vids. Looks like the cameras attached to the dogs use some kind of infra-red tech
What a horrible way to die for a jihadi, down in a pitch black tunnel chewed up by a massive Bully XL that's been starved and given ephedrine and vodka. lol
So another day goes by with lots of Jew hate on the streets of London and pb's most civically minded people are of course talking about..... Braverman and possible plans for the homeless. Perfectly noteworthy but your blindspot has been noted - again.
Why do we even allow civil judicial review of laws proposed and passed by a majority of MPs?
We are a democracy. If the democracy wills a law, through parliament, it should be enacted. I am tired of this endless endless process of delay, dither, review, revise, delay
It leads to so many bad outcomes for the UK, from national infra disasters like HS2 right down to our inability to deport foreign psycho-killers
If Starmer gets a big enough majority, perhaps he might do something about this. I I know it is monumentally unlikely - Starmer is a lawyer so he probably loves all this lawyering - but it is good to hope
Isn't it because one law may contradict another, so a judge needs to examine the alleged conflict and determine a way forward.
I get that. But the entire process seems, to my admittedly lazy and amateur eye, to have gone way beyond that, where almost any legislation can be semi-permanently paused or perverted by civil legal protestations
The country wants these dogs banned ASAP. Polls show overwhelming support. Two more people seriously injured in hospital today. JUST BAN THEM
Am I going mad or is Braverman's tent crusade simply terrible politics?
You are not the target audience
Yes, the target audience is the Tory membership for when the next leadership election happens. They love the things Braverman is saying.
I’m not even sure that’s true. A lot of them are churchy harvest festival types. They might have some colourful views about Europe and foreigners and most from time to time about people on benefits, but I don’t think talking about criminalising homeless charities is necessarily going to get them cheering her to the rafters.
Why do we even allow civil judicial review of laws proposed and passed by a majority of MPs?
We are a democracy. If the democracy wills a law, through parliament, it should be enacted. I am tired of this endless endless process of delay, dither, review, revise, delay
It leads to so many bad outcomes for the UK, from national infra disasters like HS2 right down to our inability to deport foreign psycho-killers
If Starmer gets a big enough majority, perhaps he might do something about this. I I know it is monumentally unlikely - Starmer is a lawyer so he probably loves all this lawyering - but it is good to hope
Isn't it because one law may contradict another, so a judge needs to examine the alleged conflict and determine a way forward.
A fair and reasonable principle. And often a failure of political policy making, sloppy drafting or contradictory demands as it works through the process.
Yet despite all that I do have sympathy that certain actors do very much try it on, engaging in lawfare to spuriously object to political outcomes they do not like.
And when it comes to big infrastructure decisions I think the balance has flipped too far in one direction. I cannot remember if it was part of the proposed Boris reforms, but more say for local matters and less say (and ability to repeatedly challenge - obviously some challenge is ok) for nationally significant stuff sounded reasonable.
Is there anything in life more pleasing than a totally unexpected £10,000 landing in your account?
I'll let you know if it ever happens. Did once have an unexpected £20,000 not be in an account where it was supposed to be, and it was not much fun.
Ouch
If it helps, I've been there too, kinda
I have a few bank accounts, one of them is a tedious Halifax Building Society jobby and for some reason I had convinced myself I had 20k in some super boring savings account. I never touched it, nor checked it, was just vaguely aware it was there
Several months ago I went and actually checked. £10k not £20k. EEEEEK
The fault was all mine, no one ripped me off, but it felt like I'd been robbed of £10k, I was certainly £10k poorer than I thought. It stung
Why do we even allow civil judicial review of laws proposed and passed by a majority of MPs?
We are a democracy. If the democracy wills a law, through parliament, it should be enacted. I am tired of this endless endless process of delay, dither, review, revise, delay
It leads to so many bad outcomes for the UK, from national infra disasters like HS2 right down to our inability to deport foreign psycho-killers
If Starmer gets a big enough majority, perhaps he might do something about this. I I know it is monumentally unlikely - Starmer is a lawyer so he probably loves all this lawyering - but it is good to hope
Isn't it because one law may contradict another, so a judge needs to examine the alleged conflict and determine a way forward.
A fair and reasonable principle. And often a failure of political policy making, sloppy drafting or contradictory demands as it works through the process.
Yet despite all that I do have sympathy that certain actors do very much try it on, engaging in lawfare to spuriously object to political outcomes they do not like.
And when it comes to big infrastructure decisions I think the balance has flipped too far in one direction. I cannot remember if it was part of the proposed Boris reforms, but more say for local matters and less say (and ability to repeatedly challenge - obviously some challenge is ok) for nationally significant stuff sounded reasonable.
Less say for all sounds reasonable to me.
If its not your land, you shouldn't get a say on what others do with it, within the law.
The Union Flag was taken down from the Cenotaph. Perhaps like the pictures of hostages it's seen as too provocative.
Only because all the flags are taken away this week every year to be cleaned before next week's ceremonies.
Mind you that's because I saw the Metropolitan Police tweet rather than the right wing muppet's post that got 400,000 views compare to the Met Police's 10,000 views.
Are you sure it's true?
Still sad that it's surrounded by fencing.
Yes because I'm not an idiot taken in by false news that happens to match my prejudices..
Is it prejudiced to think public monuments might be defaced? Or just common sense since it happens quite often.
The protesters are planning to avoid the Cenotaph by marching from Trafalgar Square to the US Embassy. They are also deliberately starting in the afternoon so as to not disturb any 1100 silence observances.
This is not an anti-British protest however much you want it to be for Culture War reasons.
It's interesting that they have decided to avoid the clash with the Remembrance Day service but let's not dignify the Palestine Solidarity Campaign. Please listen to Nick Ferrari's interview with director of PSC Ben Jamal, who is asked 5 times 'where are the Israelis meant to go?' and he completely avoids the question.
I don't know whether they have revised their views in light of the savagery that was to be exposed or if they refuse to believe such savagery took place.
There's a third option: they approve of the savagery.
Am I going mad or is Braverman's tent crusade simply terrible politics?
You are not the target audience
Yes I get that. But my question is: is the electorate at large the target audience? Because if so, I think the electorate at large won't like it very much at all.
No
The target audience is Tory members who will vote for the next leader.
Is it even that?
Maybe Suella is just trying to get sacked. If Rishi grins inanely at this proposal, she'll suggest compulsory slaughter of all firstborn, and none of that namby pamby blood the on the gatepost getout clause.
So another day goes by with lots of Jew hate on the streets of London and pb's most civically minded people are of course talking about..... Braverman and possible plans for the homeless. Perfectly noteworthy but your blindspot has been noted - again.
We’ve been amply served with Israel-Palestine chat for weeks. I think we can afford a moment’s reflection on the performative malevolence of our Home Secretary.
Amazingly, there is a Go Fund Me account set up to pay for a serious legal challenge to HMG's XL Bully legislation, and it has already made £60k, so they really are gonna try and scupper it
The government should tell these hell-hound loving imbeciles to go jump in a Hamas tunnel. Ban these fecking monsters, now
I'm slightly worried about how dog-obsessed people in this country seem to have become recently. In my street it used to be something like 33% dogs, 33% cats, 33% neither. Now it feels like it's 70% dogs, 10% cats, 20% neither.
So another day goes by with lots of Jew hate on the streets of London and pb's most civically minded people are of course talking about..... Braverman and possible plans for the homeless. Perfectly noteworthy but your blindspot has been noted - again.
"In July 1995, Netanyahu led a mock funeral procession featuring a coffin and hangman's noose at an anti-Rabin rally where protesters chanted, "Death to Rabin".[10][11] The chief of internal security, Carmi Gillon, then alerted Netanyahu of a plot on Rabin's life and asked him to moderate the protests' rhetoric, which Netanyahu declined to do.[8][12]"
Here is how it works. Full time teaching assistant. Doing an incredibly stressful job with SEN pupils. Abusive. Occasionally physically violent. 8:30 to 4:30. 15 minute break. 25 minutes for lunch unpaid. If nowt else is happening (which it rarely is). Pro rata'd down to 32 hours a week because of Legislation about school holidays. So. No opportunity for overtime or extended hours at all. Pay. £1500 a month gross. £1290 a month net. UC single person entitlement £368.74. Housing (including eligible service charges) £600 pcm. Deducted at 55 (!!) p in the pound. Total entitlement c £970. Deductions c £700. Total UC around £270 pcm. So. One arm of government is subsidising low pay and high rents.
The IDF are sending XL Bully type mega-dogs down the Hamas tunnels to eat the terrorists. Some have cameras attached
Do they have guns?
The tunnels look pitch black - I guess coz all the power has gone
In my nightmares there aren't many as scary as a XL Bully suddenly coming down a totally darkened tunnel and then commencing to eat my face. In the dark
How does the dog differentiate between a Hamas fighter and a hostage?
Seriously, it's perfectly possible these dogs have been trained to differentiate between captors and captives. Police dogs have been known to arrive at the scene of a crime and pick up the exact scent of the offender, even though dozens of other people have been passing by. It's quite uncanny.
Why wouldn't Hamas simply shoot the dogs?
I s'pose it would give position away to IDF.
Also you wouldn't want to miss or just graze an XL. Might annoy it.
Am I going mad or is Braverman's tent crusade simply terrible politics?
You are not the target audience
Yes I get that. But my question is: is the electorate at large the target audience? Because if so, I think the electorate at large won't like it very much at all.
No
The target audience is Tory members who will vote for the next leader.
Is it even that?
Maybe Suella is just trying to get sacked. If Rishi grins inanely at this proposal, she'll suggest compulsory slaughter of all firstborn, and none of that namby pamby blood the on the gatepost getout clause.
So another day goes by with lots of Jew hate on the streets of London and pb's most civically minded people are of course talking about..... Braverman and possible plans for the homeless. Perfectly noteworthy but your blindspot has been noted - again.
"In July 1995, Netanyahu led a mock funeral procession featuring a coffin and hangman's noose at an anti-Rabin rally where protesters chanted, "Death to Rabin".[10][11] The chief of internal security, Carmi Gillon, then alerted Netanyahu of a plot on Rabin's life and asked him to moderate the protests' rhetoric, which Netanyahu declined to do.[8][12]"
Why do we even allow civil judicial review of laws proposed and passed by a majority of MPs?
We are a democracy. If the democracy wills a law, through parliament, it should be enacted. I am tired of this endless endless process of delay, dither, review, revise, delay
It leads to so many bad outcomes for the UK, from national infra disasters like HS2 right down to our inability to deport foreign psycho-killers
If Starmer gets a big enough majority, perhaps he might do something about this. I I know it is monumentally unlikely - Starmer is a lawyer so he probably loves all this lawyering - but it is good to hope
Isn't it because one law may contradict another, so a judge needs to examine the alleged conflict and determine a way forward.
A fair and reasonable principle. And often a failure of political policy making, sloppy drafting or contradictory demands as it works through the process.
Yet despite all that I do have sympathy that certain actors do very much try it on, engaging in lawfare to spuriously object to political outcomes they do not like.
And when it comes to big infrastructure decisions I think the balance has flipped too far in one direction. I cannot remember if it was part of the proposed Boris reforms, but more say for local matters and less say (and ability to repeatedly challenge - obviously some challenge is ok) for nationally significant stuff sounded reasonable.
Less say for all sounds reasonable to me.
If its not your land, you shouldn't get a say on what others do with it, within the law.
I'm in favour of less say too, but the above sounded reasonable as a political concession (if an annoying one) to NIMBY protestors, whilst at least making bigger stuff easier - the latter gets a lot of noise, but the political cost is locally contained, whilst pandering to NIMBYs works everywhere, so you've got to give them something.
Not sure if it's been commented on, but Braverman's tweet included: We cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice. Many of then from abroad, indeed. That's a disgraceful, deliberate dog whistle to the far right. I don't imagine Braverman has any data at all to prove that many of the 'tent homeless' are from abroad. She's made it up.
Sunak should sack her. He won't, of course.
Many of them are - I know this because I have friends who have, and still do, volunteer for homeless charities, shelters, and street outreach, and I can assure you this is absolutely the case.
I suspect the fact it's Braverman saying it will simply blind you to any sensible engagement on this, but it shouldn't.
Rather than anecdote, do you have any actual data? Because anecdotally, where I live there's a lot of 'tent people' and they're all true-born Brits, including a fair number of ex-army PTSD folk.
So, like I said, if Braverman is correct I'd like to see some actual data rather than your anecdote.
I did a little volunteering for a homeless charity in London back in the early 90s, and the issues faced by the homeless were as varied as the people themselves. Yes, there were the usual drinks/drugs issues for some/many, but also histories of physical and/or sexual abuse, bad families, job losses, various addictions, financial issues, relationship breakdowns, bad luck, and sadly, stupidity. I wasn't a qualified counselor so could not give advice, but I did listen, and their stories varied from tragic to humorous. Some seemed to have escape routes (or claimed to) that they were too proud/ashamed to take. I've little doubt that some of the stories I were told were fiction, or sob stories; others seemed far too genuine.
It struck me (and still does) that homelessness is a massively complex issue, and one that probably needs interventions at an individual level to get anywhere near 'solving'. permanently for any individual.
But I am sure that taking away tents, if that is what is proposed, is a *really* bad and crass idea. That's not about helping the homeless; it's about hurting them.
I see similar working with the local food bank. In spite of the apparent safety net which the post war settlement was supposed to provide there are a horrible number of people falling through the gaps and ending up with absolutely nothing. Our whole social security system is failing because it is being used as a bribe for certain sections of society (which vary depending on which party you are talking about) rather than actualy working to help those in genuine dire need - and there are an increasing number of those year on year.
And Universal Credit is being used as a subsidy for those in full time work on low pay and facing high rents. Often working for the government and living in Council accommodation.
This is one of tghe reasons I think a proper minimum/living wage is such a good idea. Currently we have a stuation where employers can get away with paying people less than they can live on and expect the tax payer to make up the difference. It is effectively the tax payer subsiding company pay rolls.
Though its personal circumstances and welfare that are the issue, not companies.
A full-time childless couple on current minimum wage already isn't (AFAIK) entitled to any support.
A single parent working sixteen hours per week supporting multiple children is never going to earn enough on minimum wage to pay their bills.
So there will always need to be some sort of system to exist. That's why I prefer a negative income tax (aka UBI) with a flat rate then so we don't get cliff-edge skyscraper tax rates that discourage work.
To quote one of Smithson junior's excellent youtube presentations, what we actually need is a French system where having kids puts you at a financial advantage rather than ours where you are defintely at a disadvantage.
The evidence that financial factors incentivise child-rearing is mixed at best.
But even if it's true, we don't need yet more handouts. We need to let the private sector build enough decent quality family sized homes so the average family can afford one. That would do more to reduce the cost and stress of child rearing than any realistic amount of family allowances would.
Not sure if it's been commented on, but Braverman's tweet included: We cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice. Many of then from abroad, indeed. That's a disgraceful, deliberate dog whistle to the far right. I don't imagine Braverman has any data at all to prove that many of the 'tent homeless' are from abroad. She's made it up.
Sunak should sack her. He won't, of course.
Many of them are - I know this because I have friends who have, and still do, volunteer for homeless charities, shelters, and street outreach, and I can assure you this is absolutely the case.
I suspect the fact it's Braverman saying it will simply blind you to any sensible engagement on this, but it shouldn't.
Rather than anecdote, do you have any actual data? Because anecdotally, where I live there's a lot of 'tent people' and they're all true-born Brits, including a fair number of ex-army PTSD folk.
So, like I said, if Braverman is correct I'd like to see some actual data rather than your anecdote.
I did a little volunteering for a homeless charity in London back in the early 90s, and the issues faced by the homeless were as varied as the people themselves. Yes, there were the usual drinks/drugs issues for some/many, but also histories of physical and/or sexual abuse, bad families, job losses, various addictions, financial issues, relationship breakdowns, bad luck, and sadly, stupidity. I wasn't a qualified counselor so could not give advice, but I did listen, and their stories varied from tragic to humorous. Some seemed to have escape routes (or claimed to) that they were too proud/ashamed to take. I've little doubt that some of the stories I were told were fiction, or sob stories; others seemed far too genuine.
It struck me (and still does) that homelessness is a massively complex issue, and one that probably needs interventions at an individual level to get anywhere near 'solving'. permanently for any individual.
But I am sure that taking away tents, if that is what is proposed, is a *really* bad and crass idea. That's not about helping the homeless; it's about hurting them.
I see similar working with the local food bank. In spite of the apparent safety net which the post war settlement was supposed to provide there are a horrible number of people falling through the gaps and ending up with absolutely nothing. Our whole social security system is failing because it is being used as a bribe for certain sections of society (which vary depending on which party you are talking about) rather than actualy working to help those in genuine dire need - and there are an increasing number of those year on year.
And Universal Credit is being used as a subsidy for those in full time work on low pay and facing high rents. Often working for the government and living in Council accommodation.
This is one of tghe reasons I think a proper minimum/living wage is such a good idea. Currently we have a stuation where employers can get away with paying people less than they can live on and expect the tax payer to make up the difference. It is effectively the tax payer subsiding company pay rolls.
Though its personal circumstances and welfare that are the issue, not companies.
A full-time childless couple on current minimum wage already isn't (AFAIK) entitled to any support.
A single parent working sixteen hours per week supporting multiple children is never going to earn enough on minimum wage to pay their bills.
So there will always need to be some sort of system to exist. That's why I prefer a negative income tax (aka UBI) with a flat rate then so we don't get cliff-edge skyscraper tax rates that discourage work.
Broadly true but a full-time working couple on minimum wage with two children and in rented accommodation do qualify for some UC. Which is pretty ridiculous - not that I doubt they need it, I just find it ridiculous they should need it.
The system is subsidising low paying companies.
I find that hard to believe, and just checked on entitledto.co.uk calculator with my postcode and with the rent we were paying last year, entering details for a childless couple working full time minimum wage with no other incomes or benefits and the calculator said the amount entitled to was £0.00 per week.
Full time (37.5 hours per week) minimum wage for 2 people is £390.75 per week per person before taxes, £781.50 per couple per fortnight. That is well above the UC threshold to be entitled to anything, even housing support, without children.
I don't know if the situation would be different in a different postcode as I know the system has different housing limits per household, but the limit here for a childless couple is £91.15 hour a 1 bedroom housing support here apparently, which is tapered away to nothing by £781.50 per fortnight.
I said "a full-time working couple on minimum wage with two children and in rented accommodation..."
So another day goes by with lots of Jew hate on the streets of London and pb's most civically minded people are of course talking about..... Braverman and possible plans for the homeless. Perfectly noteworthy but your blindspot has been noted - again.
"In July 1995, Netanyahu led a mock funeral procession featuring a coffin and hangman's noose at an anti-Rabin rally where protesters chanted, "Death to Rabin".[10][11] The chief of internal security, Carmi Gillon, then alerted Netanyahu of a plot on Rabin's life and asked him to moderate the protests' rhetoric, which Netanyahu declined to do.[8][12]"
The Union Flag was taken down from the Cenotaph. Perhaps like the pictures of hostages it's seen as too provocative.
Only because all the flags are taken away this week every year to be cleaned before next week's ceremonies.
Mind you that's because I saw the Metropolitan Police tweet rather than the right wing muppet's post that got 400,000 views compare to the Met Police's 10,000 views.
Are you sure it's true?
Still sad that it's surrounded by fencing.
Yes because I'm not an idiot taken in by false news that happens to match my prejudices..
Is it prejudiced to think public monuments might be defaced? Or just common sense since it happens quite often.
The protesters are planning to avoid the Cenotaph by marching from Trafalgar Square to the US Embassy. They are also deliberately starting in the afternoon so as to not disturb any 1100 silence observances.
This is not an anti-British protest however much you want it to be for Culture War reasons.
LOL at your use of 'culture wars'. If you go on that march, remember that a large number of the people you are with, who you are chanting with, who you are encouraging, want the end of the state of Israel, and worse.
You are giving them your voice.
Hmm, this reads very much like the posts attacking @Cyclefree for her carefully considered views on women’s rights and trans rights a few months ago. At the time people criticised her for enabling and supporting far right anti-trans campaigners as she was a ‘fellow-traveler’.
The argument was wrong-headed then just as it is now. Anyone who goes on the march is responsible for their own views, not those around them.
No, it really doesn't. For one thing, Ms Free was not talking about going on a march with people who have those views.
What is this march for? Apparently, to call for a ceasefire and to stop the indiscriminate bombing of Gaza - according to the PSC tweet below. Not about (say) releasing all the hostages back to Israel, stopping rocket attacks on Israel, or indeed for general peace.
And why the US Embassy? Why not (as an example) the Egyptian one, for the Egyptian government also has rather a lot of power over the situation, especially wrt the crossing and aid getting in. It all feeds into Iran's Little and Great Satan rhetoric, doesn't it?
The whole thing stinks.
Well, ultimately if some people are too dim to understand the most basic principles of free speech, that's their problem, not anyone else's.
Free speech has limits, does it not?
As an eminent philosopher once said:
No no, no no no no, no no no no, no no there's no limit
So another day goes by with lots of Jew hate on the streets of London and pb's most civically minded people are of course talking about..... Braverman and possible plans for the homeless. Perfectly noteworthy but your blindspot has been noted - again.
Interesting exercise, apparently at full time hours even a single person gets no housing or other support, but at 32 hours they do but only if aged 35+
40 year old single person, working 37.5 hours per week for National Minimum Wage, needing housing support, no children: Total entitlement £0.00
30 year old single person, working 32 hours per week for National Minimum Wage, needing housing support, no children: Total entitlement £0.00
40 year old single person, working 32 hours per week for National Minimum Wage, needing housing support, no children: Total entitlement £8.99 per week
This is in my own area, other people's areas may be different. Its based on a single person's 37.5 hour minimum wage salary with the following calculation: UC Standard Allowance and Housing Allowance = £763.72, Deductions due to earnings at minimum wage = £817.64, so net amount is £0.00
You're missing eligible service charges on top of rent. This is where the mismatch is.
Amazingly, there is a Go Fund Me account set up to pay for a serious legal challenge to HMG's XL Bully legislation, and it has already made £60k, so they really are gonna try and scupper it
The government should tell these hell-hound loving imbeciles to go jump in a Hamas tunnel. Ban these fecking monsters, now
I come at from a slightly different angle, which is that even if someone thinks it arbitrary or unfair to ban people from owning that breed, well, frankly, should that many people really care? It'll be sad for a few current owners, and people can get other breeds in future, not a big deal.
Am I going mad or is Braverman's tent crusade simply terrible politics?
You are not the target audience
Yes I get that. But my question is: is the electorate at large the target audience? Because if so, I think the electorate at large won't like it very much at all.
No
The target audience is Tory members who will vote for the next leader.
Is it even that?
Maybe Suella is just trying to get sacked. If Rishi grins inanely at this proposal, she'll suggest compulsory slaughter of all firstborn, and none of that namby pamby blood the on the gatepost getout clause.
What about age limits? I’m a first born.
So am I. But what we have to remember is that some of these firstborn are of foreign origin.
Amazingly, there is a Go Fund Me account set up to pay for a serious legal challenge to HMG's XL Bully legislation, and it has already made £60k, so they really are gonna try and scupper it
The government should tell these hell-hound loving imbeciles to go jump in a Hamas tunnel. Ban these fecking monsters, now
I'm slightly worried about how dog-obsessed people in this country seem to have become recently. In my street it used to be something like 33% dogs, 33% cats, 33% neither. Now it feels like it's 70% dogs, 10% cats, 20% neither.
I'm slightly worried by the rise in people snooping on their neighbours to monitor the diversity of their pet ownership!
Am I going mad or is Braverman's tent crusade simply terrible politics?
You are not the target audience
Yes I get that. But my question is: is the electorate at large the target audience? Because if so, I think the electorate at large won't like it very much at all.
No
The target audience is Tory members who will vote for the next leader.
Is it even that?
Maybe Suella is just trying to get sacked. If Rishi grins inanely at this proposal, she'll suggest compulsory slaughter of all firstborn, and none of that namby pamby blood the on the gatepost getout clause.
Why do we even allow civil judicial review of laws proposed and passed by a majority of MPs?
We are a democracy. If the democracy wills a law, through parliament, it should be enacted. I am tired of this endless endless process of delay, dither, review, revise, delay
It leads to so many bad outcomes for the UK, from national infra disasters like HS2 right down to our inability to deport foreign psycho-killers
If Starmer gets a big enough majority, perhaps he might do something about this. I I know it is monumentally unlikely - Starmer is a lawyer so he probably loves all this lawyering - but it is good to hope
Isn't it because one law may contradict another, so a judge needs to examine the alleged conflict and determine a way forward.
A fair and reasonable principle. And often a failure of political policy making, sloppy drafting or contradictory demands as it works through the process.
Yet despite all that I do have sympathy that certain actors do very much try it on, engaging in lawfare to spuriously object to political outcomes they do not like.
And when it comes to big infrastructure decisions I think the balance has flipped too far in one direction. I cannot remember if it was part of the proposed Boris reforms, but more say for local matters and less say (and ability to repeatedly challenge - obviously some challenge is ok) for nationally significant stuff sounded reasonable.
Less say for all sounds reasonable to me.
If its not your land, you shouldn't get a say on what others do with it, within the law.
I'm in favour of less say too, but the above sounded reasonable as a political concession (if an annoying one) to NIMBY protestors, whilst at least making bigger stuff easier - the latter gets a lot of noise, but the political cost is locally contained, whilst pandering to NIMBYs works everywhere, so you've got to give them something.
Or you don't, you face them down, like Thatcher faced down the NUM, and you have a happier, healthier economy and society afterwards.
Italy looks to be embarking on an electoral reform that would make FPTP seem the pinnacle of proportionality.
The 🇮🇹 govt just approved an authoritarian constitutional reform that will introduce🧵
-DIRECT ELECTION OF THE PRIME MINISTER with a SINGLE ROUND SYSTEM -Put in the Constitution that any electoral law must give 55% OF SEATS to the most voted coalition/party, NO THRESHOLD
So another day goes by with lots of Jew hate on the streets of London and pb's most civically minded people are of course talking about..... Braverman and possible plans for the homeless. Perfectly noteworthy but your blindspot has been noted - again.
We’ve been amply served with Israel-Palestine chat for weeks. I think we can afford a moment’s reflection on the performative malevolence of our Home Secretary.
NOT Israel/Palestine. Jew hatred in Britain. Which is actually a different matter although I would accept linked to affairs currently going on in the middle east. Britain's Jews feel bereft, abandoned and wondering whether central London is a safe space for them anymore. Most of you have spent recent weeks trying to avoid this entirely.
Why do we even allow civil judicial review of laws proposed and passed by a majority of MPs?
We are a democracy. If the democracy wills a law, through parliament, it should be enacted. I am tired of this endless endless process of delay, dither, review, revise, delay
It leads to so many bad outcomes for the UK, from national infra disasters like HS2 right down to our inability to deport foreign psycho-killers
If Starmer gets a big enough majority, perhaps he might do something about this. I I know it is monumentally unlikely - Starmer is a lawyer so he probably loves all this lawyering - but it is good to hope
Isn't it because one law may contradict another, so a judge needs to examine the alleged conflict and determine a way forward.
A fair and reasonable principle. And often a failure of political policy making, sloppy drafting or contradictory demands as it works through the process.
Yet despite all that I do have sympathy that certain actors do very much try it on, engaging in lawfare to spuriously object to political outcomes they do not like.
And when it comes to big infrastructure decisions I think the balance has flipped too far in one direction. I cannot remember if it was part of the proposed Boris reforms, but more say for local matters and less say (and ability to repeatedly challenge - obviously some challenge is ok) for nationally significant stuff sounded reasonable.
Less say for all sounds reasonable to me.
If its not your land, you shouldn't get a say on what others do with it, within the law.
I'm in favour of less say too, but the above sounded reasonable as a political concession (if an annoying one) to NIMBY protestors, whilst at least making bigger stuff easier - the latter gets a lot of noise, but the political cost is locally contained, whilst pandering to NIMBYs works everywhere, so you've got to give them something.
Or you don't, you face them down, like Thatcher faced down the NUM, and you have a happier, healthier economy and society afterwards.
Yes, but I was trying for something a bit more realistic to our current circumstances. Who is going to reward that now, as opposed to 20 years from now? That's what MPs think about, and no leaders amongst them.
Frankly, I'm not convinced we'll even get that minor concession!
Yeah: the victims are just women. So who cares about them? Never mind about the evidence showing that men who start out committing such offences often go onto more serious violence against women, up to and including murder, eh! We can get all outraged when such a murder occasionally makes the news (but not the average of 1 woman killed by a man every 3 days) and ask how this can possibly happen and what we might do and then, sighing, go back to doing the square root of fuck all.
Am I going mad or is Braverman's tent crusade simply terrible politics?
You are not the target audience
Yes I get that. But my question is: is the electorate at large the target audience? Because if so, I think the electorate at large won't like it very much at all.
No
The target audience is Tory members who will vote for the next leader.
Is it even that?
Maybe Suella is just trying to get sacked. If Rishi grins inanely at this proposal, she'll suggest compulsory slaughter of all firstborn, and none of that namby pamby blood the on the gatepost getout clause.
Not sure if it's been commented on, but Braverman's tweet included: We cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice. Many of then from abroad, indeed. That's a disgraceful, deliberate dog whistle to the far right. I don't imagine Braverman has any data at all to prove that many of the 'tent homeless' are from abroad. She's made it up.
Sunak should sack her. He won't, of course.
Many of them are - I know this because I have friends who have, and still do, volunteer for homeless charities, shelters, and street outreach, and I can assure you this is absolutely the case.
I suspect the fact it's Braverman saying it will simply blind you to any sensible engagement on this, but it shouldn't.
Rather than anecdote, do you have any actual data? Because anecdotally, where I live there's a lot of 'tent people' and they're all true-born Brits, including a fair number of ex-army PTSD folk.
So, like I said, if Braverman is correct I'd like to see some actual data rather than your anecdote.
I did a little volunteering for a homeless charity in London back in the early 90s, and the issues faced by the homeless were as varied as the people themselves. Yes, there were the usual drinks/drugs issues for some/many, but also histories of physical and/or sexual abuse, bad families, job losses, various addictions, financial issues, relationship breakdowns, bad luck, and sadly, stupidity. I wasn't a qualified counselor so could not give advice, but I did listen, and their stories varied from tragic to humorous. Some seemed to have escape routes (or claimed to) that they were too proud/ashamed to take. I've little doubt that some of the stories I were told were fiction, or sob stories; others seemed far too genuine.
It struck me (and still does) that homelessness is a massively complex issue, and one that probably needs interventions at an individual level to get anywhere near 'solving'. permanently for any individual.
But I am sure that taking away tents, if that is what is proposed, is a *really* bad and crass idea. That's not about helping the homeless; it's about hurting them.
I see similar working with the local food bank. In spite of the apparent safety net which the post war settlement was supposed to provide there are a horrible number of people falling through the gaps and ending up with absolutely nothing. Our whole social security system is failing because it is being used as a bribe for certain sections of society (which vary depending on which party you are talking about) rather than actualy working to help those in genuine dire need - and there are an increasing number of those year on year.
And Universal Credit is being used as a subsidy for those in full time work on low pay and facing high rents. Often working for the government and living in Council accommodation.
This is one of tghe reasons I think a proper minimum/living wage is such a good idea. Currently we have a stuation where employers can get away with paying people less than they can live on and expect the tax payer to make up the difference. It is effectively the tax payer subsiding company pay rolls.
Though its personal circumstances and welfare that are the issue, not companies.
A full-time childless couple on current minimum wage already isn't (AFAIK) entitled to any support.
A single parent working sixteen hours per week supporting multiple children is never going to earn enough on minimum wage to pay their bills.
So there will always need to be some sort of system to exist. That's why I prefer a negative income tax (aka UBI) with a flat rate then so we don't get cliff-edge skyscraper tax rates that discourage work.
To quote one of Smithson junior's excellent youtube presentations, what we actually need is a French system where having kids puts you at a financial advantage rather than ours where you are defintely at a disadvantage.
The evidence that financial factors incentivise child-rearing is mixed at best.
But even if it's true, we don't need yet more handouts. We need to let the private sector build enough decent quality family sized homes so the average family can afford one. That would do more to reduce the cost and stress of child rearing than any realistic amount of family allowances would.
Question is- how do we get the private sector to do that? As things stand, they can make more and more reliable profit by slowing building rates down at the first sniff of prices stalling, let alone falling. It's locally a rational equilibrium, for all that it's crazy for the nation. And I suspect the system will need a hefty kick to reach a more sensible space.
So another day goes by with lots of Jew hate on the streets of London and pb's most civically minded people are of course talking about..... Braverman and possible plans for the homeless. Perfectly noteworthy but your blindspot has been noted - again.
Not sure if it's been commented on, but Braverman's tweet included: We cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice. Many of then from abroad, indeed. That's a disgraceful, deliberate dog whistle to the far right. I don't imagine Braverman has any data at all to prove that many of the 'tent homeless' are from abroad. She's made it up.
Sunak should sack her. He won't, of course.
Many of them are - I know this because I have friends who have, and still do, volunteer for homeless charities, shelters, and street outreach, and I can assure you this is absolutely the case.
I suspect the fact it's Braverman saying it will simply blind you to any sensible engagement on this, but it shouldn't.
Rather than anecdote, do you have any actual data? Because anecdotally, where I live there's a lot of 'tent people' and they're all true-born Brits, including a fair number of ex-army PTSD folk.
So, like I said, if Braverman is correct I'd like to see some actual data rather than your anecdote.
I did a little volunteering for a homeless charity in London back in the early 90s, and the issues faced by the homeless were as varied as the people themselves. Yes, there were the usual drinks/drugs issues for some/many, but also histories of physical and/or sexual abuse, bad families, job losses, various addictions, financial issues, relationship breakdowns, bad luck, and sadly, stupidity. I wasn't a qualified counselor so could not give advice, but I did listen, and their stories varied from tragic to humorous. Some seemed to have escape routes (or claimed to) that they were too proud/ashamed to take. I've little doubt that some of the stories I were told were fiction, or sob stories; others seemed far too genuine.
It struck me (and still does) that homelessness is a massively complex issue, and one that probably needs interventions at an individual level to get anywhere near 'solving'. permanently for any individual.
But I am sure that taking away tents, if that is what is proposed, is a *really* bad and crass idea. That's not about helping the homeless; it's about hurting them.
I see similar working with the local food bank. In spite of the apparent safety net which the post war settlement was supposed to provide there are a horrible number of people falling through the gaps and ending up with absolutely nothing. Our whole social security system is failing because it is being used as a bribe for certain sections of society (which vary depending on which party you are talking about) rather than actualy working to help those in genuine dire need - and there are an increasing number of those year on year.
And Universal Credit is being used as a subsidy for those in full time work on low pay and facing high rents. Often working for the government and living in Council accommodation.
This is one of tghe reasons I think a proper minimum/living wage is such a good idea. Currently we have a stuation where employers can get away with paying people less than they can live on and expect the tax payer to make up the difference. It is effectively the tax payer subsiding company pay rolls.
Though its personal circumstances and welfare that are the issue, not companies.
A full-time childless couple on current minimum wage already isn't (AFAIK) entitled to any support.
A single parent working sixteen hours per week supporting multiple children is never going to earn enough on minimum wage to pay their bills.
So there will always need to be some sort of system to exist. That's why I prefer a negative income tax (aka UBI) with a flat rate then so we don't get cliff-edge skyscraper tax rates that discourage work.
Broadly true but a full-time working couple on minimum wage with two children and in rented accommodation do qualify for some UC. Which is pretty ridiculous - not that I doubt they need it, I just find it ridiculous they should need it.
The system is subsidising low paying companies.
I find that hard to believe, and just checked on entitledto.co.uk calculator with my postcode and with the rent we were paying last year, entering details for a childless couple working full time minimum wage with no other incomes or benefits and the calculator said the amount entitled to was £0.00 per week.
Full time (37.5 hours per week) minimum wage for 2 people is £390.75 per week per person before taxes, £781.50 per couple per fortnight. That is well above the UC threshold to be entitled to anything, even housing support, without children.
I don't know if the situation would be different in a different postcode as I know the system has different housing limits per household, but the limit here for a childless couple is £91.15 hour a 1 bedroom housing support here apparently, which is tapered away to nothing by £781.50 per fortnight.
I said "a full-time working couple on minimum wage with two children and in rented accommodation..."
Oh, yes they do.
Though that's because UC is a form of welfare to do with children primarily, and not because of wages or anything else. Its not an employers responsibility how many children their employees have.
As @Richard_Tyndall said, fixing how our tax system handles children (like the French have) would achieve far more and abolish much of the need for UC in this country.
Oooooh. I just did some knapping for many months, did the usual deals. But then today unexpectedly sold the design abroad in a very unusual place, not one I'd ever considered
£10k!
Is there anything in life more pleasing than a totally unexpected £10,000 landing in your account? Not sure there is
As Byron said, as you get older, and you can only drink so much superTuscan and your penis basically falls off, the only reliable vice is avarice
Am I going mad or is Braverman's tent crusade simply terrible politics?
You are not the target audience
Yes, the target audience is the Tory membership for when the next leadership election happens. They love the things Braverman is saying.
I’m not even sure that’s true. A lot of them are churchy harvest festival types. They might have some colourful views about Europe and foreigners and most from time to time about people on benefits, but I don’t think talking about criminalising homeless charities is necessarily going to get them cheering her to the rafters.
I don't agree. They believe that poor people are poor because they don't work hard enough. Homeless people are just lazy scroungers, and if you can add a foreigner element, all the better.
The Union Flag was taken down from the Cenotaph. Perhaps like the pictures of hostages it's seen as too provocative.
Only because all the flags are taken away this week every year to be cleaned before next week's ceremonies.
Mind you that's because I saw the Metropolitan Police tweet rather than the right wing muppet's post that got 400,000 views compare to the Met Police's 10,000 views.
Are you sure it's true?
Still sad that it's surrounded by fencing.
Yes because I'm not an idiot taken in by false news that happens to match my prejudices..
Is it prejudiced to think public monuments might be defaced? Or just common sense since it happens quite often.
The protesters are planning to avoid the Cenotaph by marching from Trafalgar Square to the US Embassy. They are also deliberately starting in the afternoon so as to not disturb any 1100 silence observances.
This is not an anti-British protest however much you want it to be for Culture War reasons.
LOL at your use of 'culture wars'. If you go on that march, remember that a large number of the people you are with, who you are chanting with, who you are encouraging, want the end of the state of Israel, and worse.
You are giving them your voice.
Hmm, this reads very much like the posts attacking @Cyclefree for her carefully considered views on women’s rights and trans rights a few months ago. At the time people criticised her for enabling and supporting far right anti-trans campaigners as she was a ‘fellow-traveler’.
The argument was wrong-headed then just as it is now. Anyone who goes on the march is responsible for their own views, not those around them.
No, it really doesn't. For one thing, Ms Free was not talking about going on a march with people who have those views.
What is this march for? Apparently, to call for a ceasefire and to stop the indiscriminate bombing of Gaza - according to the PSC tweet below. Not about (say) releasing all the hostages back to Israel, stopping rocket attacks on Israel, or indeed for general peace.
And why the US Embassy? Why not (as an example) the Egyptian one, for the Egyptian government also has rather a lot of power over the situation, especially wrt the crossing and aid getting in. It all feeds into Iran's Little and Great Satan rhetoric, doesn't it?
The whole thing stinks.
Well, ultimately if some people are too dim to understand the most basic principles of free speech, that's their problem, not anyone else's.
Free speech has limits, does it not?
As an eminent philosopher once said:
No no, no no no no, no no no no, no no there's no limit
But this view is not universal.
I thought he said “naughty naughty, very naughty”.
Italy looks to be embarking on an electoral reform that would make FPTP seem the pinnacle of proportionality.
The 🇮🇹 govt just approved an authoritarian constitutional reform that will introduce🧵
-DIRECT ELECTION OF THE PRIME MINISTER with a SINGLE ROUND SYSTEM -Put in the Constitution that any electoral law must give 55% OF SEATS to the most voted coalition/party, NO THRESHOLD
It makes me think about places with majority bonus systems, which always make me think they have missed the point of proportional representation and rather than changing system when they think it no longer works, adopt an approach which acknowledges that without seeming to admit it.
There are upsides and downsides to every electoral system, and I'd prefer some kind of proportional one but all systems have negatives, and adding in bolt ons to undermine the principal of the system seems strange.
So another day goes by with lots of Jew hate on the streets of London and pb's most civically minded people are of course talking about..... Braverman and possible plans for the homeless. Perfectly noteworthy but your blindspot has been noted - again.
We’ve been amply served with Israel-Palestine chat for weeks. I think we can afford a moment’s reflection on the performative malevolence of our Home Secretary.
NOT Israel/Palestine. Jew hatred in Britain. Which is actually a different matter although I would accept linked to affairs currently going on in the middle east. Britain's Jews feel bereft, abandoned and wondering whether central London is a safe space for them anymore. Most of you have spent recent weeks trying to avoid this entirely.
Which has also been discussed at length, including earlier in this thread. Nobody’s trying to avoid anything.
Amazingly, there is a Go Fund Me account set up to pay for a serious legal challenge to HMG's XL Bully legislation, and it has already made £60k, so they really are gonna try and scupper it
The government should tell these hell-hound loving imbeciles to go jump in a Hamas tunnel. Ban these fecking monsters, now
I'm slightly worried about how dog-obsessed people in this country seem to have become recently. In my street it used to be something like 33% dogs, 33% cats, 33% neither. Now it feels like it's 70% dogs, 10% cats, 20% neither.
Well, tortoises is illegal, so something has to be done to make up for that.
Yesterday we were all talking about cheerful stuff - specifically, 1990s music - and I posted a video of The Shamen's Ebeneezer Goode from, 1992.
And I noticed something rather cool: at approximately 21 seconds in, there's a character using what appears to be a Psion Series 3. OGH was a real trailblazer here - he used a Series 3 and then a Series 5, and hooked them up over IR to his phone so as to get email.
Here's to pioneering British tech company Psion, and it's founder David Potter. And what a shame that it never achieved its potential.
Reminds me of walking into an office some years ago and seeing two "tech bro's" attempting to touch the tip of their Palm Pilots together to make they sync. I said "This looks quite homoerotic."
I don't think they ever spoke to me again.
I always thought that Palm Pilot sounded like a euphemism for masturbator.
So those lads were attempting a bit of mutual palm piloting.
So another day goes by with lots of Jew hate on the streets of London and pb's most civically minded people are of course talking about..... Braverman and possible plans for the homeless. Perfectly noteworthy but your blindspot has been noted - again.
Nothing to see here . Braverman thinks it’s much more important to throw petrol onto the fire and no 10 want to now criminalize people for not agreeing with the government.
Am I going mad or is Braverman's tent crusade simply terrible politics?
You are not the target audience
Yes I get that. But my question is: is the electorate at large the target audience? Because if so, I think the electorate at large won't like it very much at all.
No
The target audience is Tory members who will vote for the next leader.
Is it even that?
Maybe Suella is just trying to get sacked. If Rishi grins inanely at this proposal, she'll suggest compulsory slaughter of all firstborn, and none of that namby pamby blood the on the gatepost getout clause.
What about age limits? I’m a first born.
So am I. But what we have to remember is that some of these firstborn are of foreign origin.
Italy looks to be embarking on an electoral reform that would make FPTP seem the pinnacle of proportionality.
The 🇮🇹 govt just approved an authoritarian constitutional reform that will introduce🧵
-DIRECT ELECTION OF THE PRIME MINISTER with a SINGLE ROUND SYSTEM -Put in the Constitution that any electoral law must give 55% OF SEATS to the most voted coalition/party, NO THRESHOLD
It makes me think about places with majority bonus systems, which always make me think they have missed the point of proportional representation and rather than changing system when they think it no longer works, adopt an approach which acknowledges that without seeming to admit it.
There are upsides and downsides to every electoral system, and I'd prefer some kind of proportional one but all systems have negatives, and adding in bolt ons to undermine the principal of the system seems strange.
Particularly this one. No threshold means you could be the largest party with say 21% of the vote and get 55% of seats. Way beyond even FPTP.
Why do we even allow civil judicial review of laws proposed and passed by a majority of MPs?
We are a democracy. If the democracy wills a law, through parliament, it should be enacted. I am tired of this endless endless process of delay, dither, review, revise, delay
It leads to so many bad outcomes for the UK, from national infra disasters like HS2 right down to our inability to deport foreign psycho-killers
If Starmer gets a big enough majority, perhaps he might do something about this. I I know it is monumentally unlikely - Starmer is a lawyer so he probably loves all this lawyering - but it is good to hope
Isn't it because one law may contradict another, so a judge needs to examine the alleged conflict and determine a way forward.
I get that. But the entire process seems, to my admittedly lazy and amateur eye, to have gone way beyond that, where almost any legislation can be semi-permanently paused or perverted by civil legal protestations
The country wants these dogs banned ASAP. Polls show overwhelming support. Two more people seriously injured in hospital today. JUST BAN THEM
I’m writing a header on this. We are a society that worships process. If this doesn’t work, we add more process. Even if the process is the problem.
The actual end is lost in the 500 pages reports that no one reads.
Yesterday we were all talking about cheerful stuff - specifically, 1990s music - and I posted a video of The Shamen's Ebeneezer Goode from, 1992.
And I noticed something rather cool: at approximately 21 seconds in, there's a character using what appears to be a Psion Series 3. OGH was a real trailblazer here - he used a Series 3 and then a Series 5, and hooked them up over IR to his phone so as to get email.
Here's to pioneering British tech company Psion, and it's founder David Potter. And what a shame that it never achieved its potential.
Reminds me of walking into an office some years ago and seeing two "tech bro's" attempting to touch the tip of their Palm Pilots together to make they sync. I said "This looks quite homoerotic."
I don't think they ever spoke to me again.
I always thought that Palm Pilot sounded like a euphemism for masturbator.
So those lads were attempting a bit of mutual palm piloting.
The Union Flag was taken down from the Cenotaph. Perhaps like the pictures of hostages it's seen as too provocative.
Only because all the flags are taken away this week every year to be cleaned before next week's ceremonies.
Mind you that's because I saw the Metropolitan Police tweet rather than the right wing muppet's post that got 400,000 views compare to the Met Police's 10,000 views.
Are you sure it's true?
Still sad that it's surrounded by fencing.
Yes because I'm not an idiot taken in by false news that happens to match my prejudices..
Is it prejudiced to think public monuments might be defaced? Or just common sense since it happens quite often.
The protesters are planning to avoid the Cenotaph by marching from Trafalgar Square to the US Embassy. They are also deliberately starting in the afternoon so as to not disturb any 1100 silence observances.
This is not an anti-British protest however much you want it to be for Culture War reasons.
It's interesting that they have decided to avoid the clash with the Remembrance Day service but let's not dignify the Palestine Solidarity Campaign. Please listen to Nick Ferrari's interview with director of PSC Ben Jamal, who is asked 5 times 'where are the Israelis meant to go?' and he completely avoids the question.
I don't know whether they have revised their views in light of the savagery that was to be exposed or if they refuse to believe such savagery took place.
There's a third option: they approve of the savagery.
I have been surprised and dismayed that that really does appear to be the case with a significant number of people and groups. I had naiively assumed that stance would at least be couched in less alarming ways, or disguised, but a surprising number (which is any number above zero) have been remarkably honest about it.
Italy looks to be embarking on an electoral reform that would make FPTP seem the pinnacle of proportionality.
The 🇮🇹 govt just approved an authoritarian constitutional reform that will introduce🧵
-DIRECT ELECTION OF THE PRIME MINISTER with a SINGLE ROUND SYSTEM -Put in the Constitution that any electoral law must give 55% OF SEATS to the most voted coalition/party, NO THRESHOLD
It makes me think about places with majority bonus systems, which always make me think they have missed the point of proportional representation and rather than changing system when they think it no longer works, adopt an approach which acknowledges that without seeming to admit it.
There are upsides and downsides to every electoral system, and I'd prefer some kind of proportional one but all systems have negatives, and adding in bolt ons to undermine the principal of the system seems strange.
Particularly this one. No threshold means you could be the largest party with say 21% of the vote and get 55% of seats. Way beyond even FPTP.
Call it Super FPTP, where an entire party wins everything even if they win by a single vote.
Comments
And yes, the lifestyle choice bit was the most ludicrous statement of all.
The whole thing doesn’t even succeed on its own terms, which were to garner populist votes. She doesn’t understand her electorate because she’s too trapped in her own very small bubble of fellow bigots.
Like Gandhi, murdered by one of his "own team".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Yitzhak_Rabin
Though there was a Sherlock Holmes story in which a seemingly respectable man was actually working as beggar:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_with_the_Twisted_Lip
All for an issue that barely registers in people's top concerns, and when it does is an example of Tory failure. Except now symbolically Braverman is now the Home Secretary who wanted to freeze the homeless. Utterly ludicrous on every level.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/04/plans-to-redefine-extremism-would-include-undermining-uk-values
The target audience is Tory members who will vote for the next leader.
But up here a two/three bed terrace is c £350 a month privately.
It is really cheap. You can pay less.
A one bed HA flat is c £600 a month with service charges.
Of course, a single person on minimum wage will get the difference back on UC. But wouldn't be eligible to have the extra bedroom/s.
So. One hand is subsidising the other.
Full time (37.5 hours per week) minimum wage for 2 people is £390.75 per week per person before taxes, £781.50 per couple per fortnight. That is well above the UC threshold to be entitled to anything, even housing support, without children.
I don't know if the situation would be different in a different postcode as I know the system has different housing limits per household, but the limit here for a childless couple is £91.15 hour a 1 bedroom housing support here apparently, which is tapered away to nothing by £781.50 per fortnight.
Hunt, Sunak, Braverman, Mick Lynch of RMT, the Wombles are some of this year's Enemies of Bonfire in Lewes.
Also. You're assuming rent.
Check out eligible service
charges components. They can be as much as the nominal rent, and are also covered separately.
Enough
I'll do the calculation and get back to you.
This suggestion comes from Seth J. Hill, a professor of political science at the University of California San Diego, who recently published a striking analysis of cities that raised their minimum wages between 2006 and 2019. He found that in these cities homelessness grew by double-digit percentage points. The effect was larger for cities with bigger minimum-wage increases, and it also appeared to get stronger over time."
source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/07/13/higher-minimum-wages-increase-homelessness/
The analysis is here: https://osf.io/z2fqj/
McArdle is tentative in her conclusion; as is the headline: "Higher minimum wages may increase homelessness". But it is something to think about.
(But it did occur to me, on reading the column that it is consistent with Roger Miller's hit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4c7D0YsgnrE )
The flip side to the cheap workers is things like seeing people who are old before their time, numbing pain from injuries and ill health.
It doesn’t take much of a stretch to see where that can end up.
https://x.com/PickardJE/status/1720915331957342659?s=20
"when @MichaelLCrick was today thrown off GB News for being too critical of GB News…during…a debate about freedom of speech"
https://x.com/MichaelLCrick/status/1720879963681775780?s=20
"I've just been expelled from GBNews studio after being invited there to criticise Brian Rose, 2021 London mayoral candidate, & then - when asked why I thought Ofcom should close GBNews down - I said because it's a right wing channel dominated by Tory & Brexit Party politicians"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-67320107
The Tories are not proposing that homeless people be brought into hostels.
The Tories are not proposing that homeless people be looked after by charities
The Tories are not interested in homeless people at all. They just think that their remaining voter base wants her to be a ban hammer word to people.
And I don't get it. Her remaining voter base are the kind of people who complain that any money going to any foreigners should be given to "homeless veterans". There are endless "info"graphics that do the rounds on social media making this point.
And here she is. Kicking our homeless veterans. And thus kicking the very people she wants to attract...
£10k!
Is there anything in life more pleasing than a totally unexpected £10,000 landing in your account? Not sure there is
As Byron said, as you get older, and you can only drink so much superTuscan and your penis basically falls off, the only reliable vice is avarice
Timely.
The government should tell these hell-hound loving imbeciles to go jump in a Hamas tunnel. Ban these fecking monsters, now
If mocking and undermining British institutions is itself a British institution...
40 year old single person, working 37.5 hours per week for National Minimum Wage, needing housing support, no children: Total entitlement £0.00
30 year old single person, working 32 hours per week for National Minimum Wage, needing housing support, no children: Total entitlement £0.00
40 year old single person, working 32 hours per week for National Minimum Wage, needing housing support, no children: Total entitlement £8.99 per week
This is in my own area, other people's areas may be different. Its based on a single person's 37.5 hour minimum wage salary with the following calculation: UC Standard Allowance and Housing Allowance = £763.72, Deductions due to earnings at minimum wage = £817.64, so net amount is £0.00
We are a democracy. If the democracy wills a law, through parliament, it should be enacted. I am tired of this endless endless process of delay, dither, review, revise, delay
It leads to so many bad outcomes for the UK, from national infra disasters like HS2 right down to our inability to deport foreign psycho-killers
If Starmer gets a big enough majority, perhaps he might do something about this. I I know it is monumentally unlikely - Starmer is a lawyer so he probably loves all this lawyering - but it is good to hope
What a horrible way to die for a jihadi, down in a pitch black tunnel chewed up by a massive Bully XL that's been starved and given ephedrine and vodka. lol
https://twitter.com/hurryupharry
This is a decent summary.
The country wants these dogs banned ASAP. Polls show overwhelming support. Two more people seriously injured in hospital today. JUST BAN THEM
Yet despite all that I do have sympathy that certain actors do very much try it on, engaging in lawfare to spuriously object to political outcomes they do not like.
And when it comes to big infrastructure decisions I think the balance has flipped too far in one direction. I cannot remember if it was part of the proposed Boris reforms, but more say for local matters and less say (and ability to repeatedly challenge - obviously some challenge is ok) for nationally significant stuff sounded reasonable.
If it helps, I've been there too, kinda
I have a few bank accounts, one of them is a tedious Halifax Building Society jobby and for some reason I had convinced myself I had 20k in some super boring savings account. I never touched it, nor checked it, was just vaguely aware it was there
Several months ago I went and actually checked. £10k not £20k. EEEEEK
The fault was all mine, no one ripped me off, but it felt like I'd been robbed of £10k, I was certainly £10k poorer than I thought. It stung
If its not your land, you shouldn't get a say on what others do with it, within the law.
Maybe Suella is just trying to get sacked. If Rishi grins inanely at this proposal, she'll suggest compulsory slaughter of all firstborn, and none of that namby pamby blood the on the gatepost getout clause.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Yitzhak_Rabin
BBC cover the bonfire procession, it appears that East Sussex Highways dept is also being burnt in effigy.
Full time teaching assistant. Doing an incredibly stressful job with SEN pupils. Abusive. Occasionally physically violent.
8:30 to 4:30. 15 minute break. 25 minutes for lunch unpaid. If nowt else is happening (which it rarely is).
Pro rata'd down to 32 hours a week because of Legislation about school holidays. So. No opportunity for overtime or extended hours at all.
Pay. £1500 a month gross.
£1290 a month net.
UC single person entitlement £368.74.
Housing (including eligible service charges) £600 pcm.
Deducted at 55 (!!) p in the pound.
Total entitlement c £970.
Deductions c £700.
Total UC around £270 pcm.
So. One arm of government is subsidising low pay and high rents.
Also you wouldn't want to miss or just graze an XL. Might annoy it.
But even if it's true, we don't need yet more handouts. We need to let the private sector build enough decent quality family sized homes so the average family can afford one. That would do more to reduce the cost and stress of child rearing than any realistic amount of family allowances would.
No no, no no no no, no no no no, no no there's no limit
But this view is not universal.
This is where the mismatch is.
The 🇮🇹 govt just approved an authoritarian constitutional reform that will introduce🧵
-DIRECT ELECTION OF THE PRIME MINISTER with a SINGLE ROUND SYSTEM
-Put in the Constitution that any electoral law must give 55% OF SEATS to the most voted coalition/party, NO THRESHOLD
https://x.com/classicalsocdem/status/1720895988162789468?s=46
Frankly, I'm not convinced we'll even get that minor concession!
https://english.alarabiya.net/News/world/2023/11/05/Hamburg-airport-closed-after-armed-person-drives-through-gate
Though that's because UC is a form of welfare to do with children primarily, and not because of wages or anything else. Its not an employers responsibility how many children their employees have.
As @Richard_Tyndall said, fixing how our tax system handles children (like the French have) would achieve far more and abolish much of the need for UC in this country.
It makes me think about places with majority bonus systems, which always make me think they have missed the point of proportional representation and rather than changing system when they think it no longer works, adopt an approach which acknowledges that without seeming to admit it.
There are upsides and downsides to every electoral system, and I'd prefer some kind of proportional one but all systems have negatives, and adding in bolt ons to undermine the principal of the system seems strange.
So those lads were attempting a bit of mutual palm piloting.
You post what you want to post; I'll post what I want to.
The actual end is lost in the 500 pages reports that no one reads.