70 years of the welfare state in education and NHS, and society still produces huge social problems of homelessness. It's almost as if the poor will always be with us, so why bother doing more than the bare minimum if some people will simply never ever help themselves?
Not sure what the welfare state in education and NHS is expected to do about lack of housing.
Good point - I really meant rough sleeping. The state should provide more housing for non-pathological social housing cases (though should no longer sell it at a discount).
Rough sleeping is noticeably worse in the past three years. Almost back to early 90s.
It's a Europe-wide phenomenon, though. France is worse. So the causes are not simply 'austerity', whatever that is.
I've been very resistant to the word ' austerity ' but I've started using it myself in the last six months. It's largely living in this part of Leaverstan where the ' public realm ' is simply collapse. Everything is dirty, broken, vandalised, closing and in disrepair. Public destitution and squalor is lapping at the shore. Meanwhile everyone is concreting their garden to park their brand new PCP funded tank-sized car.
Everything is dirty, broken, vandalised, closing and in disrepair.
Different places can have different situations and different people can have different experiences but I doubt many will say similar about their own locations.
Unless they're trying to make a political point.
Well I was making a political point. I was also describing what I see every day.
Yeah, that is no good if you are unemployable and been on £70 a week for 4 years (years before that as well). In this persons case a mandatory mental health check might help as the person does not understand they are mentally ill, however delicately you put it! The fact is promising money now does not reverse the absence of money for nearly a decade ...
And where does personal responsibility come into the equation? How does a person stay unemployable for 4 years?
You used to be a Tory member, right? Surely you can see that someone being on the dole for four years isn't good for them or the taxpayer.
Yes, I was a one nation tory, compasion as well as economic dynamism. That is why i suggest mandatory mental health checks and compulsary movement to the right benefits. At the moment the taxpayer is doing well as the type of individual i refer to is getting just £70 a week. What does this mean? No heating, no hot water and dependence on others for food. I mix with individuals who are being punished by the system for being mentally ill. It is not right, that is before we get into sanctioning and UC problems.
You ask how do they stay unemployed for 4 years? Mental health problems, inability to socialise/communicate or understand personal responsibility or aggresive or violent. Not the sort of person you want working for you!
One of the best ways to tackle mental health problems is to get a job, even a minimum wage one stacking shelves or washing dishes
Only a world-class imbecile would come out with a statement like that.
That comment by HYUFD is crass and ignorant.
As someone who has a member of their family suffering a serious mental health crisis with a form of PTSD it is ignorance of that form which is hard to reconcile with an intelligent or thoughtful response to a crisis in so many peoples lives
Hillary got 48% of the vote in 2016, 8% higher than Corbyn Labour got even in 2017, Trump still won
More Americans voted for Hillary than for the Racist-in-Chief.
Yet more states voted for Trump and that is key in the Electoral College FPTP system
FPTP would mean the candidate getting a plurality of the votes winning, ie Hillary Clinton.
Also you don't need to win "more states" in order to win in the electoral college.
Also everyone is aware that Trump won in the electoral college and is the US president
Apart from that a very useful comment.
No it wouldn't, what counts is winning a plurality in enough states to get you to 270 EC votes to win not in the national popular vote. Plus Churchill in 1951 won a majority under FPTP despite losing the national popular vote and Wilson won most seats in February 1974 despite losing the national popular vote.
Generally presidential election winners win most states e.g. Bush twice, Obama twice and Trump all won a majority of US states.
Apart from that a very useful comment
Churchill lost the 1951 election, of course!
Trump wasn't the only national popular vote loser to become US President:
In 1876, Rutherford Hayes got only 47.9% of the national vote, whereas Samuel Tilden actually won 50.9% of votes, an overall majority.
In 1888, Benjamin Harrison got only 47.8% of the national vote, whereas Grover Cleveland actually won 48.6% of the vote.
In 2000, of course, George W Bush got only 47.9% of the national vote, whereas Al Gore actually won 48.4% of the vote.
The fifth example was complicated by there being multiple candidates: In 1824, John Quincy Adams won only 30.9% of the national vote, whereas Andrew Jackson won 41.4% of the vote.
Rough sleeping is noticeably worse in the past three years. Almost back to early 90s.
It's a Europe-wide phenomenon, though. France is worse. So the causes are not simply 'austerity', whatever that is.
I've been very resistant to the word ' austerity ' but I've started using it myself in the last six months. It's largely living in this part of Leaverstan where the ' public realm ' is simply collapse. Everything is dirty, broken, vandalised, closing and in disrepair. Public destitution and squalor is lapping at the shore. Meanwhile everyone is concreting their garden to park their brand new PCP funded tank-sized car.
Everything is dirty, broken, vandalised, closing and in disrepair.
Different places can have different situations and different people can have different experiences but I doubt many will say similar about their own locations.
Unless they're trying to make a political point.
How many Leavers on here live in majority Leave areas?
Me. Very nice it is too. Though that has to do with it being a Leave area.
Rough sleeping is noticeably worse in the past three years. Almost back to early 90s.
It's a Europe-wide phenomenon, though. France is worse. So the causes are not simply 'austerity', whatever that is.
I've been very resistant to the word ' austerity ' but I've started using it myself in the last six months. It's largely living in this part of Leaverstan where the ' public realm ' is simply collapse. Everything is dirty, broken, vandalised, closing and in disrepair. Public destitution and squalor is lapping at the shore. Meanwhile everyone is concreting their garden to park their brand new PCP funded tank-sized car.
Everything is dirty, broken, vandalised, closing and in disrepair.
Different places can have different situations and different people can have different experiences but I doubt many will say similar about their own locations.
Unless they're trying to make a political point.
Well I was making a political point. I was also describing what I see every day.
But how much of that is what the average person would experience and how much is because of your own personal experiences ?
Comments
It is an ex-thread
Trump wasn't the only national popular vote loser to become US President:
In 1876, Rutherford Hayes got only 47.9% of the national vote, whereas Samuel Tilden actually won 50.9% of votes, an overall majority.
In 1888, Benjamin Harrison got only 47.8% of the national vote, whereas Grover Cleveland actually won 48.6% of the vote.
In 2000, of course, George W Bush got only 47.9% of the national vote, whereas Al Gore actually won 48.4% of the vote.
The fifth example was complicated by there being multiple candidates: In 1824, John Quincy Adams won only 30.9% of the national vote, whereas Andrew Jackson won 41.4% of the vote.