The Politics Thread

[thebish]

2) Offer of Council Housing

isn't there a 90year waiting list? I hope you're not suggesting they be allowed to jump the queue?

No not suggesting that at all. They can join the waiting list.

and while they wait - there's a patch of land by Worthy's house - just roll the rocks away!

all seems to be sorted!

[TANGODANCER]

2) Offer of Council Housing

isn't there a 90year waiting list? I hope you're not suggesting they be allowed to jump the queue?

No not suggesting that at all. They can join the waiting list.

and while they wait - there's a patch of land by Worthy's house - just roll the rocks away!all seems to be sorted!

Quick cue for a burst of Mott The Hoople.

[Prufrock]

It's not quite as simple as that though, plenty of people I don't want to live near, such as DMBs, who are a public nuisance, or folk with teenagers who have fooking karaoke parties on a weekday in their garden when I'm up at 5 the next day.

Not sure giving a choice is entirely right.

I do sympathise with the problem like, it's hard to know what to do about it, without being seen to persecute a minority. I do agree though that many travellers break the law with regards to tax, education of their children and more minor things such as littering and general noise and nuisance. Those things should be examined IMO.

The ones that don't and there are some, should be free to live their lifestyle of choice within reason, and yes it will still inconvenience some people but we probably have to put up with that as long as they are living on the right side of the law!

Good to see the Planet Bollocks view, entering the world of reasoned debate.

You have the ability to look around the area you're choosing to live in. You could check whether Lilo Lil, living 2 doors down from your selected abode has 15 teenage kids and if the noise is unwarranted and constant get the Council involved. DMB's are a different problem and should be dealt with by separate legislation.

Either way, totally different than the Council saying "We've allocated this plot of land behind where you live, for the use of the teenage karaoke kids, hope you don't mind, but we're doing it anyhow".

You mean like if they decided they were going to build an estate of low-cost housing near nice middle class areas, which they do, and people protest, but often they are built?

No problem with travellers having to pay their way, no problem with making sure their kids are educated properly. The thing is, with so many people, it goes beyond that. There are a group near me, and I think they're a set of cnuts because they have built on green-belt land, and are now applying for retrospective planning permission. In my view that is a load of piss. It's their land, and it hasn't 'cost' anyone else anything, but they have clearly (IMO) flouted the intention of planning laws. However, many people also pissed of at this lot (can't on the legal objection, but publicly) spout on about house prices and the like. Tough, I'm afraid. Working on the assumption all pikeys are theiving shitehawks. This lot, as it happens, I'm told by people who have met them, are very agreeable in person, kids well behaved, they're just piss artists on planning.

[Worthy4England]

It's not quite as simple as that though, plenty of people I don't want to live near, such as DMBs, who are a public nuisance, or folk with teenagers who have fooking karaoke parties on a weekday in their garden when I'm up at 5 the next day.

Not sure giving a choice is entirely right.

I do sympathise with the problem like, it's hard to know what to do about it, without being seen to persecute a minority. I do agree though that many travellers break the law with regards to tax, education of their children and more minor things such as littering and general noise and nuisance. Those things should be examined IMO.

The ones that don't and there are some, should be free to live their lifestyle of choice within reason, and yes it will still inconvenience some people but we probably have to put up with that as long as they are living on the right side of the law!

Good to see the Planet Bollocks view, entering the world of reasoned debate.

You have the ability to look around the area you're choosing to live in. You could check whether Lilo Lil, living 2 doors down from your selected abode has 15 teenage kids and if the noise is unwarranted and constant get the Council involved. DMB's are a different problem and should be dealt with by separate legislation.

Either way, totally different than the Council saying "We've allocated this plot of land behind where you live, for the use of the teenage karaoke kids, hope you don't mind, but we're doing it anyhow".

You mean like if they decided they were going to build an estate of low-cost housing near nice middle class areas, which they do, and people protest, but often they are built?

I meant that, what I suggested (or what you suggested) is different from BWFCI's " [People] I don't want to live near, such as DMBs, who are a public nuisance, or folk with teenagers who have fooking karaoke parties on a weekday in their garden when I'm up at 5 the next day."

I wouldn't disagree that it's somewhat similar to building housing near "nice middle class areas". I would contend, that proportionally, the distribution/mix of people in low cost housing is likely to be different than the distribution from re-housing a load of pikeys. Who in general distribution terms, will resemble a load of pikeys. We wouldn't want to encourage or be accused of a ghetto mentality now would we?

Most of the "experiments" with mixing up Council Housing with other "nice middle class" areas, have been laughable. Low(er) cost housing might be different, but I'm not holding my breath.

[Prufrock]

It's all coming down to sterotyping though isn't it? Why are a set of 'pikeys' more or less likely to be a nuisance than a set of folk buying low cost housing. I choose low cost housing because there is a correlation between theft and anti social behaviour (the sort of nuisance people often complain about regarding 'pikeys') and poverty. My answer is it depends on the people. Some poor people commit crime, some don't. No-one, Hoboh, perhaps, aside, has yet suggested banning poor people. Some travellers commit crime, some don't. The ones near me have been no trouble at all in that sense. Similar, anecdotal, evidence suggests where sites are specifically set up for them, there is less anti-social behaviour, and fewer problems.

[Worthy4England]

No, it's not coming down to stereotyping. I didn't mention crime (in fact I don't think I've mentioned it all thread (but would stand to be corrected) you did.

What I said was low-cost housing is probably more likely to get a wider distribution of the population from different backgrounds trying to get on the property ladder (you did say "low cost" as opposed to "council housing" didn't you?). Moving one load of pikeys attracts one social grouping - one load of pikeys. Which does nothing for their future prospects of integrating into society. It keeps them separate. If they want separation shunt 'em up to the Outer Hebrides or sommat. Strikes me they just want everything they want. Separate from wider society, but near enough to take the benefit of wider society when it suits them, and we're all supposed to bang the same drum?

[thebish]

It keeps them separate. If they want separation shunt 'em up to the Outer Hebrides or sommat.

that's nowhere near Wales!!

[Prufrock]

No, it's not coming down to stereotyping. I didn't mention crime (in fact I don't think I've mentioned it all thread (but would stand to be corrected) you did.

What I said was low-cost housing is probably more likely to get a wider distribution of the population from different backgrounds trying to get on the property ladder (you did say "low cost" as opposed to "council housing" didn't you?). Moving one load of pikeys attracts one social grouping - one load of pikeys. Which does nothing for their future prospects of integrating into society. It keeps them separate. If they want separation shunt 'em up to the Outer Hebrides or sommat. Strikes me they just want everything they want. Separate from wider society, but near enough to take the benefit of wider society when it suits them, and we're all supposed to bang the same drum?

You didn't mention theft, but you did mention not sending their kids to school, you mentioned having to clean up their shit (implying presumably littering if nothing else) and you implied tax avoidance, all crime, and the latter two the sort of anti-social petty crime that all travellers often get tarred with. There is nothing to suggest everybody who wants to live a travelling lifestyle is guilty of any or all of these.

[Worthy4England]

No, it's not coming down to stereotyping. I didn't mention crime (in fact I don't think I've mentioned it all thread (but would stand to be corrected) you did.

What I said was low-cost housing is probably more likely to get a wider distribution of the population from different backgrounds trying to get on the property ladder (you did say "low cost" as opposed to "council housing" didn't you?). Moving one load of pikeys attracts one social grouping - one load of pikeys. Which does nothing for their future prospects of integrating into society. It keeps them separate. If they want separation shunt 'em up to the Outer Hebrides or sommat. Strikes me they just want everything they want. Separate from wider society, but near enough to take the benefit of wider society when it suits them, and we're all supposed to bang the same drum?

You didn't mention theft, but you did mention not sending their kids to school, you mentioned having to clean up their shit (implying presumably littering if nothing else) and you implied tax avoidance, all crime, and the latter two the sort of anti-social petty crime that all travellers often get tarred with. There is nothing to suggest everybody who wants to live a travelling lifestyle is guilty of any or all of these.

If they don't want to play our game, why should we bend to play theirs?

If they're worried about getting stereotyped, they should find different company to keep.

[Worthy4England]

It keeps them separate. If they want separation shunt 'em up to the Outer Hebrides or sommat.

that's nowhere near Wales!!

Or Chad.

I'm giving them plenty of options here. Should be no problem for them to accept one of them.

[Prufrock]

No, it's not coming down to stereotyping. I didn't mention crime (in fact I don't think I've mentioned it all thread (but would stand to be corrected) you did.

What I said was low-cost housing is probably more likely to get a wider distribution of the population from different backgrounds trying to get on the property ladder (you did say "low cost" as opposed to "council housing" didn't you?). Moving one load of pikeys attracts one social grouping - one load of pikeys. Which does nothing for their future prospects of integrating into society. It keeps them separate. If they want separation shunt 'em up to the Outer Hebrides or sommat. Strikes me they just want everything they want. Separate from wider society, but near enough to take the benefit of wider society when it suits them, and we're all supposed to bang the same drum?

You didn't mention theft, but you did mention not sending their kids to school, you mentioned having to clean up their shit (implying presumably littering if nothing else) and you implied tax avoidance, all crime, and the latter two the sort of anti-social petty crime that all travellers often get tarred with. There is nothing to suggest everybody who wants to live a travelling lifestyle is guilty of any or all of these.

If they don't want to play our game, why should we bend to play theirs?

If they're worried about getting stereotyped, they should find different company to keep.

Because not everyone has to play the same game. We aren't talking the taxes game, or the abiding by the law game, no-body, I think, has said they should be exempt from that, so why do they have to define their lives by 'our' game. Who is even 'us'?

[Prufrock]

It keeps them separate. If they want separation shunt 'em up to the Outer Hebrides or sommat.

that's nowhere near Wales!!

Or Chad.

I'm giving them plenty of options here. Should be no problem for them to accept one of them.

Pretty sure Wales is covered by this

[Harry Genshaw]

Moving away from the traveller debate.

Does anyone anywhere think Ed Milliband is up to the job?

Being left of centre I'd like to see Labour being led by somebody half decent. This guy just strikes me as a typical 21st century manufactured politician. He seems to be a master at pre rehearsed- stick to the script- bollox and yet devoid of any real substance. Can't see him being any threat to the Tories

[thebish]

Moving away from the traveller debate.

Does anyone anywhere think Ed Milliband is up to the job?

Being left of centre I'd like to see Labour being led by somebody half decent. This guy just strikes me as a typical 21st century manufactured politician. He seems to be a master at pre rehearsed- stick to the script- bollox and yet devoid of any real substance. Can't see him being any threat to the Tories

no - he's not - but nor is his Mr Bean brother... the labour party has purged itself of anyone worth leading it...

[BWFC_Insane]

Moving away from the traveller debate.

Does anyone anywhere think Ed Milliband is up to the job?

Being left of centre I'd like to see Labour being led by somebody half decent. This guy just strikes me as a typical 21st century manufactured politician. He seems to be a master at pre rehearsed- stick to the script- bollox and yet devoid of any real substance. Can't see him being any threat to the Tories

Disagree, I think he has decent ideas and principles.

But is totally unelectable for most of the population because he has a funny voice, doesn't come across as forceful, and doesn't have the 'polish' and 'poise' required. He's the Kinnock of the 20 teens if you ask me! Too easy to ridicule as a personality and sadly that will be what counts.

[thebish]

Moving away from the traveller debate.

Does anyone anywhere think Ed Milliband is up to the job?

Being left of centre I'd like to see Labour being led by somebody half decent. This guy just strikes me as a typical 21st century manufactured politician. He seems to be a master at pre rehearsed- stick to the script- bollox and yet devoid of any real substance. Can't see him being any threat to the Tories

Disagree, I think he has decent ideas and principles.

such as?

[thebish]

If they don't want to play our game, why should we bend to play theirs?

If they're worried about getting stereotyped, they should find different company to keep.

Worthy!!! they have been TRYING to keep company with YOU for a while - they even moved close by - but you spurn their advances

[BWFC_Insane]

Moving away from the traveller debate.

Does anyone anywhere think Ed Milliband is up to the job?

Being left of centre I'd like to see Labour being led by somebody half decent. This guy just strikes me as a typical 21st century manufactured politician. He seems to be a master at pre rehearsed- stick to the script- bollox and yet devoid of any real substance. Can't see him being any threat to the Tories

Disagree, I think he has decent ideas and principles.

such as?

Yeah my wording hasn't helped me here. All I mean is when I listen to what he says, I often find myself agreeing in a broad sense.

Obviously there isn't the chance to examine details yet, but then it's early days.

I like his ideas about rewarding 'responsible' business and distinguishing between producers and predators. And yes it's wooly, completely unclear and almost certainly unworkable. But as a principle, I agree and it's fairly obvious what's trying to do in creating a fairer society where there is a tangible reward for those individuals and businesses who give back that bit extra.

I agree with the proposed changes to tuition fees in the broadest of senses again without knowing the full implications yet.

But it's early in the term, its right that he is laying out broad ideas and themes, in my eyes at least.

But as I say, he's not a snowball in hells chance of ever being elected. I can just see the headlines on Sky and the front pages of the tabloids come campaign time. He'd be massacred. In the age of TV personality politics he was always a terrible, terrible choice!

[thebish]

Moving away from the traveller debate.

Does anyone anywhere think Ed Milliband is up to the job?

Being left of centre I'd like to see Labour being led by somebody half decent. This guy just strikes me as a typical 21st century manufactured politician. He seems to be a master at pre rehearsed- stick to the script- bollox and yet devoid of any real substance. Can't see him being any threat to the Tories

Disagree, I think he has decent ideas and principles.

such as?

Yeah my wording hasn't helped me here. All I mean is when I listen to what he says, I often find myself agreeing in a broad sense.

Obviously there isn't the chance to examine details yet, but then it's early days.

I like his ideas about rewarding 'responsible' business and distinguishing between producers and predators. And yes it's wooly, completely unclear and almost certainly unworkable. But as a principle, I agree and it's fairly obvious what's trying to do in creating a fairer society where there is a tangible reward for those individuals and businesses who give back that bit extra.

but - if it is (as you say) completely unworkable - then it DOESN'T create a fairer society, does it? It remains just vacuous, empty soundbites...

the other day he trollied on about "telephone-number salaries" - when asked if this included (for example) Bob Crowe - he totally blanked the question and answered a different one - then he said that there was basically nothing wrong with huge salaries as long as they were deserved. could he give an example of someone who didn't deserve their huge salary? NO. empty words that mean nothing.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Moving away from the traveller debate.

Does anyone anywhere think Ed Milliband is up to the job?

Being left of centre I'd like to see Labour being led by somebody half decent. This guy just strikes me as a typical 21st century manufactured politician. He seems to be a master at pre rehearsed- stick to the script- bollox and yet devoid of any real substance. Can't see him being any threat to the Tories

no - he's not - but nor is his Mr Bean brother... the labour party has purged itself of anyone worth leading it...

Who are these people, out of interest?

Labour politicians I've respected in the last ten years:

Tony Blair
David Miliband
Charles Clarke

Really struggling for names now...