The Good News thread, local jobs, economy etc

[Guest MattP]

Plan? We needed them 4 years ago and we need them now.  Whether the freedom of movement laws ever change who knows, if they are how long will it take, more social housing is desperately needed, you're blind.  Benefit tourism has already been proven to be a myth.

 

But again, how can you plan to house a number of people when you don't even know what that number is? You don't just say 'build' and hope it will be ok, you have to make a judgement and at the minute we are in no position to be able to do that, the Tories said they would get net migration below 100,000 a year and have failed on that (and will continue to do so until you regain complete control of the borders). That's a city the size of Leeds we are having to take on virtually every year, if you think this is financiallty sustainable then it's not me who is blind.

 

And where are you getting the money from for this seeming as you don't seem to want to freeze or cut anything?

[purpleronnie]

But again, how can you plan to house a number of people when you don't even know what that number is? You don't just say 'build' and hope it will be ok, you have to make a judgement and at the minute we are in no position to be able to do that, the Tories said they would get net migration below 100,000 a year and have failed on that (and will continue to do so until you regain complete control of the borders). That's a city the size of Leeds we are having to take on virtually every year, if you think this is financiallty sustainable then it's not me who is blind.

 

And where are you getting the money from for this seeming as you don't seem to want to freeze or cut anything?

 You seem to think only immigrants need social housing.  Whether there is a reduced amount of immigration or not in the future, social housing is still desperately needed now.

 

I never say we didn't need to freeze or cut anything don't put words in my mouth.  If you honestly think they are cutting the benefits from those who need it he most so they can build social housing then your deluded.  Maybe if they didn't continue to sell off Social housing without replacing them we wouldn't be so desperate for them.

 

And BTW matt I'm not just blaming Tories here, labour failed to build enough social housing too. Tories have already stated they want to build more social housing so it's not like they have dismissed it like you seem to have it's just not happend as quickly as it should.

Edited 1 October 2014 by purpleronnie

[Guest MattP]

 You seem to think only immigrants need social housing.  Whether there is a reduced amount of immigration or not in the future, social housing is still desperately needed now.

 

I never say we didn't need to freeze or cut anything don't put words in my mouth.  If you honestly think they are cutting the benefits from those who need it he most so they can build social housing then your deluded.  Maybe if they didn't continue to sell off Social housing without replacing them we wouldn't be so desperate for them.

 

And BTW matt I'm not just blaming Tories here, labour failed to build enough social housing too. Tories have already stated they want to build more social housing so it's not like they have dismissed it like you seem to have it's just not happend as quickly as it should.

 

I don't at all, everyone needs social housing but when we are in a situation where we can't control our own population it would be fiscal madness to just start building. I thought you wanted us to become more like Europe anyway? You should be after less social housing or purchases and farmore people renting.

 

It's nothing to do with delusion at all, it's recognising where we are finincially and realising we have to sort it out, you keep moaning about cuts to welfare, public services, selling public housing etc without offering up alternatives, no one wants to cut anything but we aren't in a position anymore to keep spending on everything. Our debt is about £1.400 billion and we are still paying people of working age to sit in the pub all week, it's fcuking madness. 

 

Why not offer up some solutions to pay for the things you want to keep? Where are you going to raise the money to keep raise benefits and build loads of new houses? Again, I'm all ears.

 

You are certainly right about Labour though, and even worse, they had the money to actually do it. They just preferred to hand out bribes to everyone from people on welfare to families on 50k a year to vote for them instead.

Edited 1 October 2014 by MattP

[MooseBreath]

We definitely need more houses but not social housing specifically. In fact it annoys me that we'd prioritise building welfare homes instead of homes for ordinary hard working people. Thankfully developers know which side their bread is buttered and will keep social housing to a minimum.

[Harry - LCFC]

Outstanding speech from Cameron here at his conference, had he promised a few of these things he might not have lost a lot of his core support to UKIP.

 

Promises for 2015.

 

Scrapping the Human Rights act

Tax rate for starting payment goes from 10.5 to 12.5k.

Upping of 40% tax rate to only people earning 50k+

100,000 new homes to be bult that landlords cannot buy.

Renegotiation in Europe must include an end to the freedom to movement agreement.

English votes for English laws.

Ending of zero hour contracts.

 

Nice to see him speak passionately about the NHS as well, he should make more of the fact of how much he used it with his dying son and how the snipes from Labour over it are becoming personal.

 

I didn't like the removal of the tax on pension money passed on after death (essentially an inheritance tax, right?)

 

55% may have been too high anyway but I don't think it's right that a person's child receives as much of their money as they do. They should have to go out and earn it. It strikes me a bit of a gift to rich people, giving their offspring a big advantage over everyone else and helping to entrench people into different classes. Through this policy you're rewarded for who gave birth to you rather than what you do in life.

 

Other than that I liked most of what Cameron said. I thought Miliband's speech was disappointing. Outlined a vision (of sorts) using a lot of buzzwords and clichés but without a good explanation about how we were going to get there.

[NewburyFox]

I didn't like the removal of the tax on pension money passed on after death (essentially an inheritance tax, right?)

 

55% may have been too high anyway but I don't think it's right that a person's child receives as much of their money as they do. They should have to go out and earn it. It strikes me a bit of a gift to rich people, giving their offspring a big advantage over everyone else and helping to entrench people into different classes. Through this policy you're rewarded for who gave birth to you rather than what you do in life.

 

Other than that I liked most of what Cameron said. I thought Miliband's speech was disappointing. Outlined a vision (of sorts) using a lot of buzzwords and clichés but without a good explanation about how we were going to get there.

 

On the other side of your coin, how is it fair that a man can work his entire life to support his family when he's gone, only for over half of it to be taxed? It's their money, they should have the right to decide where the majority of it is going. Some inheritance tax is needed I agree, but 55% is absurd and unfair on the deceased.

Edited 2 October 2014 by Jonaldinho

[David Guiza]

Don't agree with the planned overhall of the ECHR to allow for more control on who creates the law. Whilst it sounds great on paper - it will essentially remove fundamental freedoms and rights and leave Cameron with even more of an elective dictatorship than he already controls. Tory MP Nicky Morgan claims "people get very frustrated with Human Rights", do they? That's probably because the only time the majority of people hear about them is when some cretin shares a right wing news post on Facebook about how a muslim has escaped prison because of his Human Rights.
Having studied both EU and Human Rights Law (it is as sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll as it sounds), It is clear that at times that on paper the ECHR do have a little too much power, but the vast majority of the time they won't commit themselves further than a slapped wrist - for example on their recomendation towards banning whole life sentences which we have refused to follow.

Edited 3 October 2014 by David Guiza

[purpleronnie]

The tories want to end 2 of the great freedoms, human rights and freedom of movement, amazing people vote for them.

[Guest MattP]

Don't agree with the planned overhall of the ECHR to allow for more control on who creates the law. Whilst it sounds great on paper - it will essentially remove fundamental freedoms and rights and leave Cameron with even more of an elective dictatorship than he already controls. Tory MP Nicky Morgan claims "people get very frustrated with Human Rights", do they? That's probably because the only time the majority of people hear about them is when some cretin shares a right wing news post on Facebook about how a muslim has escaped prison because of his Human Rights.

Having studied both EU and Human Rights Law (it is as sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll as it sounds), It is clear that at times that on paper the ECHR do have a little too much power, but the vast majority of the time they won't commit themselves further than a slapped wrist - for example on their recomendation towards banning whole life sentences which we have refused to follow.

Originally I supported the EHRA but I find it impossible to do so now as at it's frankly obscene that judges some of whom have never been to Britain can overrule our own courts, its outdated and it's clear people have had enough. I find it sad some people think we are incapable of upholding human rights without being tied to an organisations version of it that's riddled with corruption and greed. We're the nation who signed the Magna Carta. We should have much more pride in our achievements and confidence in our abilities.

Plus people should always be suspicious of legislation that makes lawyers rich off the public purse. You should never be a judge in your own case.

Edited 3 October 2014 by MattP

[Guest MattP]

The tories want to end 2 of the great freedoms, human rights and freedom of movement, amazing people vote for them.

I'm not sure if you're trolling or deliberately being obtuse these days. Either way your points are getting more and more ridiculous and you're a volunteering role away from being Rincewind.

[purpleronnie]

I'm not sure if you're trolling or deliberately being obtuse these days. Either way your points are getting more and more ridiculous and you're a volunteering role away from being Rincewind.

So you say...keep voting for the people who wish to take rights away from people.

[Guest MattP]

So you say...keep voting for the people who wish to take rights away from people.

Reform a rights act to allow our own judges to act on behalf of the British people and restrict the movement of unskilled migration to a countries whose job market at the lower paid end is becoming too saturated.

But you make ridiculous exaggerations to bash the Tories if it makes you feel better.

It's incredible you can call yourself a patriot or a socialist with the things you disagree with, you have no confidence in the nations ability and want to keep the working poor more downtrodden than any Tory could dream of.

[purpleronnie]

Reform a rights act to allow our own judges to act on behalf of the British people and restrict the movement of unskilled migration to a countries whose job market at the lower paid end is becoming too saturated.

 

Yep end freedom of movement, just like I said.

 

 

It's incredible you can call yourself a patriot or a socialist with the things you disagree with, you have no confidence in the nations ability and want to keep the working poor more downtrodden than any Tory could dream of.          

Sorry but I gotta   at that one.

[Guest MattP]

You do realise freedom of movement only applies to Europe?

[purpleronnie]

You do realise freedom of movement only applies to Europe?

yep.

[Guest MattP]

And how difficult did you find it before the freedom of movement agreement?

[purpleronnie]

And how difficult did you find it before the freedom of movement agreement?

I didn't its something I believe in. 

[Guest MattP]

Just for Europe or Worldwide?

[purpleronnie]

Just for Europe or Worldwide?

Are you asking me if I think we should have worldwide freedom of movement?  If so then the answer would be yes. I believe in the liberty of man, I'm not blind to the problems this can create and I'm not naive enough to think that true freedom would ever happen, but that won't stop me believing in the principle of it.

[David Guiza]

Originally I supported the EHRA but I find it impossible to do so now as at it's frankly obscene that judges some of whom have never been to Britain can overrule our own courts, its outdated and it's clear people have had enough. I find it sad some people think we are incapable of upholding human rights without being tied to an organisations version of it that's riddled with corruption and greed. We're the nation who signed the Magna Carta. We should have much more pride in our achievements and confidence in our abilities.

Plus people should always be suspicious of legislation that makes lawyers rich off the public purse. You should never be a judge in your own case.

I agree that some judges have attempted to exceed their powers when making decisions on member states, but even the court themselves have called for reform. Judges making/attempt to make law is something that is also widespread in the UK too. Of course the UK is capable of upholding Human Rights - but there's been many an example when it hasn't.

 

Protecting a child being beaten by their stepfather: A. v UK

Protecting siblings from sexual abuse: Z v. the UK

Stopping a man being prosecuted for having gay sex: B.B. v. the UK

Protecting the freedom of the press: Sunday Times v. the UK

Giving a woman the right to marry: Christine Goodwin v UK

 

As I said in my previous post, I feel that it gives far too much power to Cameron. Yes he's elected, but a democratic state still requires the elected body to be challenged IMO.

Edited 3 October 2014 by David Guiza

[Rincewind]

The tories want to end 2 of the great freedoms, human rights and freedom of movement, amazing people vote for them.

Is it a coincidence that this is after that the UK are being investigated by a EU Commission for disability rights?

 

Edited 3 October 2014 by Rincewind

[Webbo]

The European commission is not the same as the European court so it is totally unrelated.

 

 

The fact is unelected, activist judges have abused the Human Rights law to inflict their politics upon us. There is no need to give prisoners the vote to ensure free and fair elections. Having an on-off girlfriend shouldn't constitute a family life and therefore stop us from deporting foreign criminals. These are things that can and should be decided by our elected representatives.

 

The replacement bill of rights will be based on the European human rights bill so it won't change anything except our govt will the final say Instead of foreign judges.

[Guest MattP]

Are you asking me if I think we should have worldwide freedom of movement?  If so then the answer would be yes. I believe in the liberty of man, I'm not blind to the problems this can create and I'm not naive enough to think that true freedom would ever happen, but that won't stop me believing in the principle of it.

 

Good for you, it's always important to have principles even you know the end consequence would be a disaster.

 

I agree that some judges have attempted to exceed their powers when making decisions on member states, but even the court themselves have called for reform. Judges making/attempt to make law is something that is also widespread in the UK too. Of course the UK is capable of upholding Human Rights - but there's been many an example when it hasn't.

 

As I said in my previous post, I feel that it gives far too much power to Cameron. Yes he's elected, but a democratic state still requires the elected body to be challenged IMO.

 

I'd rather give an elected PM like Cameron 100 times more power than a unelected judge that has absolutely nothing to do with us. I really can't get my head around why anyone would want to a see an accountable democratic state should be challenged by an undemoractic body that's is answerable to no one in terms of an electorate?

 

The British people have overwhelmingley voted time and time again that they don't want to have convicted murderers from other nations being allowed free entry to the country, that they don't want prisoners being given the right to vote or that we should have to keep people who aren't born here and preach nothing but hate on each streets that results in innocent people losing their lives.

 

Why on earth is a unelected unaccountable Romanian judge allowed to sit in Strasbourg and not only tell us that we are wrong but actually want to overrule our own elected parliament? It's shocking and the sooner it's done away with the sooner the whole wider corrupt European project can dissolve and the people of Southern Europe can start recovering from the poverty they have been subject to by their masters.

 

Is it a coincidence that this is after that the UK are being investigated by a EU Commission for disability rights?

 

 

Absolutely nailed it again Ken, spot on.

 

The Conservatives were a completely unified party of Europhiles before a Hungarian blogger posted on a Slovenia website that he had heard a rumour the UK was going to be investigated, soon as Cameron heard about it he decided we must tear up the constitutions we are in and pull up the drawbridges.

 

Well now you've put all those things in the shape of a heart I take it all back,what's not to love about it though? For a start how about the offences committed by people who were radicalised by extremists that we wanted to kick out of the country but couldn't due to these warped judges?

 

Do people really think we are going to lose all those things because we tear up the HRA? Go and read some history about your country and it's values, we have led the World in things like this, just 50 years ago Krushchev and Kennedy sat down at a table to stop a nuclear war and they wouldn't go ahead with it until the British has joined them at that table as well, the respect and trust we have earnt for our record in human rights, negotiations and transparency on the World stage is outstanding and to think some people now think we need Latvian and Bulgarian judges to rule over us on issues like this I find a little degrading.

 

You get the feeling a lot of the younger generation are being hoodwinked by the political elite into thinking we were an incapable nation before the rise of the European Union. We weren't.

[purpleronnie]

Good for you, it's always important to have principles even you know the end consequence would be a disaster.

 

 

I'd rather give an elected PM like Cameron 100 times more power than a unelected judge that has absolutely nothing to do with us. I really can't get my head around why anyone would want to a see an accountable democratic state should be challenged by an undemoractic body that's is answerable to no one in terms of an electorate?

 

The British people have overwhelmingley voted time and time again that they don't want to have convicted murderers from other nations being allowed free entry to the country, that they don't want prisoners being given the right to vote or that we should have to keep people who aren't born here and preach nothing but hate on each streets that results in innocent people losing their lives.

 

Why on earth is a unelected unaccountable Romanian judge allowed to sit in Strasbourg and not only tell us that we are wrong but actually want to overrule our own elected parliament? It's shocking and the sooner it's done away with the sooner the whole wider corrupt European project can dissolve and the people of Southern Europe can start recovering from the poverty they have been subject to by their masters.

 

 

Absolutely nailed it again Ken, spot on.

 

The Conservatives were a completely unified party of Europhiles before a Hungarian blogger posted on a Slovenia website that he had heard a rumour the UK was going to be investigated, soon as Cameron heard about it he decided we must tear up the constitutions we are in and pull up the drawbridges.

 

Well now you've put all those things in the shape of a heart I take it all back,what's not to love about it though? For a start how about the offences committed by people who were radicalised by extremists that we wanted to kick out of the country but couldn't due to these warped judges?

 

Do people really think we are going to lose all those things because we tear up the HRA? Go and read some history about your country and it's values, we have led the World in things like this, just 50 years ago Krushchev and Kennedy sat down at a table to stop a nuclear war and they wouldn't go ahead with it until the British has joined them at that table as well, the respect and trust we have earnt for our record in human rights, negotiations and transparency on the World stage is outstanding and to think some people now think we need Latvian and Bulgarian judges to rule over us on issues like this I find a little degrading.

 

You get the feeling a lot of the younger generation are being hoodwinked by the political elite into thinking we were an incapable nation before the rise of the European Union. We weren't.

 

Politicians who set themselves above the law should be just as worrying to you Matt.

[Guest MattP]

Politicians who set themselves above the law should be just as worrying to you Matt.

Err? Not really following what that has to do with this.