FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Profile Log in to check your private messages
The Leisure Hive Forum Index  Log in  Register
Question to Professor
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
 
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    The Leisure Hive Forum Index -> Current Affairs, History & Politics
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
B3



Joined: 09 May 2007
Posts: 9458

PostPosted: Mon Nov 08, 2010 2:49 pm    Post subject: Question to Professor Reply with quote

Do you support the coalition's policies which are predicted to cause enforced mass migration?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/nov/08/housing-benefit-north-south-divide
_________________
Die zarte, aber helle Differenz
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
Professor



Joined: 15 Apr 2009
Posts: 1948

PostPosted: Mon Nov 08, 2010 5:35 pm    Post subject: Re: Question to Professor Reply with quote

B3 wrote:
Do you support the coalition's policies which are predicted to cause enforced mass migration?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/nov/08/housing-benefit-north-south-divide


Firstly, the enforced mass migration is a load of bollocks. Just because it's in the Guardian doesn't mean it's not utter shit stirring crap.

Secondly, the rent is too damned high, yes it is, because the government are paying whatever these landlords want to charge. Prices will only come down and London only become livable in again once demand for housing falls. It's currently the first or second most expensive city in the world to live in.

Thirdly, they are reducing housing benefit to £20/24,000 a year maximum, or something like that. Who in God's name needs more than £24,000 a year to rent? And who on earth is claiming more than that at the moment? That's £2k a month! So I think this will hardly hit the people who are actually claiming sensible benefits. People in London earning £30k a year can't pay that much on rent. The fact that you will still be able to claim housing benefit up to nearly £1.5k a month means I'm pretty sure people won't be too badly off.

Fourthly, Labour set housing benefit up so that if someone was on benefit, and then moved to another house, they automatically receive benefit for that house at the new rent rate as opposed to being reassessed. What this ed to in practice was people starting out paying £100 a month, then moving into somewhere that cost £1000 a month and automatically getting their benefits upgraded by £900 a month. Practically anyone who could read the small print in the benefit deals was taking the government for a ride. If they can move into such expensive places, they can quite easily move back out. I know Rob and others have stated how they were trapped by the system, and I have all sympathy, but the fact that they didn't play it doesn't mean there aren't those who do play it and rake in thousands.

Fifthly, yes.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
Professor



Joined: 15 Apr 2009
Posts: 1948

PostPosted: Mon Nov 08, 2010 5:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In addition, the housing benefit scam is so well known and so widespread that practically a quarter of the country's houses are now buy to let, which was basically a license to print money.

As a result, there's an artificial housing boom with no new first time buyers. Leading to a housing shortage, and therefore ever higher prices while the young lose all hope of ever owning a home.

The knock on consequences of the idiotic housing benefit system we have at the moment are so far reaching and so catastrophic, that I can't believe anyone would even try to defend them. And all because of one stupid clause that someone did not think through and the failure to cap the sodding thing.

That's all this change is, putting a cap on the damn thing. And a bloody high/generous one it is too. Yes some people may have to move out of homes they should never have moved into. If the figures are as high as the Guardian says, what? 600,000? That's 600,000 people who were basically conning the country out of thousands of pounds to live in places they should never have received housing benefit for in the first place.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
RobFilth



Joined: 08 May 2007
Posts: 9013
Location: Rallying against Rani's Repetitive Rhubarb and Rubbish.

PostPosted: Mon Nov 08, 2010 5:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Professor wrote:
That's all this change is, putting a cap on the damn thing. And a bloody high/generous one it is too. Yes some people may have to move out of homes they should never have moved into. If the figures are as high as the Guardian says, what? 600,000? That's 600,000 people who were basically conning the country out of thousands of pounds to live in places they should never have received housing benefit for in the first place.

600,000 corrupt and greedy landlords and 600,000 innocent homeless families.
_________________


Rallying against Rani's Repetitive Rhubarb and Rubbish.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
Professor



Joined: 15 Apr 2009
Posts: 1948

PostPosted: Mon Nov 08, 2010 6:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RobFilth wrote:
Professor wrote:
That's all this change is, putting a cap on the damn thing. And a bloody high/generous one it is too. Yes some people may have to move out of homes they should never have moved into. If the figures are as high as the Guardian says, what? 600,000? That's 600,000 people who were basically conning the country out of thousands of pounds to live in places they should never have received housing benefit for in the first place.

600,000 corrupt and greedy landlords and 600,000 innocent homeless families.


Nonsense. Like I said, the cap is roughly £1,500 per month!

Even the greediest landlord that you actually live under is not gonna put the rent up that much. You have to choose to move into a house that charges that much per month.

In which case, I would not describe such people as innocent, and I certainly would not describe them as homeless, just because they have to move out of one of the most expensive areas on the planet. They are living on welfare. Yes they deserve a decent place, but not somewhere worth £1,500 a month that people earning £30/40,000 a year could not afford. And certainly the Government should refuse to pay such exorbitant rents. There are plenty of perfectly good places for £200/300 a month. So what if they aren't in central London. The individual on benefits does not have the right to choose hideously expensive accommodation until they can afford to pay for it themselves. You all believe in Socialism so much, go to North Korea where people are allocated the place where they get to live, with no choice at all, and they are genuinely happy for the privilege of being housed by the state.

We don't do that, we simply say that you live according to the economic ability of the state to provide for you. As much as you might like, the state does not have the cash to give 600,000 people more than £2k a month for their rent. It's perfectly reasonable to ask them to live within the means of the state or support themselves.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
Snodgrass



Joined: 18 Apr 2010
Posts: 191

PostPosted: Mon Nov 08, 2010 6:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Professor thinks that he won't be the one who suffers under this Coalition of Pure and Continued Evil.

Also, I've found a brown shirt, a silver shirt, a gold shirt, a green shirt, a blue shirt and a black shirt, as well as signed photos of William Joyce, Julius Evola, Ernst Junger, Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, and, finally Margaret Thatcher.

I think they might belong to Professor.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
Professor



Joined: 15 Apr 2009
Posts: 1948

PostPosted: Mon Nov 08, 2010 6:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Snodgrass wrote:
Professor thinks that he won't be the one who suffers under this Coalition of Pure and Continued Evil.

Also, I've found a brown shirt, a silver shirt, a gold shirt, a green shirt, a blue shirt and a black shirt, as well as signed photos of William Joyce, Julius Evola, Ernst Junger, Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, and, finally Margaret Thatcher.

I think they might belong to Professor.


Nope, I will once the VAT goes up. Two people in my department were recently let go. I still have yet to get a full time contract, and am perfectly aware that I might come out with a Masters and still go straight back on the dole.

I'm perfectly aware of the suffering. What I am also aware of though is that in both economic and real terms, the state is too big. I am happy to deal with any economic problems that gives me, because I am one individual compared to the economic health of the country. We'd all be screwed if Britain went the way of Iceland, Ireland or Greece. Therefore I will take whatever comes my way and deal with it.

Isn't that what Britain is renowned for? The Blitz spirit? Putting up and making do? In real terms the spending is only being cut back to 2007 levels and the spending is being redirected, away from waste, to where it can do most good. (Generally, I'm still against Trident, EU funding etc). And yet everyone is behaving like it's the apocalypse. Crying that people on welfare benefit have a right to sit in a £500,000 house on taxpayers money. For heaven's sake, it's hardly unfair to home them somewhere affordable.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
Snodgrass



Joined: 18 Apr 2010
Posts: 191

PostPosted: Mon Nov 08, 2010 6:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Professor wrote:
Snodgrass wrote:
Professor thinks that he won't be the one who suffers under this Coalition of Pure and Continued Evil.

Also, I've found a brown shirt, a silver shirt, a gold shirt, a green shirt, a blue shirt and a black shirt, as well as signed photos of William Joyce, Julius Evola, Ernst Junger, Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, and, finally Margaret Thatcher.

I think they might belong to Professor.


Nope, I will once the VAT goes up. Two people in my department were recently let go. I still have yet to get a full time contract, and am perfectly aware that I might come out with a Masters and still go straight back on the dole.

I'm perfectly aware of the suffering. What I am also aware of though is that in both economic and real terms, the state is too big. I am happy to deal with any economic problems that gives me, because I am one individual compared to the economic health of the country. We'd all be screwed if Britain went the way of Iceland, Ireland or Greece. Therefore I will take whatever comes my way and deal with it.

Isn't that what Britain is renowned for? The Blitz spirit? Putting up and making do? In real terms the spending is only being cut back to 2007 levels and the spending is being redirected, away from waste, to where it can do most good. (Generally, I'm still against Trident, EU funding etc). And yet everyone is behaving like it's the apocalypse. Crying that people on welfare benefit have a right to sit in a £500,000 house on taxpayers money. For heaven's sake, it's hardly unfair to home them somewhere affordable.


NO,NO,NO!

FOIGHT,FOIGHT,FOIGHT!

BURN TEH TORIES!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
War Arrow



Joined: 28 May 2010
Posts: 550
Location: UK

PostPosted: Mon Nov 08, 2010 10:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Professor wrote:
RobFilth wrote:
Professor wrote:
That's all this change is, putting a cap on the damn thing. And a bloody high/generous one it is too. Yes some people may have to move out of homes they should never have moved into. If the figures are as high as the Guardian says, what? 600,000? That's 600,000 people who were basically conning the country out of thousands of pounds to live in places they should never have received housing benefit for in the first place.

600,000 corrupt and greedy landlords and 600,000 innocent homeless families.


Nonsense. Like I said, the cap is roughly £1,500 per month!

Even the greediest landlord that you actually live under is not gonna put the rent up that much. You have to choose to move into a house that charges that much per month.

In which case, I would not describe such people as innocent, and I certainly would not describe them as homeless, just because they have to move out of one of the most expensive areas on the planet. They are living on welfare. Yes they deserve a decent place, but not somewhere worth £1,500 a month that people earning £30/40,000 a year could not afford. And certainly the Government should refuse to pay such exorbitant rents. There are plenty of perfectly good places for £200/300 a month. So what if they aren't in central London. The individual on benefits does not have the right to choose hideously expensive accommodation until they can afford to pay for it themselves. You all believe in Socialism so much, go to North Korea where people are allocated the place where they get to live, with no choice at all, and they are genuinely happy for the privilege of being housed by the state.

We don't do that, we simply say that you live according to the economic ability of the state to provide for you. As much as you might like, the state does not have the cash to give 600,000 people more than £2k a month for their rent. It's perfectly reasonable to ask them to live within the means of the state or support themselves.


Er... not taking issue with anything else you've said, and forgive me if I've missed some qualifying point here, but I can assure you that unless you're on a council list (average waiting time now 12 years in Southwark as was) there really isn't anywhere for £300 to £400 a month in London (central or otherwise) unless you mean a room in a shared house. I moved just over a year ago. I had moved five times in the same number of years owing to numerous annoying circumstances including ridiculous rent increases. The last place I lived was a small studio flat, barely big enough for one, for £750 a month, and that was the cheapest I could find. And this was in Peckham.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Author Message
_Liam_
Site Admin


Joined: 03 May 2007
Posts: 3854

PostPosted: Mon Nov 08, 2010 10:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

My flat is a 2 bedroom in North London & it's £1200 a month
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
Mistress Rani



Joined: 11 May 2007
Posts: 8621
Location: UK

PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 12:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Professor wrote:
Snodgrass wrote:
Professor thinks that he won't be the one who suffers under this Coalition of Pure and Continued Evil.

Also, I've found a brown shirt, a silver shirt, a gold shirt, a green shirt, a blue shirt and a black shirt, as well as signed photos of William Joyce, Julius Evola, Ernst Junger, Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, and, finally Margaret Thatcher.

I think they might belong to Professor.


Nope, I will once the VAT goes up. Two people in my department were recently let go. I still have yet to get a full time contract, and am perfectly aware that I might come out with a Masters and still go straight back on the dole.

I'm perfectly aware of the suffering. What I am also aware of though is that in both economic and real terms, the state is too big. I am happy to deal with any economic problems that gives me, because I am one individual compared to the economic health of the country. We'd all be screwed if Britain went the way of Iceland, Ireland or Greece.
Our situation is not the same as Greece, Ireland or Iceland. Don't you people read? Just another of Gideon's lies like "we were on the brink of bankruptcy.
_________________
"I'll be surprised if there's as much as 3 million of the audience left by the time Moffatt finally gets to take over" RobFilth 3/6/08

"I expect the BBC will quietly let Tennant go at the end of this year...." RobFilth 9/6/08
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
RobFilth



Joined: 08 May 2007
Posts: 9013
Location: Rallying against Rani's Repetitive Rhubarb and Rubbish.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 12:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mistress Rani wrote:
Our situation is not the same as Greece, Ireland or Iceland. Don't you people read? Just another of Gideon's lies like "we were on the brink of bankruptcy.

Indeed, in real terms we were in a hell of a lot more debt after the second world war than presently, the economy was absolutely decimated by the costs of rebuilding the country and the costs incurred by the war.

But we could still afford the decency to set up a NHS system, social security system and free further education.

It's got fuck all to do with patriotism and more to do with not scapegoating sections of society because the richest of the country will not pull their fucking weight and take responsibility.
_________________


Rallying against Rani's Repetitive Rhubarb and Rubbish.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
Chancellor Valium



Joined: 10 May 2007
Posts: 3213
Location: Behind the First Mystery which is the Last Mystery which is the twenty-fourth mystery and Great Amen

PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 12:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Moreover, we could make up the required amount without cuts at all if we... oh, I don't know... chased up Vodafone for the tax they owe, instead of employing their apparatchiks as Government advisors.
_________________
"My fellow Americans: As a young boy, I dreamed of being a baseball. But tonight I say to you: We must move forward, not backward! Upward, not forward! And always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom!"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Author Message
xM002x
Guest





PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 12:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

RobFilth wrote:
Mistress Rani wrote:
Our situation is not the same as Greece, Ireland or Iceland. Don't you people read? Just another of Gideon's lies like "we were on the brink of bankruptcy.

Indeed, in real terms we were in a hell of a lot more debt after the second world war than presently, the economy was absolutely decimated by the costs of rebuilding the country and the costs incurred by the war.

But we could still afford the decency to set up a NHS system, social security system and free further education.

It's got fuck all to do with patriotism and more to do with not scapegoating sections of society because the richest of the country will not pull their fucking weight and take responsibility.


To be fair, I believe that was funded by America. See The Marshall Plan.

But, I agree in the broad sense that the only way out of recession is through government spending. Not laying people off! Confused
Back to top
Author Message
Ludders



Joined: 26 Jul 2009
Posts: 2646

PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 12:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Chancellor Valium wrote:
Moreover, we could make up the required amount without cuts at all if we... oh, I don't know... chased up Vodafone for the tax they owe, instead of employing their apparatchiks as Government advisors.


Quite so.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    The Leisure Hive Forum Index -> Current Affairs, History & Politics All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

© 2007-2008 Informe.com. Get Free Forum Hosting
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
 :: 
BBTech Template by © 2003-04 MDesign