Homelesness - How much worse does it have to get?

[JohnW]

......................Someone is sure to post about the note New Labour left when leaving office saying there's nothing left in the kitty.
IT WAS BANKERS bow that money and the government who had to bale them out to save the country.

Yup - spot on John.

[Freddie]

Is this a thread to consider what should be done about the homelessness problem or just another bash the Tories thread? I am no big fan of the current lot, but if you consider New Labour as Tories (I consider the current Tories more an extension of New Labour), then I suppose the Three-Day Week followed by the Winter of Discontent, amongst other things, that led to the persistent election of Tories (in your view) since, was a good thing?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Day_Week
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_of_Discontent

Surely, thirdcrank's post at the top of the page bears some fruit. I would imagine that many, perhaps even most, long term homeless have mental health and substance abuse problems that makes them less than ideal tenants. Which is presuming they all want to remain housed. If any one of us tomorrow were booted from our home, I imagine there would be at least one person we knew who would offer to put us up for a month or even more, until we could get back on our feet. That people have to take to the streets perhaps speaks to the unfortunate circumstances they are in; maybe they have nobody to call on or maybe they have burnt their bridges already?

Could massive immigration since 1997 on a scale never seen before have something to do with a shortage of houses and work. Didn't an extra 4 million people enter the country under New Labour?

The link below from the Telegraph (from 2011) says that since 1997: 3 in 4 new jobs went to migrant workers, a third of future extra households will be due to immigration, half a million extra foreign-born children arrived at a primary school.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... abour.html

These people all need to be housed, schooled, employed, administered medical care and so on.

More housing could be built, but we will never return to the situation that many of the posters here remember - leave home the moment they turned 17, get a job immediately, if they didn't like it 'chuck it in' and get one the same day at the other end of the street.

The problem of homelessness is a multifaceted one. I believe many persistent homeless likely have problems which need significant in-patient attention, probably over a period of years, to make them fully functioning members of society again. This in facilities that largely no longer exist.

The Portuguese man who unfortunately died in Westminster tube and was on the verge of being canonised, until details of his particular problems came to light, seems to somewhat prove my point.

[reohn2]

Is this a thread to consider what should be done about the homelessness problem or just another bash the Tories thread? I am no big fan of the current lot, but if you consider New Labour as Tories (I consider the current Tories more an extension of New Labour), then I suppose the Three-Day Week followed by the Winter of Discontent, amongst other things, that led to the persistent election of Tories (in your view) since, was a good thing?

Only if you think this is as good as it gets
As for it being "just another bash at the Tories" yes it is a bash at them because homelesness is continuing to rise under the Tory's governance.
The three day working week and the winter of discontent are history.
And whilst I have to agree they were under a Labour government,do you really think that scenario is likely to happen again because of a Labour or government?
IMO its more likely to happen or something worse under an incompetent Tory government.

Let's deal with the present day problems and sorry decline of public services facing the country brought on us by the last seven years of a Tory government.

Surely, thirdcrank's post at the top of the page bears some fruit. I would imagine that many, perhaps even most, long term homeless have mental health and substance abuse problems that makes them less than ideal tenants. Which is presuming they all want to remain housed. If any one of us tomorrow were booted from our home, I imagine there would be at least one person we knew who would offer to put us up for a month or even more, until we could get back on our feet. That people have to take to the streets perhaps speaks to the unfortunate circumstances they are in; maybe they have nobody to call on or maybe they have burnt their bridges already?

So they're all drug addicts,alcoholics,or anti social nutters,is that your defence of a government who doesn't provide the social housing and services for such individuals?
Could it not be that such people are so beaten up by the system that they turn to cheap cider and even cheaper mind altering drugs because they've become homeless and have abandoned hope of returning to a normal life ?

Could massive immigration since 1997 on a scale never seen before have something to do with a shortage of houses and work. Didn't an extra 4 million people enter the country under New Labour?

The link below from the Telegraph (from 2011) says that since 1997: 3 in 4 new jobs went to migrant workers, a third of future extra households will be due to immigration, half a million extra foreign-born children arrived at a primary school.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... abour.html

These people all need to be housed, schooled, employed, administered medical care and so on.

More housing could be built, but we will never return to the situation that many of the posters here remember - leave home the moment they turned 17, get a job immediately, if they didn't like it 'chuck it in' and get one the same day at the other end of the street.

The problem of homelessness is a multifaceted one. I believe many persistent homeless likely have problems which need significant in-patient attention, probably over a period of years, to make them fully functioning members of society again. This in facilities that largely no longer exist.

Could it be that immigrants come to the UK for work?
Could it be that according to current figures the country is almost fully employed and because of that if we sent all the immigrants home there'd be a huge shortfall in Labour not to mention the NHS which relies heavily on immigration?
Could it be that successive governments since 1979 haven't provided for the increase in population due to immigration and it is now coming to a head?
Could it be that the bankers stole the wealth of the country with their unlawful shady dealings and subsequent financial collapse that left us broke?
Could it be the unbridled capitalism has fed that system of government and the perpetrators are the ones who reap the benefits of it?

The Portuguese man who unfortunately died in Westminster tube and was on the verge of being canonised, until details of his particular problems came to light, seems to somewhat prove my point.

It doesn't prove any point other than a known paedophile was deported,returned to the UK illegally and lived and died on a London street and wasn't recognised for who was due to faults in a broken system of policing,social care and border controls.
Brexit or no Brexit it will be just as easy to enter the UK illegally as it's always been and just as easy to obtain cheap mind altering drugs and gutrot cider to dull the pain of street life due to this government's inaction .
IMO that chap should have been asked by police where he was from and if his passport(which he would've had to carry),finger prints or photo showed him to be a deportee,should have been on the next flight to Portugal and handed over to their authorities.
However with such an under funded police force the Met probably wouldn't have the manpower to deal with such a minor issue,as a result we have a dead person on our hands.
He won't be the last.

An alternative view,yours no doubt varies.

[thirdcrank]

I've found this analysis of some of the issues involved in rough sleeping. As I tried to get across with my reference to the Vagrancy Act, it's nothing new, but there is the suggestion that it's increasing. Some of any apparent increase may result from different ways of counting or greater concern about it, but I had a rather superficial look to see what might have changed and I see that "risk factors" include

family conflict and/or relationship breakdown between partners

While that presumably includes parents telling adolescent offspring to sling their 'ook, recent years have seen increased powers for the courts to exclude violent partners - generally men - from the family home and growing pressure to use those powers. Now, especially at a time of austerity, there's not much help available for those seen as unworthy of it. It's rare that anything like this is clear cut and things like alcohol and gambling must often be in there as well, but they aren't new.

https://england.shelter.org.uk/__data/a ... g_2006.pdf

[Freddie]

The three day working week and the winter of discontent are history.
And whilst I have to agree they were under a Labour government,do you really think that scenario is likely to happen again because of a Labour or government?
IMO its more likely to happen or something worse under an incompetent Tory government.

It is history, but a history that may repeat itself if Corbyn or old Labour return to power. Like I said, no great love for the current lot, but a return to old Labour would more likely be a return to the same mess that old Labour presided over in 1979, than if the Tories run the show. Tory mess is not the same as old Labour mess.

Let's deal with the present day problems and sorry decline of public services facing the country brought on us by the last seven years of a Tory government.

Was it 'brought to us' by them though? Much of their policies have been a response to the financial collapse of 2008, the recession from which we are still not fully free from. The government from 1997 to 2010 was a Labour government. I know you say they were no true Labour government, but I say the current Tory government are no true Tory government (more like New Labour 2.0). I doubt we will fully convince one another to not refer to either of these governments as being absolutely nothing to do with their namesakes.

So they're all drug addicts,alcoholics,or anti social nutters,is that your defence of a government who doesn't provide the social housing and services for such individuals?

I would say that those who remain long term homeless, in that they are living on the streets for a protracted length of time, likely have issues that prevent them from immediately becoming settled in a home, even if it was given to them. Look at the travelling community, do you think they would stop travelling just because they were given homes to live in? Some do, but most do not. It is a way of life for them. In a similar way, I think living on the streets can become a way of life for some people that they then struggle to become housed again because they find the restrictions on them difficult or living in close quarters with other people becomes too much of a strain on them and/or others around them.

I am not making a moral judgement on the homeless. I m just recognising the fact that integrating such people fully into society isn't as easy as giving them a roof over their head and food in their belly. If it was as simple as that, then why wouldn't more people invite the homeless into their homes to stay with them and recuperate, so that they may become healthy and productive members of society once more. I think the legitimate fear of people having issues beyond not having a home is what stops many good Samaritans from doing just that.

Could it not be that such people are so beaten up by the system that they turn to cheap cider and even cheaper mind altering drugs because they've become homeless and have abandoned hope of returning to a normal life ?

Is it only the system that beats people up? Don't families, especially from the underclass (which I imagine makes up the bulk of long term homeless people), often have rather difficult relationships with one another. Could it not be something in the past and/or present of the homeless (the company they keep/their family) that cause and perhaps continue their problems?

I think in the normal run of things it takes a lot to become long term homeless. There are many confounding factors at play, but I don't think lacking a roof over your head leads to the majority of long term rough sleeping. It is probably problems with ones family, behavioural problems, alcohol and other drug abuse (to numb the pain) which leads to a position of long term homelessness. How the government, in its modern form, can correct for these things before someone who is homeless comes to their attention, I don't know.

However, I don't think it is as simple as build homes and they will be filled with no further difficulty. The problem is much more complex.

Could it be that immigrants come to the UK for work,could it be that according to current figures the country is almost fully employed and because of that if we sent all the immigrants home there'd be a huge shortfall in Labour not to mention the NHS which relies heavily on immigration?

They come to the UK for work. Is there no work in the countries or have they come to improve their lot. They wouldn't come if it was not advantageous to them. Is it possible that British natives are missing out (on housing, jobs and so on) due to excessive immigration. We used to train almost all our own doctors and nurses, why can't we do that again? How many mistakes are made by NHS staff not being able to speak English to a native level? I can see no situation in which it is preferable to bring doctors from abroad, especially from countries where the standards are rather lower, than it is to train native Britons.

Could it be that successive governments since 1979 haven't provided for the increase in population due to immigration and it is now come to a head?

Perhaps, but could it also be that under Tony Blair's Labour government net immigration went from something like 50,000 or thereabouts per annum to well in excess of 400,000 per annum. Could it be this was a deliberate plan to have a block voting group (immigrants rarely vote Conservative, less so if a Labour government allowed them entry) and 'rub the Right's nose in diversity':

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... viser.html

Could it be that the bankers stole the wealth of the country with their unlawful shady dealings and subsequent financial collapse that left us broke?

Yes, but the boom and bust happened under Labour. There was little ringfencing of the banking system then to stop the economy being negatively affected by risky investment banking:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... ingfencing

Could it be the unbridled capitalism has fed that system of government and the perpetrators are the ones who reap the benefits of it?

But it is not unbridled. The banks were bailed out with public money. If it was unbridled capitalism, then the banks would have to fail, much as they did in Iceland. We do not live in a system of unbridled capitalism or the banks would not have been 'too big to fail' and subsequently bailed out with taxpayer money.

IMO that chap should have been asked by police where he was from and if his passport(which he would've had to carry)or his finger prints showed him to be a deportee,should have been on the next flight to Portugal and handed over to their authorities.

...and met with the howls of a thousand immigrant rights groups. What makes you think many on the left share your sentiments about strong policing and border controls? Many believe that borders are just imaginary lines and that countries belong to no one in particular.

Look at the outcry about stop and search. Although the Met figures show that a minority population was committing 50% of the knife crime, they have been accused of being racist for taking these figures into account in their policing. The same concern doesn't seem to hold with regards to targeting men, rather than men and women equally. That doesn't seem to be deemed sexist.

'About 95% of knife crime offenders are male, 60% are under 25 and 59% are from black and ethnic minority backgrounds.'

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... police-say

However with such an under funded police force the Met probably wouldn't have the manpower to deal with such a minor issue,as a result we have a dead person on our hands,he won't be the last.

The scale of violent crime in London has risen dramatically in the past 50 years. Too few bobbies walk the beat. You cannot unburgle or unstab someone. Crime is best prevented before it happens. However there are many groups who would rather stifle policing and they are almost universally of the left. You will not get much dissent from the right about unencumbered policing.

We could argue about funding, but I would argue that spending time policing whether people say unpleasant things to one another on Twitter and whether those unpleasant things were motivated by some kind of hatred, is time the police could better put to walking the beat and preventing crimes occurring.

Perhaps it is not a case of more funding, but better allocation of available funds. Wasn't throwing money at the problem part of the reason why Tories came to power in 1979 in the first place? (re: Winter of Discontent)

[ThePinkOne]

It will continue to get worse until a dose of Common Sense breaks out. The difficulty at the moment seems to be that we keep looking backwards when we assess "which bunch would do what." But the world- and UK- s a very different place from 1979. There's a big element of truth in that neither the current Labour or Conservative parties are much like the parties were before 1979. Indeed, many of the european-leaning "social conservative" Tories of those days would (on the basis of basic policies) fit rather well in the current labour party- and not to the extreme right of it either!

What I suggest it comes down to, is that it's the underpinning philosophy which needs challenging. The worship of the "free market"- which in fact is anything but free- has brought some improvements in living standards- but it also has a big dark side of croney capitalism, environmental damage and society damage. That dark side now threatens the whole edifice of our society, unless we can get it under control.

Thing is, unmitigated capitalism is fundamentally a psychopathic concept. The primary duty on Directors is to make money for shareholders; there is no acknowledgement by the corporation of the state subsidy it gets through having a society with policing, laws, courts, educated workers and so on, and no sense of duty (conscience) toward society as a whole. Yet those same companies rely on that whole society structure to survive. Just look at how companies get upset when their properties get ransacked in riots, or who few corporations set up in jurisdictions where property "rights" are not enforced in a court! Also, the idea that companies- particularly the larger ones in more than one country- will always comply with stuff like standards and safety law if cutting corners earns them more with no adverse consequences is I'm afraid rather naive.

Historically, there were balancing factors to this. Taxation better reclaimed the cost of those subsidies to companies for policing, transport infrastructure, education etc. Regulation was more robustly enforced, so as there were real consequences to poor behaviour; so behaviour overall improved, and by levelling the playing field, the better more ethical organisations were not losing out to those who had no values in practice.

Whereas since 1979, and in particular the past 10 years, the steady destruction of regulatory systems (financial, housing, buildings, tax, safety, environmental health, trading standards etc) has rendered many laws which protect us much less effective- they may as well not exist if they are not enforced!. Similarly, private sector "natural monopolies" in practice are very difficult to regulate; there are limits on the sanctions that can be taken without hurting the end-user.

The reason "public sector" (of an apporpriate pattern) ownership can (all other things being equal for example capability of management) work better for some things is simply because it's about the only way to consistently get a balance for everyone where there is a natural monopoly. Other things can operate quite well in the private sector so long as they have robust controls to set basic standards of decency- for example, rent controls and robust enforcement of minimum standards for rented buildings would go a long way, as would a regime that saw houses as places to live (not to provide rents to someone) and put an "incentive" regime in accordingly.

There is also a role for that big bogeyman, "central planning." There is no doubt in some places there are real stresses on our services due to immigration particularly in the south east; but that is not because immigration is "bad" as such, it is because no-one bothered using a bit of common sense to figure out that if you move a bunch of people into an area, you will somehow need to provide the infrastructure to support that.

There are other questions too: like, what are our expectations these days? When I was little, my mam only took us to the doctor if we were really ill; yet these days, the NHS seems to be a universal crutch for a lack of a family matriarch to ask for advice from. Do we really need to be told what to do so much....? Or is it we just have no-where else left to ask?

As to where I am going with all this. The basic underpinning philosophy and expectations of our society are just not working for too many people now, IMO. There is a real need for some difficult conversations at national (and international) level about what society is for: is it to enrich a small few at the top of the corporations, or is it so we can all have a fair chance at a reasonable portion of stuff so we can live OK, eat, have a decent life etc? Do we "need" as much as we think? Or is that a consequence of seeing the few who have soooooooo much more? What happens when we get more robots and fewer jobs, or when we struggle to grow food because (a) we've knackered our soil, (b) people have no idea how to grow their own food any more and (c) a decent garden/allotment is a thing of the past as land is too stupidly expensive?

We cannot go on with a "growth" strategy,, there's just not enough global resources; and history consistently shows that when the small elite who have a lot of wealth get too big a proportion of it, eventually there is a revolt. It's 100 years since the 1918 Representation of the People Act, and if you look at the history of gradual enfranchisement, you will see it happened when the governing elite with vested interests realised that they were now at risk personally.

"For the many not the few" does encapsulate it, but HOW that happens needs to be openly discussed without party politics or outdated dogma (whether it be neoliberaism and the "free market" or other extreme left or right philosophies) getting in the way and being used as insults. That said, we need to learn from history; not just the "WInter of discontent" but also the post-(second world) war elections, and the state of things for most people in the 1920's and 1930's in the wake of bank crashes and unmitigated capitalism.

At the moment, I'm afraid that the "consensus" has swung so far to the extreme of simplistic neoliberism ("public bad, private good" mantra), that Corbyn's bunch and the Greens are the only groups that get the need for a wholesale paragidm shift. What we really need is a radical departure by far more of the "mainstream" from the current consenus of "free market" croney capitalism, so we can have a really good debate on all sides about what would work best to replace it so that we retain the good stuff but address the bad stuff.

Somehow, I suspect if we could have that debate, there would actually be a lot of agreement between "old fashioned Tories" of the Ted Heath style, and people from parties seen as "left wing."

I'm not holding my breath tho.

TPO.

[reohn2]

The Pink One
Absolutely spot on.

[hjd10]

You must be mistaken,Labour haven't been in power since 1979,New Labour(Tories in Labour suits)were in power from 1997 to 2009 but not the real Labour party.
In any case the homeless figures where going steadily down under New Labour only to begin rising again under the present bunch of wmillionaires
You may wish to read this:- http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 11501.html
Or this :- https://www.homeless.org.uk/facts/homel ... r-analysis
Or the Joeph Rowntree trust's report on homelessness in the UK

Old Labour New Labour makes no difference, throw wads of cash at the problem then when the country is just about broke hand over to the Conservatives... The cycle continues.

I beg to differ.
The country isn't a business,the though the Tories run it as one,getting away with paying as little as possible and giving most of the "profits" in the highest tax breaks(as in the most money)to the richest in society,whilst the poorest suffer as a result and public services are cut year on on year.
The Tories will say how much money they put into services but not that it's decreasing in real terms year on year,they'll also claim there's no "magic money tree" yet find billions to bale out themselves with no majority by buying support from the DUP,whilst at the same time apologising for an underfunded NHS.As OAP's and disabled people(real people) sit in hospitals bed blocking them whilst the the social care system falls apart around us.
I won't go into the Brexit debacle here other than to say the Tory PM who thought it a good idea to have the referendum left a clean pair of heels when it revealed the country was split down the middle on the issue due to self seeking morons who's political party comes before the country!
See above about the state of affordable housing,much hand wringing and promises but not much action upto now,and its not as if no one has known about it,it's a been steadily growing problem for years.
The banks.Need I say any more other than the country is still picking up their tab as the culprits run off down the road to the multimillion pound mansions,with the ££££s flapping out of their back pockets immune to prosecution or accountability.


I was no fan of New Labour or Tory Blair but they didn't make as much of a mess as this bunch of Hurrah Henries and Henrietas though you couldn't get a fag paper between either's sick ethics,this lot seem to me to be,other than lining the rich's pockets,the most incompetent bunch of idiots we've had the misfortune to run the ramshackle show and laughing stock the UK has become.

Someone is sure to post about the note New Labour left when leaving office saying there's nothing left in the kitty.
IT WAS BANKERS bow that money and the government who had to bale them out to save the country.

It was the Bankers correct... Who was in Government to watch all this happening, people rocked up to the bank and explained that they earn many more thousands than you actually did and took out monstrous mortgages. What happened to Brown's 'this is the end of boom and bust'?
Ridiculous PFI contracts that multiplied under labour, GP contracts that instantly gave them 22% pay rise with an opt out to work weekends. We could go on and on. The country needs to earn money to pay for the services we need, unfortunately under labour there appears to be unlimited money available which is fine until the crash happens.
The Tory party need to start spending now to kick start growth, but lets not have any of the Corbyn 'There should be no cap on benefits'.

[JohnW]

...............It was the Bankers correct... Who was in Government to watch all this happening...............

I think that Brown's (and Blair's) related problem at the time was that the Thatcher policies and meddling were working for a while, and that if Brown had attempted to change them whilst they were working he'd have come in for all sorts of criticism from all sorts of directions, not least of which would have been the Tory press.

I submit the point of view that Thatcher and it's supporters and hangers on were responsible for the crash - and what could Brown do but protect the small saver?

[reohn2]

This may seem a cop out to some but I've had my say and TBH I can't be bothered arguing the toss any longer on the subject.Like banging my head against a wall it's nice when I stop.

[Bonefishblues]

This may seem a cop out to some but I've had my say and TBH I can't be bothered arguing the toss any longer on the subject.Like banging my head against a wall it's nice when I stop.

The Seismologists in Edinburgh will thank you too - it messes with their readings something rotten

[reohn2]

This may seem a cop out to some but I've had my say and TBH I can't be bothered arguing the toss any longer on the subject.Like banging my head against a wall it's nice when I stop.

The Seismologists in Edinburgh will thank you too - it messes with their readings something rotten

Well I lied,that was my primary reason for my withdrawal from the war,err,I mean,debate

[Freddie]

This may seem a cop out to some but I've had my say and TBH I can't be bothered arguing the toss any longer on the subject.Like banging my head against a wall it's nice when I stop.

Hold on a minute. You start a thread stating some very strong opinions in one particular direction, are happy to continue posting when people agree with the thrust of your argument (it was the Torie that done it), but if others (with strong opinions too) come and say 'wait a minute, what about x, y and z', then you don't want to discuss it any longer?

Granted, much long winded discussion on the internet is two steps forward and three back, but you can't expect to post something saying that 'such and such' is the sole reason for something and not have others disagree.

That is why I don't bother arguing on this forum any more and just add little bits here an there (my last long post on this thread being an exception). On this forum, as in the wider world, most people already have a view on something and don't want it challenged/improved, they want it reinforced. Maybe this explains why you feel like you're banging you head on the wall, but does anyone here (or anywhere else for that matter) really have the final say what causes homelessness? Surely there are plenty of experts with something to learn about the topic, perhaps related to neuro-science that we do not yet understand...

I suppose this why you can have pages and pages of 'the Tories are not only incompetent, but motived by evil' threads and an eyelid isn't batted. When someone comes and says 'well, there is more than one way to skin a cat' and 'how about applying Occam's Razor, before we brand the Tories as being motivated by feasting on the corpses of dead children or what have you' then discussion stops dead in its tracks.

I think I was right at the start of my first post to the thread, this was a bash the Tories thread and dissent from that view has interrupted it. Now, look, I don't really care whether people want threads to bash the Tories, but when 70%+ of the political threads (on the Tea Shop, of all places) tend towards the collective view that the Tories are not only incompetent, but motivated by pure wickedness, then the relationship between reality and the truth might start to become a little strained, don't you think?

I am of the thinking that the political thread should have a subsection in the Tea Shop, much as the helmet-subsection. Here be dragons and enter at your own peril above the door, so that the Tea Shop can become a bit more convivial again.

[reohn2]

This may seem a cop out to some but I've had my say and TBH I can't be bothered arguing the toss any longer on the subject.Like banging my head against a wall it's nice when I stop.

Hold on a minute. You start a thread stating some very strong opinions in one particular direction, are happy to continue posting when people agree with the thrust of your argument (it was the Torie that done it), but if others (with strong opinions too) come and say 'wait a minute, what about x, y and z', then you don't want to discuss it any longer?

Granted, much long winded discussion on the internet is two steps forward and three back, but you can't expect to post something saying that 'such and such' is the sole reason for something and not have others disagree.

That is why I don't bother arguing on this forum any more and just add little bits here an there (my last long post on this thread being an exception). On this forum, as in the wider world, most people already have a view on something and don't want it challenged/improved, they want it reinforced. Maybe this explains why you feel like you're banging you head on the wall, but does anyone here (or anywhere else for that matter) really have the final say what causes homelessness? Surely there are plenty of experts with something to learn about the topic, perhaps related to neuro-science that we do not yet understand...

I suppose this why you can have pages and pages of 'the Tories are not only incompetent, but motived by evil' threads and an eyelid isn't batted. When someone comes and says 'well, there is more than one way to skin a cat' and 'how about applying Occam's Razor, before we brand the Tories as being motivated by feasting on the corpses of dead children or what have you' then discussion stops dead in its tracks.

I think I was right at the start of my first post to the thread, this was a bash the Tories thread and dissent from that view has interrupted it. Now, look, I don't really care whether people want threads to bash the Tories, but when 70%+ of the political threads (on the Tea Shop, of all places) tend towards the collective view that the Tories are not only incompetent, but motivated by pure wickedness, then the relationship between reality and the truth might start to become a little strained, don't you think?

I am of the thinking that the political thread should have a subsection in the Tea Shop, much as the helmet-subsection. Here be dragons and enter at your own peril above the door, so that the Tea Shop can become a bit more convivial again.

Freddie I'm not playing end of.I have my reasons and I understand your frustrations with me,but I don't want to get into it again.

[Freddie]

That's fine, no hard feelings and I don't want you to think there is anything personal, there is not. I'm sure these things could far more easily be discussed in person. The online forum is often a limiting factor and for that reason I don't want to get involved in protracted discussions, come debates about these things either. Let's quit while we're ahead .