the snap general election thread

Tromking

Just as an aside, how do Italian students get to access local authority social housing in K&C?
How do Syrian asylum seekers do likewise and how does the rest of the family safely leave Syria to comfort two other male members of the family, it hardly backs up their story of being at risk if this is happening surely?
The more I look into this undoubted tragedy, the more it appears to be a 'story of our time'.

antrobus

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Have already seen the report, as well as several of the associated planning documents thanks, and a recurring theme through them was how much better it'd make the area look....

Shame you didn't take any notice of the contents.

Joe_Horner wrote: »

..Call me cynical by all means, but a few new boilers and a bit of better sound proofing provided for the poor people is a small price to pay if it can be used to justify maintaining local property values...

£10.3m is a fair wodge of cash. If all that was needed was a "prettification refurb" for the purpose of "maintaining local property values" then £0.3m would have sufficed.

So I still call b0llox.:)

antrobus

Chrysalis wrote: »

You only need to read some of my recent posts to see what my economic knowledge is. ...

Non-existant? I need of assistance? What exactly? I am here to help.:)

Chrysalis wrote: »

..Also knowledge of the unemployment account has absolutely no relevance to what you saying....

It has relevance to what you are saying.

You stated that there are a "lot not in the system as the work programme and its sanctions have had many simply closing their JSA claims", implying that somehow these people would not count as being unemployed.

I'm seeking to educate you by pointing out that if people close their JSA claims for whatever reason, whilst they might not feature in the claimant count they will still count as unemployed in the LFS. Whether or you are 'in the system' has no effect on whether or not you are counted as being 'unemployed'.

For example, the claimant count in May 2017 was 802,600, but for February to April 2017, there were 1.53 million who were unemployed. So roughly speaking, only about 52.5% of the unemployed are benefit claimants.

There are some 8.85 million who are "economically inactive". Mainly students (2.3 m), housepersons (2.2m), long-term sick ( 2.0m) and early retirees (1.2M). Some of these people 'want a job', but don't meet the International Labour Organisation's definition of 'actively seeking work' and therefore don't count as being unemployed.

Chrysalis wrote: »

....Unemployment in london alone is over 5%.

https://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/unemployment-rate-region

But that number is "taken from the Labour Force Survey and Annual Population Survey, produced by the Office for National Statistics", which are the "official employment figures" which you have claimed "are a joke".

Make your flippin mind up.:)

Joe_Horner

antrobus wrote: »

Shame you didn't take any notice of the contents.



£10.3m is a fair wodge of cash. If all that was needed was a "prettification refurb" for the purpose of "maintaining local property values" then £0.3m would have sufficed.

So I still call b0llox.:)

The thing is, if you bother to refer back to the post in which i used that term, why it was done wasn't actually the point - although I concede it was careless of me to use a throw-away line like that which the usual suspects could pick up on (and selectively quote) to deflect from the real point.

Then again, seeing as the opinion of some of the rabid right wingers on here really doesn't concern me, they can deflect all they like because - while they may feel like they're winning some great battle of wits - they're making no difference to anything at all.

Still, keeps 'em off the streets which can only be a good thing.

antrobus

Fella wrote: »

I gather that few Labour MPs are loathed & mistrusted more by other Labour MPs than Sadiq Khan. Highly ambitious & treacherous as a rattlesnake, even compared to other MPs.

He was laying the groundwork for his bid for Labour leadership before the election. The only thing that's changed is the likely timeframe of that bid.

That might well be true for all I know. On the other hand he is capable of talking sense;

Nowadays, we would not dream of building towers to the standards of the 1970s, but their inhabitants still have to live with that legacy. It may well be the defining outcome of this tragedy that the worst mistakes of the 1960s and 1970s are systematically torn down.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/18/sadiq-khan-grenfell-tower-tragedy-establish-full-truth

A 1974 built brutalist 24 storey tower block with only one staircase is never going to be safe, no matter what kind of cladding you stick on the outside. You need at least two staircases, and they need to be smoke proof.

Fella

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Talthough I concede it was careless of me to use a throw-away line like that which the usual suspects could pick up on (and selectively quote) to deflect from the real point.

If you're going to "carelessly" (strange how you only "carelessly" make the Tories look bad) use expressions then expect it to be picked up on.

Probably best not to complain when that happens.

Maybe you could try being less careless & stick to the "real point". Which is that we should wait until the official enquiry before pointing blame at either Labour or the Tories.

Fella

antrobus wrote: »

That might well be true for all I know. On the other hand he is capable of talking sense;

Nowadays, we would not dream of building towers to the standards of the 1970s, but their inhabitants still have to live with that legacy. It may well be the defining outcome of this tragedy that the worst mistakes of the 1960s and 1970s are systematically torn down.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/18/sadiq-khan-grenfell-tower-tragedy-establish-full-truth

A 1974 built brutalist 24 storey tower block with only one staircase is never going to be safe, no matter what kind of cladding you stick on the outside. You need at least two staircases, and they need to be smoke proof.

I would tear them all down tomorrow, however to do that you'd have to relocate people forcibly & almost certainly far outside of London to somewhere remotely affordable. Imagine the outcry if that was attempted.

antrobus

Joe_Horner wrote: »

The thing is, if you bother to refer back to the post in which i used that term, why it was done wasn't actually the point - although I concede it was careless of me to use a throw-away line like that which the usual suspects could pick up on (and selectively quote) to deflect from the real point....

I disagree. Why it was done is exactly the point. Making Grenfell Tower look pretty might well have been a consideration. But then, that's one of the things that architecture seeks to achieve. The whole point of the £10.3 million refurb was to improve the thermal efficiency of the building; that's why they put in the double glazing, the thermal cladding, and the new heating system. All these things cost money.

But a thermally efficient 1974 built tower block with a single staircase is still a death trap if a fire takes hold.

antrobus

Fella wrote: »

I would tear them all down tomorrow, however to do that you'd have to relocate people forcibly & almost certainly far outside of London to somewhere remotely affordable. Imagine the outcry if that was attempted.

Imagine the outcry if it isn't done, and another tower block goes up in flames.

Six people died in the fire at the Lakanal House. Southwork Council were going to demolish it. But then the Lib Dems took over the council and decided to keep it despite it being a 'fire risk'.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8163215.stm

Fella

antrobus wrote: »

Imagine the outcry if it isn't done, and another tower block goes up in flames.

Six people died in the fire at the Lakanal House. Southwork Council were going to demolish it. But then the Lib Dems took over the council and decided to keep it despite it being a 'fire risk'.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8163215.stm

Exactly. Damned if they do, damned if they don't. Or in the case of the Tories, even if it wasn't them who did or didn't do either.