the snap general election thread

kabayiri

BobQ wrote: »

Well in his first day he has set up a homelessness fund and committed 15% of his personal mayoral salary to it and is acting to raise more funds. You may disapprove but at least he is doing something positive and concrete about an issue that National Governments have ignored for years.

What is the phrase,.... the greatest actual progress is better than the most magnificent promises....

I don't disapprove Bob, and I have met Andy.

In my view he was one of those Labour MPs who I had respect for.

My issue is with vague headlines masquerading as some kind of objective goal.

We seem obsessed with solving everything as a society, and some problems run so deep we will never actually solve them.

There will always be homeless; drug and drink addicts; sex workers.

In terms of homelessness, a simpler goal would be to provide rudimentary covered areas to ensure they don't freeze to death during the harshest winter months. Basic cover; basic security.

I lost count of the number of times my uncle was attacked, for the most trivial of items. It's a savage environment on the streets.

ThinkingOutLoud_2

Thrugelmir wrote: »

And the salary for the post is £115k a year. Still leaves over £97k a year to live on.

He will still be RICH as Labour define it ;-) so hopefully he maybe taxed into oblivion for the rest of his donation!:rotfl:

antrobus

kabayiri wrote: »

..In terms of homelessness, a simpler goal would be to provide rudimentary covered areas to ensure they don't freeze to death during the harshest winter months. Basic cover; basic security...

Those would be rough sleepers, about 4,000 or so across the UK, I think. Being homeless is something different. It means not having a home of your own, as in living in temporary accomodation, or on someone's sofa. There are official statistics, and arguments over the exact definition.

I would expect that Burnham's fix is more about getting some more about getting the right kind of housing built in the Greater Manchester area, rather than chucking a few quid at some charities.

antrobus

gfplux wrote: »

...Next week when both the Tory and Labour manifestos come out they will both be costed and then of course we will have both Party's costings being attacked and debated.

The Labour manifesto was agreed yesterday. Apprently the draft has been "amended", but that suggests that there was little time to perform any costings. Perhaps they were all in a separate super secret appendix.:)

Labour manifesto unanimously agreed - Jeremy Corbyn
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39887997

BobQ

Thrugelmir wrote: »

And the salary for the post is £115k a year. Still leaves over £97k a year to live on. The mayor of Teeside is getting £35k as a comparison.

Sorry but I'm cynical about such statements. As hardly a hardship for him. If you really wanted to help the homeless then 50% would set a real example.

He is not offering to solve the problem on his own. Maybe if other people earning over £100K did the same thing.....as I understand it he is trying to tackle the immediate problem of people on streets through crowd funding. The other problem of people having nowhere to live and living with relatives will take changes to public policy.

Maybe we should consider levying a special tax on those who snipe from the sidelines at any attempt to solve a problem.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/bryan-blears/metro-mayor_b_16530996.html

ThinkingOutLoud_2

antrobus wrote: »

Those would be rough sleepers, about 4,000 or so across the UK, I think. Being homeless is something different.

So you are right that the meaning of homeless shouldn't be something esoteric and statistically made up by someone who has a roof over their head.

Maybe a little triage is good thing - once we have roof over everyone's head, we could start out improving that those roofs..

Thrugelmir

BobQ wrote: »

as I understand it he is trying to tackle the immediate problem of people on streets through crowd funding.

My point stands still. Set an example. As a public servant do the job for something other than the money. Is a Mayor worth a £100k a year? Plus all the costs of the office. When the City Council already has a CEO. We don't have priorities right in this country.

Spidernick

Thrugelmir wrote: »

And the salary for the post is £115k a year. Still leaves over £97k a year to live on. The mayor of Teeside is getting £35k as a comparison.

Sorry but I'm cynical about such statements. As hardly a hardship for him. If you really wanted to help the homeless then 50% would set a real example.

For goodness sake - he is doing a lot, lot more than most people. If he solved world hunger, created global peace and helped England to win the World Cup, you lot would still not be happy!

If you want a comparison: when the multi-millionaire David Cameron published his tax return details, they were notable for having absolutely no charitable contributions whatsoever and he can afford it a lot more than Burnham.

Thrugelmir

Spidernick wrote: »

For goodness sake - he is doing a lot, lot more than most people.

How much of your time to you give for free to charitable causes? Or do you relieve your conscience by donating £30 to Children In Need by text. There's many many people who do an awlful lot without trying to make media headlines for their own image.

CKhalvashi

kabayiri wrote: »

This is the headline in our local freebie paper :
"Mayor pledges to fix NHS and Homelessness"

This is the new mayor of Manchester (other Mayors are available for equally empty soundbites).

There is absolutely no way on earth he will fix either. It seems almost an arrogant stance to suggest that he can do something which others have not been able to.

Is it any surprise that we don't trust what the political classes say, when they probably don't believe what they write anyway.

I want modest measurable goals, and a few achievable but good ideas. I don't expect homelessness to be fixed, because it never will be.

Kab, I'm not having a go at you here I promise, just this seemed the most appropriate post to make my point on. To the greatest of extents I agree with you on this issue.

Homelessness can't be fixed, I agree with that.

However the Conservatives promised to make a fairer country for everyone, presumably by pushing those that are already struggling, scrapping housing benefit for under 21s (which isn't going to stop those that abuse the system IMO, but will severely harm those that are genuinely homeless and under 21), and forcing councils to change the allocation system for social housing, resulting again in more and more genuine homelessness cases being put to the bottom of the pile while officially the numbers of those in need of housing has declined considerably.

I want to see measurable goals too, rather than someone floating the words 'strong and stable' around, or whatever the catchphrase of the day is. It may be worth actually sitting down and finding out how he plans to aid the NHS and what the money will be used for re: the housing initiative, rather than writing it off straight away.

I agree with you regarding the covered areas you mention, however again, where is the money going to come from?

In reality, paying however much a room is in Manchester (down here it's about £500 a month) could save £2000 a month longer term from the long term health issues being covered on the NHS. I doubt the government will see it like that though.

I won't be voting Conservative, as I don't believe in dismantling the welfare state and contracting out vital public services to profit making entities at the cost of getting a few brownie points from the Daily Heil or Torygraph, sorry.