Conservatives Forge Ahead With "Social Cleansing"

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

User avatar
Zaune
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7464
Joined: 2010-06-21 11:05am
Location: In Transit
Contact:

Conservatives Forge Ahead With "Social Cleansing"

Post by Zaune »

The Guardian
A shortage of private accommodation in London could mean homeless people are moved as far away as Hull, where rents are cheaper, housing charities are warning. They fear there will be an exodus from the capital of people at the bottom of the housing ladder as the coalition's Localism Act, which comes into force this spring, empowers local authorities to place homeless people in private rented accommodation.

At least one London council, Croydon, is seeking to rent private accommodation in Hull and several other Yorkshire towns. It has also rented property in St Leonards on Sea on the Sussex coast. Other councils are predicted to follow suit, according to housing experts.

Until the act comes into force, homeless people can stay in temporary housing until social housing becomes available. However, this choice is being removed at a critical time. The local housing allowance, money paid by local authorities to those on housing benefit in the private rented sector, has been cut. In addition, the mortgage drought has meant many people trying to get on to the housing ladder have been forced into the rental sector, inflating rents.

The result, according to housing experts, is that the private sector is becoming increasingly unaffordable for local authorities, resulting in a ripple effect as homeless people and those on benefits are rehoused in areas where rents are cheaper.

Shelter, the housing charity, said new regulations, to be published soon, would set out councils' obligations to homeless people placed in private rented accommodation. Shelter expressed concerns that the regulations would allow councils to house homeless people outside their boroughs. It said Croydon council was considering moving some people in temporary accommodation to Hull, 230 miles away. "The fact that councils may be considering making use of these powers to offer people homes away from their local areas – potentially having to uproot families from schools, communities and jobs – is testament to the scale of our housing crisis," Campbell Robb, the chief executive of Shelter, said.

"This upheaval could have a devastating impact on children's education and a family's wellbeing. Taking families away from their support networks at the time when they need them most is not going to help them back on their feet."

Southwark council is predicting a rise in homelessness this year after the number of people on its housing waiting list grew for the first time in five years. Jon Dalton, a housing manager for Harrow council, said it had already helped more than a dozen households to move out of London. Dalton said: "Because of the welfare reforms, many non-working households that are dependent on benefits will not be able to afford to live in the local private rented sector."

Grant Shapps, the housing minister, said there was an urgent need to tackle the rising cost of welfare. "Under Labour, housing benefit soared out of control and rents for those on housing benefit rose by far more than market rents," he said. "As a result, the Labour government ended up spending £192bn a year of taxpayers' money on welfare payments, which was more than the combined spending on defence, education and health. We need welfare reform to tackle Labour's budget deficit, and a series of measures to tackle that soaring benefits bill."

A £190m pot of additional funding has been made available to help local authorities provide support for families on benefits in the aftermath of the reforms, but councils fear this will be dwarfed by the cost of accommodation in the private sector. A survey by Environmental Health News, the in-house magazine for environmental health officers, found that London councils were anticipating having to place more homeless people into private rented accommodation. Nearly half warned they would not be able to find enough suitable accommodation because there was too much competition for affordable lets.

Islington council said it had "become significantly harder to procure properties in the private rented sector this year". Lewisham, Barking, Dagenham and Brent also expressed difficulties.

Ian Dick, an environmental health officer in London, told the magazine that homeless people would end up being moved to outer London and then potentially to "declining northern towns". "Families will go from Kensington and Chelsea to the outer London fringes, and once they get fuller they will start pushing them out to areas where there is housing," Dick said.

"Not enough thought has been given to the impact of the welfare reforms on outer London boroughs like Sutton," said Ruth Dombey, deputy leader of Sutton council. "We fear there's going to be an exodus to the suburbs, with families being forced out of central London and into more affordable areas of Greater London."
Oh, yeah, absolutely awesome idea there fellas! Let's force hundreds of thousands of people to move a couple of hundred miles away from their friends and family to a town where property prices are merely unreasonably high rather than beyond ridiculous. Never mind the fact that if they were struggling to find a job in the wealthiest city in the UK they'll be completely screwed out in the regions that got shafted by deindustrialisation and never recovered, we'll save at least £20 per person per week in housing benefit and we won't have a lot of unsightly poor people cluttering up the place while the Olympics are on!

And people wonder why I think we're on the slippery slope to armed insurrection in this country. Hell, maybe that's the idea; force all the unemployed out to safe Labour seats so that there's no Tory MPs in easy reach when the inevitable despair-fuelled riots break out.
There are hardly any excesses of the most crazed psychopath that cannot easily be duplicated by a normal kindly family man who just comes in to work every day and has a job to do.
-- (Terry Pratchett, Small Gods)


Replace "ginger" with "n*gger," and suddenly it become a lot less funny, doesn't it?
-- fgalkin


Like my writing? Tip me on Patreon

I Have A Blog
User avatar
madd0ct0r
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 6259
Joined: 2008-03-14 07:47am

Re: Conservatives Forge Ahead With "Social Cleansing"

Post by madd0ct0r »

Remind me why i want to move back to the UK again?

On the surface this kind of makes sense. Living in London is far far more expensive then elsewhere so a homeless guy is never, ever going to be able to afford a place. Ideally this would promote private business to build mass, cheap (slum) housing within London but there's simply no way the return would ever be as good as mass cheap 'luxury' flats. Not to mention what generally happens when you stick a lot of desperately poor people together in mass cheap housing.
Of course, the Goverment could just build at a set price, but that goes against all that the Tories stand for.

But exporting homeless to the North? Christ, like unemployment and poverty aren't big enough problems up there already, especially with 'austerity' cutting spending there whilst leaving the leafy southern suburbs alone.

Combine the first with massive investment, urban renewal and job creation and it might make sense. The current proposal benefits only people in London who don't like poor people.
"Aid, trade, green technology and peace." - Hans Rosling.
"Welcome to SDN, where we can't see the forest because walking into trees repeatedly feels good, bro." - Mr Coffee
User avatar
Starglider
Miles Dyson
Posts: 8709
Joined: 2007-04-05 09:44pm
Location: Isle of Dogs
Contact:

Re: Conservatives Forge Ahead With "Social Cleansing"

Post by Starglider »

It has been the avowed policy of the UK government for the last 20 years to never, ever build anything on 'greenfield' land. Occassionally someone slips through the cracks and gets planning permission for something, but for the most part this has been successful. The north has been OK because it has huge amounts of ex-industrial 'brownfield' land to redevelop, plus populations have been static or declining. The south has seen major population growth at the low end and masses of foreign buying at the high end, and the only building going on has been to knock down overpriced apartment blocks to build even more overpriced apartment blocks. Places like Sheffield and Leeds still have relatively affordable accomadation because a lot of housing for students and 'young professionals' was built in the 2007 boom, and barely occupied.

I don't see how socialists can object to this policy. According to them the south is an evil den of sin, vice and investment banking, wheras the north is a virtuous land of hard work and Labour values. Surely these vulnerable income-disadvantaged inviduals should be thankful for the government saving them from infectious materialism and toryism. Also from a Stalinist viewpoint the geographic population distribution is clearly unbalanced and needs to be adjusted by sending the peasants to siberia Hull.
User avatar
Zaune
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7464
Joined: 2010-06-21 11:05am
Location: In Transit
Contact:

Re: Conservatives Forge Ahead With "Social Cleansing"

Post by Zaune »

Starglider wrote:It has been the avowed policy of the UK government for the last 20 years to never, ever build anything on 'greenfield' land. Occassionally someone slips through the cracks and gets planning permission for something, but for the most part this has been successful. The north has been OK because it has huge amounts of ex-industrial 'brownfield' land to redevelop, plus populations have been static or declining. The south has seen major population growth at the low end and masses of foreign buying at the high end, and the only building going on has been to knock down overpriced apartment blocks to build even more overpriced apartment blocks. Places like Sheffield and Leeds still have relatively affordable accomadation because a lot of housing for students and 'young professionals' was built in the 2007 boom, and barely occupied.
Has it occurred to you that there might be a reason that property is all so cheap? Like, say, a desperate shortage of even minimum-wage casual work even when the economy was in good health?
I don't see how socialists can object to this policy. According to them the south is an evil den of sin, vice and investment banking, wheras the north is a virtuous land of hard work and Labour values. Surely these vulnerable income-disadvantaged inviduals should be thankful for the government saving them from infectious materialism and toryism. Also from a Stalinist viewpoint the geographic population distribution is clearly unbalanced and needs to be adjusted by sending the peasants to siberia Hull.
I'm not even going to dignify this with a response.
There are hardly any excesses of the most crazed psychopath that cannot easily be duplicated by a normal kindly family man who just comes in to work every day and has a job to do.
-- (Terry Pratchett, Small Gods)


Replace "ginger" with "n*gger," and suddenly it become a lot less funny, doesn't it?
-- fgalkin


Like my writing? Tip me on Patreon

I Have A Blog
User avatar
Starglider
Miles Dyson
Posts: 8709
Joined: 2007-04-05 09:44pm
Location: Isle of Dogs
Contact:

Re: Conservatives Forge Ahead With "Social Cleansing"

Post by Starglider »

Zaune wrote:Has it occurred to you that there might be a reason that property is all so cheap?
It isn't cheap, it is just less horribly overpriced.
Like, say, a desperate shortage of even minimum-wage casual work even when the economy was in good health?
Relatively few companies find northern English counties attractive places to put factories or offices.
I'm not even going to dignify this with a response.
Next you're going to say 'people should have a free choice of where to live'. Don't you realise that 'choice' is just a tool that conservatives use to justify 'individual accounts' aka the destruction of social security, private schools and... shudder... private healthcare? You dirty anarcho-capitalist, if the government says people have to live here or go there then obviously the government knows best.
Crazedwraith
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 11882
Joined: 2003-04-10 03:45pm
Location: Cheshire, England

Re: Conservatives Forge Ahead With "Social Cleansing"

Post by Crazedwraith »

Aww Hell no. The primary attraction of the north is that we don't have all those damn southerners up here cluttering the place up. And we like it that way.
Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Conservatives Forge Ahead With "Social Cleansing"

Post by Simon_Jester »

Starglider wrote:Next you're going to say 'people should have a free choice of where to live'. Don't you realise that 'choice' is just a tool that conservatives use to justify 'individual accounts' aka the destruction of social security, private schools and... shudder... private healthcare? You dirty anarcho-capitalist, if the government says people have to live here or go there then obviously the government knows best.
OK, Starglider.

Do you actually have a better idea? Who, exactly, is the target of this sudden gusher of sarcasm? What do you think they should be doing, or are you just sneering for the sake of sneering?
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
User avatar
K. A. Pital
Glamorous Commie
Posts: 20813
Joined: 2003-02-26 11:39am
Location: Elysium

Re: Conservatives Forge Ahead With "Social Cleansing"

Post by K. A. Pital »

If the government had been supplying these people with a right to work, right to wage, right to housing - then this government would at the very least be in a position to claim some sort of an authority to tell people where they should live - after all, it provides them with everything.

If a government orders you around in capitalism, where the matter of job seeking is entirely the endeavour of the individual (often failing), the housing is not provided, that's bullshit.

So yup Starglider, even a dirty commie could see how one could oppose this shit without a shred of hypocrisy. Of course, it might be hard to oppose from a social-democratic position (nanny state, baby capitalism), but not from a strict socialist position oh no. :lol:
Lì ci sono chiese, macerie, moschee e questure, lì frontiere, prezzi inaccessibile e freddure
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...

...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
Assalti Frontali
User avatar
Ryan Thunder
Village Idiot
Posts: 4139
Joined: 2007-09-16 07:53pm
Location: Canada

Re: Conservatives Forge Ahead With "Social Cleansing"

Post by Ryan Thunder »

Simon_Jester wrote:Do you actually have a better idea? Who, exactly, is the target of this sudden gusher of sarcasm? What do you think they should be doing, or are you just sneering for the sake of sneering?
Oh, never mind him. He thinks he's actually parodying socialists.
SDN Worlds 5: Sanctum
User avatar
Zaune
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7464
Joined: 2010-06-21 11:05am
Location: In Transit
Contact:

Re: Conservatives Forge Ahead With "Social Cleansing"

Post by Zaune »

Actually, Stas, it is extremely easy to oppose from a social-democratic position. Or at least from the position of a social democrat who has no tolerance whatsoever for being patronised, strong-armed or bullied by corporations or the state. I don't like being given ultimatums "for my own good".
There are hardly any excesses of the most crazed psychopath that cannot easily be duplicated by a normal kindly family man who just comes in to work every day and has a job to do.
-- (Terry Pratchett, Small Gods)


Replace "ginger" with "n*gger," and suddenly it become a lot less funny, doesn't it?
-- fgalkin


Like my writing? Tip me on Patreon

I Have A Blog
User avatar
TimothyC
Of Sector 2814
Posts: 3793
Joined: 2005-03-23 05:31pm

Re: Conservatives Forge Ahead With "Social Cleansing"

Post by TimothyC »

Zaune wrote:Actually, Stas, it is extremely easy to oppose from a social-democratic position. Or at least from the position of a social democrat who has no tolerance whatsoever for being patronised, strong-armed or bullied by corporations or the state. I don't like being given ultimatums "for my own good".
Ah! So you are opposed to a nationalized health care system where everyone is made to pay in (via fees or taxes), and everyone gets health care?

Edit: I ask, because I don't see the difference between being told to move "for my own good" and being told you must buy into a health care plan (either private of public) "For my own good."

This is not to say that I am opposed to some form of national health care - I'm just drawing a parallel for you guys.
"I believe in the future. It is wonderful because it stands on what has been achieved." - Sergei Korolev
User avatar
Zaune
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7464
Joined: 2010-06-21 11:05am
Location: In Transit
Contact:

Re: Conservatives Forge Ahead With "Social Cleansing"

Post by Zaune »

TimothyC wrote:Ah! So you are opposed to a nationalized health care system where everyone is made to pay in (via fees or taxes), and everyone gets health care?
Absolutely not. I am entirely in favour of nationalised healthcare where everyone is made to pay in and everyone gets healthcare. But I am also in favour of the public having some level of collective bargaining power over how much they pay in and what they get in return.
There are hardly any excesses of the most crazed psychopath that cannot easily be duplicated by a normal kindly family man who just comes in to work every day and has a job to do.
-- (Terry Pratchett, Small Gods)


Replace "ginger" with "n*gger," and suddenly it become a lot less funny, doesn't it?
-- fgalkin


Like my writing? Tip me on Patreon

I Have A Blog
Grumman
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2488
Joined: 2011-12-10 09:13am

Re: Conservatives Forge Ahead With "Social Cleansing"

Post by Grumman »

TimothyC wrote:Edit: I ask, because I don't see the difference between being told to move "for my own good" and being told you must buy into a health care plan (either private of public) "For my own good."
The difference, as far as I can tell, is that you aren't being told you must move - the government is offering to rent you a house (albeit in an inconvenient location), but there's no mention that they're going to grab you off the street and send you to Hull if you'd rather be homeless in London. Forcing someone to buy insurance that costs more than it's worth actively harms them. Providing an option that isn't as good as what you already have does not.
madd0ct0r wrote:Of course, the Goverment could just build at a set price, but that goes against all that the Tories stand for.
Could they? Is there sufficient cheap, unused land that doing this in London is possible without spreading out into the Green Belt (which I understand is protected by law)?
User avatar
Zaune
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7464
Joined: 2010-06-21 11:05am
Location: In Transit
Contact:

Re: Conservatives Forge Ahead With "Social Cleansing"

Post by Zaune »

Grumman wrote:Could they? Is there sufficient cheap, unused land that doing this in London is possible without spreading out into the Green Belt (which I understand is protected by law)?
There must be plenty of empty office or warehouse buildings that could be demolished or converted. Or there's the option of buying existing houses and apartment buildings and renting them out at Housing Association rates, which are still within shouting distance of being affordable on an unskilled manual worker's salary.

Oh, and Yahoo! News (which I admit is not the most trustworthy source in the world) has some numbers that a jobsearch website worked out for the best and worst places to find work in the UK. Notice the fact that Hull has eighty people out of work for every job vacancy.
There are hardly any excesses of the most crazed psychopath that cannot easily be duplicated by a normal kindly family man who just comes in to work every day and has a job to do.
-- (Terry Pratchett, Small Gods)


Replace "ginger" with "n*gger," and suddenly it become a lot less funny, doesn't it?
-- fgalkin


Like my writing? Tip me on Patreon

I Have A Blog
User avatar
TimothyC
Of Sector 2814
Posts: 3793
Joined: 2005-03-23 05:31pm

Re: Conservatives Forge Ahead With "Social Cleansing"

Post by TimothyC »

Zaune wrote:
TimothyC wrote:Ah! So you are opposed to a nationalized health care system where everyone is made to pay in (via fees or taxes), and everyone gets health care?
Absolutely not. I am entirely in favour of nationalised healthcare where everyone is made to pay in and everyone gets healthcare. But I am also in favour of the public having some level of collective bargaining power over how much they pay in and what they get in return.
Ah! but everyone pays into the funds that provide housing, but not everyone uses it, just like everyone pays into (via the NHS) the services for someone with a heart attack, but not everyone has a heart attack. I'd also argue that the primary methods of collective bargaining power when it comes to state enterprise (the ballot box, and the ability to petition the government) are the same for both state funded housing, and state funded healthcare.
Zaune wrote:There must be plenty of empty office or warehouse buildings that could be demolished or converted. Or there's the option of buying existing houses and apartment buildings and renting them out at Housing Association rates, which are still within shouting distance of being affordable on an unskilled manual worker's salary.
I am curious how you reach the assumption that there must be land in the areas specified that can be used.
"I believe in the future. It is wonderful because it stands on what has been achieved." - Sergei Korolev
Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Conservatives Forge Ahead With "Social Cleansing"

Post by Simon_Jester »

Tim, suppose I accept that the state may force me to pay for a service it provides me. Must I then accept that it's within its rights to change the terms of service in ways that will hurt me, and everyone else in the country, to save money?

I don't think that follows.

The real problem here is that the policy of exporting the paupers of London into some place where there's no chance they'll find work is just... stupid. It's bad for everyone involved. I don't see how it serves any purpose except to try and turn London into a 'model city' where the Tories can pretend that poverty doesn't exist in Britain.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
User avatar
TimothyC
Of Sector 2814
Posts: 3793
Joined: 2005-03-23 05:31pm

Re: Conservatives Forge Ahead With "Social Cleansing"

Post by TimothyC »

And there is a valid argument that I will accept.
I'm not sold on government provided housing, but if I had no where to turn to I probably would be sold very very quickly. I just wanted to get people thinking rather than responding in such a knee-jerk way.
"I believe in the future. It is wonderful because it stands on what has been achieved." - Sergei Korolev
User avatar
madd0ct0r
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 6259
Joined: 2008-03-14 07:47am

Re: Conservatives Forge Ahead With "Social Cleansing"

Post by madd0ct0r »

http://emptyhomes.com/statistics-2/

in london as a total there are 74,533 empty homes, NOT including Uninhabitable homes, Homes due for demolition and Flats above shops.
of that number, 58,600 have been empty for longer then 6 months.
720,000 empty homes are currently empty in England according to the 2011 Empty Homes Stats!

The latest (November 2011) empty homes statistics show that of these, 279,000 are long- term empty (meaning they have been empty for more than six months)
Uninhabitable homes: Homes in very poor condition can be excluded from council tax and so are not counted in these statistics. No data is available to quantify how many of these there are nationally. Recent research in Bradford showed that there were 5,000 uninhabitable homes in that city, this indicates that there are many thousands across the country.

Homes due for demolition: Again these are exempt from council tax. In our view these should not be counted unless demolition is in doubt or has been cancelled. Currently 40,000 homes that were due for demolition under now cancelled regeneration schemes stand empty.

Flats above shops. Many unused flats above shops have no residential planning use class even though they are clearly laid out as dwellings. These are charged under business rates and not council tax and so do not feature in empty homes statistics. A report carried out for the government in 2004 estimated that there were 300,000 flats in this state in England.
But don't worry! big society to the rescue:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... house.html
The group discovered the house was empty through a squatting association who keep a list of houses that are owned by companies and not individuals.
albeit this is in Bristol. I'm not so au-fait with Landon Town.

found this though: http://unlockingthepotential.blogspot.c ... -more.html
For those of you not obsessed with the self-absorbed world of London real estate, Bishops Avenue in Hampstead is said to be Britain’s most exclusive address. Houses have changed hands here for £80million. So news that squatters were here got the property correspondent’s pulses racing.

The story it turns out is much more interesting than that. Calim Ciufudean and his colleagues are not squatters at all. They are licensees or as he puts it caretakers. The crucial difference is they are here with the owner’s consent. Their company Prep ltd offers to look after properties that have been abandoned.
"Aid, trade, green technology and peace." - Hans Rosling.
"Welcome to SDN, where we can't see the forest because walking into trees repeatedly feels good, bro." - Mr Coffee
User avatar
Zaune
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7464
Joined: 2010-06-21 11:05am
Location: In Transit
Contact:

Re: Conservatives Forge Ahead With "Social Cleansing"

Post by Zaune »

Simon_Jester wrote:I don't see how it serves any purpose except to try and turn London into a 'model city' where the Tories can pretend that poverty doesn't exist in Britain.
I have a terrible feeling you've hit the nail on the head. The Olympics are coming up, there's a whole bunch of other equally unpleasant unemployment and disability insurance "reforms" on the cards that have just about everyone pissed off, the people this move is going to affect the worst are from the same demographic that rioted back in August...

I'm not sure whether this explanation is more or less depressing than the alternative; that they genuinely and sincerely believe they're doing the right thing.
There are hardly any excesses of the most crazed psychopath that cannot easily be duplicated by a normal kindly family man who just comes in to work every day and has a job to do.
-- (Terry Pratchett, Small Gods)


Replace "ginger" with "n*gger," and suddenly it become a lot less funny, doesn't it?
-- fgalkin


Like my writing? Tip me on Patreon

I Have A Blog
Grumman
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2488
Joined: 2011-12-10 09:13am

Re: Conservatives Forge Ahead With "Social Cleansing"

Post by Grumman »

madd0ct0r wrote:http://emptyhomes.com/statistics-2/

in london as a total there are 74,533 empty homes, NOT including Uninhabitable homes, Homes due for demolition and Flats above shops.
of that number, 58,600 have been empty for longer then 6 months.
Okay, that's certainly something that should have been looked into, at least. As long as the government's willing to act as guarantor for any damage caused, I'd be surprised if at least some of those 60,000 homes would not be made available to rent at a lower price, if the alternative is earning no income at all.
User avatar
Einhander Sn0m4n
Insane Railgunner
Posts: 18630
Joined: 2002-10-01 05:51am
Location: Louisiana... or Dagobah. You know, where Yoda lives.

Re: Conservatives Forge Ahead With "Social Cleansing"

Post by Einhander Sn0m4n »

Zaune wrote:the people this move is going to affect the worst are from the same demographic that rioted back in August...
I choose a more rationally evil explanation that this is punishment for August's riots. I've seen this pattern repeat across all scales of human endeavors. A bully finds a victim that has something the bully wants to deny, deprive, or destroy (even something so simple as a peaceful unmolested existence is good enough for many bullies), bully provokes the victim into defending himself, bully then attacks victim with overwhelming force using anything from the letter of the law right down to a baseball bat as their weapon depending on the situational dynamics. This is one of those bigger nastier weaponized-law variants to the bully scenario.
Image Image
User avatar
The Guid
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1888
Joined: 2005-04-05 10:22pm
Location: Northamptonshire, UK

Re: Conservatives Forge Ahead With "Social Cleansing"

Post by The Guid »

I'd point out that currently this is only a proposal, before we all get our placards out. Though to be fair, Croydon has always been one of the more mental councils. Wouldn't be surprised if this gets squashed if it does start happening and the national govt. got involved.
Self declared winner of The Posedown Thread
EBC - "What? What?" "Tally Ho!" Division
I wrote this:The British Avengers fanfiction

"Yeah, funny how that works - you giving hungry people food they vote for you. You give homeless people shelter they vote for you. You give the unemployed a job they vote for you.

Maybe if the conservative ideology put a roof overhead, food on the table, and employed the downtrodden the poor folk would be all for it, too". - Broomstick
Eulogy
Jedi Knight
Posts: 959
Joined: 2007-04-28 10:23pm

Re: Conservatives Forge Ahead With "Social Cleansing"

Post by Eulogy »

Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:<snip>
Then that bully shouldn't be surprised when he gets jumped in a parking lot and gets stabbed to death, because this is what the Tories are doing. They make themselves the cause of the problem, then they expect their minions to protect them from their victims, who in turn wish to forcibly remove them from power, permanently. But that won't deter their victims nearly enough, of course.

Armed insurrection, indeed.
"A word of advice: next time you post, try not to inadvertently reveal why you've had no success with real women." Darth Wong to Bubble Boy
"I see you do not understand objectivity," said Tom Carder, a fundie fucknut to Darth Wong
User avatar
Julhelm
Jedi Master
Posts: 1468
Joined: 2003-01-28 12:03pm
Location: Brutopia
Contact:

Re: Conservatives Forge Ahead With "Social Cleansing"

Post by Julhelm »

Eulogy wrote: Armed insurrection, indeed.
Armed with what?
User avatar
Stark
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 36169
Joined: 2002-07-03 09:56pm
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: Conservatives Forge Ahead With "Social Cleansing"

Post by Stark »

I know you probably think you're very clever, but it actually doesn't matter - for either any political goals or the 'success' of such stupidity.
Post Reply