Tory Benefit Cap

First topic message reminder :

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/3-worried-single-mums-tell-9209388

Is this fair.

It appears quite a few will suffer a financial loss and possibly their homes.

Syl wrote:

Ziz wrote:

Good try Syl - well, reasonable...

...but no change of heart - I did not advocate anything I knowingly knew to be criminal.

Yes Ziz....I understand.

Ah yes, sarcasm when a charge cannot be substantiated - just like forum days of yore.

Ziz wrote:

Syl wrote:

Yes Ziz....I understand.

Ah yes, sarcasm when a charge cannot be substantiated - just like forum days of yore.  

I thought you couldn't remember that far back.

I have been AVOIDING paying some tax since the early 90s and they know about it, I have posted such before, I am within the law at the moment, if things change, so will I.

Syl wrote:

Ziz wrote:

Ah yes, sarcasm when a charge cannot be substantiated - just like forum days of yore.  

I thought you couldn't remember that far back.

Fragments of recall come and go.

Ziz wrote:There are times when the level of debate descends beyond absurdity - this is one of them - so I for one will not be shouting anyone down.

Well actually Ziz, to be fair, several people are debating quite intelligently in this thread, in the proper manner, using facts and figures. It's a good debate even if I don't agree with some of the opinions , and I am learning new facts from those equipped with the facts, esp. new updates and revisions of the rules

However, certain others are just having the usual self-indulgent RW screeching rant,  using dirty words like "tarts" and "slappers" in a totally casual manner. It is disgusting ungentlemanly language and it's disgusting towards women.  It's like being inside a filthy lavatory.

Jules wrote:

Ziz wrote:There are times when the level of debate descends beyond absurdity - this is one of them - so I for one will not be shouting anyone down.

Well actually Ziz, to be fair, several people are debating quite intelligently in this thread, in the proper manner, using facts and figures. It's a good debate even if I don't agree with some of the opinions , and I am learning new facts from those equipped with the facts, esp. new updates and revisions of the rules

However, certain others are just having the usual self-indulgent RW screeching rant,  using dirty words like "tarts" and "slappers" in a totally casual manner. It is disgusting ungentlemanly language and it's disgusting towards women.  It's like being inside a filthy lavatory.

It was the "certain other" to whom I was referring.

If the women in the article had partners previously, I wonder how they managed then. Having four or five children is quite expensive, so if they could afford it, why are the ex partners not paying maintenance? If they couldn't afford it, they shouldn't have had so many children.

Raggamuffin wrote:If the women in the article had partners previously, I wonder how they managed then. Having four or five children is quite expensive, so if they could afford it, why are the ex partners not paying maintenance? If they couldn't afford it, they shouldn't have had so many children.

Easy to say, difficult to police.

If ya cannot face the truth then explain the truth as you see it.

It is not mandatory to become pregnant and expect me to pay for anyones lust, lack of intelligence and decency, have you heard of CONDOMS and THE PILL?

I believe some who WILL NOT SEE are more than likely to be raiding the benefit system.



Open thine eyes/

Ziz wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:If the women in the article had partners previously, I wonder how they managed then. Having four or five children is quite expensive, so if they could afford it, why are the ex partners not paying maintenance? If they couldn't afford it, they shouldn't have had so many children.

Easy to say, difficult to police.

Hence the benefit caps. It simply can't go on - people on benefits getting more or as much as those who work. It's also easy to say that employers should raise wages, or that the minimum wage should be drastically increased, but that's simply not going to happen. The Government is also not going to put a cap on house prices or rents - only market forces will do that, and if huge amounts are willingly paid out in housing benefit/allowance, house prices will continue to rise. They're already surely beyond the means of an awful lot of people who work.

Major wrote:If ya cannot face the truth then explain the truth as you see it.

It is not mandatory to become pregnant and expect me to pay for anyones lust, lack of intelligence and decency, have you heard of CONDOMS and THE PILL?

I believe some who WILL NOT SEE are more than likely to be raiding the benefit system.

Open thine eyes/

You do realise that a lot of pregnancies are planned and then things can simply go wrong?

eddie wrote:

Major wrote:If ya cannot face the truth then explain the truth as you see it.

It is not mandatory to become pregnant and expect me to pay for anyones lust, lack of intelligence and decency, have you heard of CONDOMS and THE PILL?

I believe some who WILL NOT SEE are more than likely to be raiding the benefit system.

Open thine eyes/

You do realise that a lot of pregnancies are planned and then things can simply go wrong?

Things don't just "go wrong", people make them go wrong. If you have a child, then try harder, or be prepared to suffer financial hardship and plan for it.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ziz wrote:

Easy to say, difficult to police.

Hence the benefit caps. It simply can't go on - people on benefits getting more or as much as those who work. It's also easy to say that employers should raise wages, or that the minimum wage should be drastically increased, but that's simply not going to happen. The Government is also not going to put a cap on house prices or rents - only market forces will do that, and if huge amounts are willingly paid out in housing benefit/allowance, house prices will continue to rise. They're already surely beyond the means of an awful lot of people who work.

Hence...? I think not.  The benefit caps saves relatively little and certainly won't impact the housing market to any extent worth crelebrating. It does however appease sanctimonious Mail readers and so makes for sound politics.

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:

Major wrote:If ya cannot face the truth then explain the truth as you see it.

It is not mandatory to become pregnant and expect me to pay for anyones lust, lack of intelligence and decency, have you heard of CONDOMS and THE PILL?

I believe some who WILL NOT SEE are more than likely to be raiding the benefit system.

Open thine eyes/

You do realise that a lot of pregnancies are planned and then things can simply go wrong?

Things don't just "go wrong", people make them go wrong. If you have a child, then try harder, or be prepared to suffer financial hardship and plan for it.

Are you actually kidding me? What makes you presume that people don't need try harder?

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Things don't just "go wrong", people make them go wrong. If you have a child, then try harder, or be prepared to suffer financial hardship and plan for it.

Are you actually kidding me?  What makes you presume that people don't need try harder?

If you plan to have children with someone, make sure that things aren't going to "go wrong". Obviously, some things are beyond one's control, but having five children and then saying "oh it went wrong" isn't really on.

Major wrote:
I believe some who WILL NOT SEE are more than likely to be raiding the benefit system.

Shrill sexist rants are no substitute for your non existent debating skills.  You have had several board warnings from the moderators for your general style of speaking and you were told yesterday that you are on your final  warning  so I hope you are not  implying that anyone who dares disagree with you is a benefit thief raiding the benefit system.

Yesterday you told a sick woman who also has sick elderly parents that her home life must be quite miserable.  Get a grip!!  And if you like describing yourself as a "gentleman"  then you may wish to review your habit of flinging sexist words like ''tarts'' and ''slappers'' around .

Ziz wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Hence the benefit caps. It simply can't go on - people on benefits getting more or as much as those who work. It's also easy to say that employers should raise wages, or that the minimum wage should be drastically increased, but that's simply not going to happen. The Government is also not going to put a cap on house prices or rents - only market forces will do that, and if huge amounts are willingly paid out in housing benefit/allowance, house prices will continue to rise. They're already surely beyond the means of an awful lot of people who work.

Hence...? I think not.  The benefit caps saves relatively little and certainly won't impact the housing market to any extent worth crelebrating. It does however appease sanctimonious Mail readers and so makes for sound politics.

How much it saves isn't the point. The point is fairness, and it's simply not fair that people on benefits can get as much or more than those who work. At some point, someone has to say this and mean it.

One of the biggest problems I can see with these women is that they are all in private rentals with the high rents that go along with them.

Being single mothers on benefits they also tend to be limited in their choice of homes because many mortgage lenders won't allow the owner of the home to rent it out to people on benefits.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ziz wrote:

Hence...? I think not.  The benefit caps saves relatively little and certainly won't impact the housing market to any extent worth crelebrating. It does however appease sanctimonious Mail readers and so makes for sound politics.

How much it saves isn't the point. The point is fairness, and it's simply not fair that people on benefits can get as much or more than those who work. At some point, someone has to say this and mean it.

If the level of poverty for some working people is unacceptable then the government needs to address the problem - level up, not down.

Spindleshanks wrote:One of the biggest problems I can see with these women is that they are all in private rentals with the high rents that go along with them.

Being single mothers on benefits they also tend to be limited in their choice of homes because many mortgage lenders won't allow the owner of the home to rent it out to people on benefits.

Sounds like a case for more social housing.

I have to say that some of the statements in that article are clearly provocative.

Ziz wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

How much it saves isn't the point. The point is fairness, and it's simply not fair that people on benefits can get as much or more than those who work. At some point, someone has to say this and mean it.

If the level of poverty for some working people is unacceptable then the government needs to address the problem - level up, not down.

And then the employers will say they can't afford a huge increase in wages, and they'll make people redundant or they'll go bust. The main problem is housing costs, and throwing housing benefit/allowance at people isn't helping.

Raggamuffin wrote:I have to say that some of the statements in that article are clearly provocative.

Hyperbolic?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ziz wrote:

If the level of poverty for some working people is unacceptable then the government needs to address the problem - level up, not down.

And then the employers will say they can't afford a huge increase in wages, and they'll make people redundant or they'll go bust. The main problem is housing costs, and throwing housing benefit/allowance at people isn't helping.

Housing costs are a real problem - but benefit caps really don't do much - more affordable homes would.

Ziz wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

And then the employers will say they can't afford a huge increase in wages, and they'll make people redundant or they'll go bust. The main problem is housing costs, and throwing housing benefit/allowance at people isn't helping.

Housing costs are a real problem  - but benefit caps really don't do much - more affordable homes would.

I don't think that would help really. There would need to be absolutely loads and loads of them, and even then, most people wouldn't get one. I can't believe the price of houses and/or rent round here compared to the salaries. I have no idea how anyone is affording anything.

much of te problem with affordable rents at least could be mitigated by taking almost all houses owned by these big "property portfolio" holders into state hands and setting, by law, reasonable and affordable rent levels.

Whatever ones right to "own" things...this right should NOT include social necessities like housing (beyond your own)...which preserve should be soley the govts, who in turn should be bound by a constitutional requirement to "provide housing for those citizens of the land who are in need, at a cost to the user which is realistic in terms of income and free where needed"

(my definition for citizen of the land....born here/lived hear for at least 15 years OR if foreign, parents having at least 15 years continuous residency here (either singly or combined) and NO criminal convictions for an offence above a certain level .)

Mass immigration is the cause of high housing costs.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ziz wrote:

Housing costs are a real problem  - but benefit caps really don't do much - more affordable homes would.

I don't think that would help really. There would need to be absolutely loads and loads of them, and even then, most people wouldn't get one. I can't believe the price of houses and/or rent round here compared to the salaries. I have no idea how anyone is affording anything.

Well generally if there is an abundance of a commodity the price falls.

And we needed even more after WWII but we still managed to build them.

Jules wrote:

Major wrote:
I believe some who WILL NOT SEE are more than likely to be raiding the benefit system.

Shrill sexist rants are no substitute for your non existent debating skills.  You have had several board warnings from the moderators for your general style of speaking and you were told yesterday that you are on your final  warning  so I hope you are not  implying that anyone who dares disagree with you is a benefit thief raiding the benefit system.

Yesterday you told a sick woman who also has sick elderly parents that her home life must be quite miserable.  Get a grip!!  And if you like describing yourself as a "gentleman"  then you may wish to review your habit of flinging sexist words like ''tarts'' and ''slappers'' around .

How would you describe unmarried females with loads of kids by different non paying absent fathers scrounging from society, the taxpayer??????????????

OUR taxes must go to those worthy of it.

Those who do not pay tax think the country owes them a living, well they don't..

I admire those who try to get out of this situation by their own efforts but feel they should take all on offer whilst trying as it will speed up. eases their recovery so to speak.

BTW, SHOW QUOTES when accusing me of anything. it makes it really easy for everyone to distinguish between those telling the truth and rotten liars.

Major wrote:
How would you describe unmarried females with loads of kids by different non paying absent fathers scrounging from society, the taxpayer??????????????

Simple question: > Why is it you have special filthy cuss words to describe such women when you don't have any similar swear words to describe men of equally low morals who sleep around all the time????

Anyone who paid attention in their biology class at school,  knows that it takes 2 to tango. I recently posted a clip of a guy who said he had around 40 kids by numerous women. You don't use any special dirty words to describe such men.

Major wrote:
OUR taxes must go to those worthy of it. Those who do not pay tax think the country owes them a living, well they don't..I admire those who try to get out of this situation by their own efforts but feel they should take all on offer whilst trying as it will speed up. eases their recovery so to speak.
BTW, SHOW QUOTES when accusing me of anything. it makes it really easy for everyone to distinguish between those telling the truth and rotten liars.

Let's get one thing straight, I was not challenging your actual OPINION.  I don't care about your opinion  at all. Never have, never will.  Why should I give two hoots?  Your point of view is entirely your business and it is completely unimportant to me.  Understood?


What I was challenging was your filthy cursing and swearing (ie "tarts" and "slappers"). Similar to ''sluts'' and ''whores''. You are in a forum, not in a latrine and your choice of words turned the forum into a dirty lavatory. Or did you not even realise that those words are dirty cursing words??  If you refuse to stop using such filthy, ungentlemanly words then it would be absurd to call yourself a "gentleman" and it'd also be absurd to preach about women swearing, when you do so much swearing yourself.



Now, since you have asked for proof, I will have a quick lookaround later, to look for proof of some of the things I mentioned.  
After you have got your proof,  this conversation  between us is OVER!!

Jules wrote:

Major wrote:
OUR taxes must go to those worthy of it. Those who do not pay tax think the country owes them a living, well they don't..I admire those who try to get out of this situation by their own efforts but feel they should take all on offer whilst trying as it will speed up. eases their recovery so to speak.
BTW, SHOW QUOTES when accusing me of anything. it makes it really easy for everyone to distinguish between those telling the truth and rotten liars.

Let's get one thing straight, I was not challenging your actual OPINION.  I don't care about your opinion  at all. Never have, never will.  Why should I give two hoots?  Your point of view is entirely your business and it is completely unimportant to me.  Understood?


What I was challenging was your filthy cursing and swearing (ie "tarts" and "slappers"). Similar to ''sluts'' and ''whores''. You are in a forum, not in a latrine and your choice of words turned the forum into a dirty lavatory. Or did you not even realise that those words are dirty cursing words??  If you refuse to stop using such filthy, ungentlemanly words then it would be absurd to call yourself a "gentleman" and it'd also be absurd to preach about women swearing, when you do so much swearing yourself.



Now, since you have asked for proof, I will have a quick lookaround later, to look for proof of some of the things I mentioned.  
After you have got your proof,  this conversation  between us is OVER!!

Let me be direct 'tweety pie', the PROOF I would like you to substantiate is on this thread alone as said earlier.

What would you call a unwed benefit scrounging female with several babiz by several UNKNOWN, UNDISCLOSED feckless dadiz?????

Do you contribute moneywise to their disgusting habit???? thought not, I do.

Answer this, have you been pm ing memberz here telling them your forum name and how to join you??

Jules wrote:

Ziz wrote:There are times when the level of debate descends beyond absurdity - this is one of them - so I for one will not be shouting anyone down.

Well actually Ziz, to be fair, several people are debating quite intelligently in this thread, in the proper manner, using facts and figures. It's a good debate even if I don't agree with some of the opinions , and I am learning new facts from those equipped with the facts, esp. new updates and revisions of the rules

However, certain others are just having the usual self-indulgent RW screeching rant,  using dirty words like "tarts" and "slappers" in a totally casual manner. It is disgusting ungentlemanly language and it's disgusting towards women.  It's like being inside a filthy lavatory.

Surely not !!!

The extreme RW nutbags on here using crude and derogatory language  ???

Major insists that he never swears, doesn't attack women, blacks, asians or foreigners, and would never think of trolling and derailing his own threads;
While Tommy has been regaling everyone here with his "genius" and innate brilliance over the past few days..

Must be some evil left wing fascist imitators pretending to be them  !      

I did a test... I got a score... get over it...

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Jules wrote:

Well actually Ziz, to be fair, several people are debating quite intelligently in this thread, in the proper manner, using facts and figures. It's a good debate even if I don't agree with some of the opinions , and I am learning new facts from those equipped with the facts, esp. new updates and revisions of the rules

However, certain others are just having the usual self-indulgent RW screeching rant,  using dirty words like "tarts" and "slappers" in a totally casual manner. It is disgusting ungentlemanly language and it's disgusting towards women.  It's like being inside a filthy lavatory.

Surely not !!!

The extreme RW nutbags on here using crude and derogatory language  ???

Major insists that he never swears, doesn't attack women, blacks, asians or foreigners, and would never think of trolling and derailing his own threads;
While Tommy has been regaling everyone here with his "genius" and innate brilliance over the past few days..

Must be some evil left wing fascist imitators pretending to be them  !      

Oh how different the world would have been had Einstein devoted his genius to making witless remarks on forums rather than developing relativity.

Major wrote:
Let me be direct 'tweety pie', the PROOF I would like you to substantiate is on this thread alone as said earlier.

What would you call a unwed benefit scrounging female with several babiz by several UNKNOWN, UNDISCLOSED  feckless dadiz?????

Do you contribute moneywise to their disgusting habit???? thought not, I do.

Answer this, have you been pm ing memberz here telling them your forum name and how to join you??

Wow asking you to stop using filthy sexist names for women, after you called yourself a "gentleman" has certainly hit a nerve.

And gosh, for someone who is always barking at people to stay on topic, as if he thinks he's a moderator, you have no hesitation taking things off topic all the time, have you?

repeat

Ziz wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:



Surely not !!!

The extreme RW nutbags on here using crude and derogatory language  ???

Major insists that he never swears, doesn't attack women, blacks, asians or foreigners, and would never think of trolling and derailing his own threads;
While Tommy has been regaling everyone here with his "genius" and innate brilliance over the past few days..

Must be some evil left wing fascist imitators pretending to be them  !      

Oh how different the world would have been had Einstein devoted his genius to making witless remarks on forums rather than developing relativity.

Poincare developed the relativity theory before einstein...

Major wrote:
Let me be direct 'tweety pie', the PROOF I would like you to substantiate is on this thread alone as said earlier.


Answer this, have you been pm ing memberz here telling them your ...?

........ ...... Answer this, are you PMing criminals on here,  to give them the address of the secret crime ring you belong to?

See?  if you think you can make wild accusations about PM's, what's to stop other people making wild accusations about your PM's????  You need to prove things before you vomit it out, and the first thing I want to see is your special xray goggles that allows you to see people's PM'S.


Did you have the manners and common courtesy to ask permission from anyone when you took it upon yourself to make this thread about some forum called smeggie or whatever?? Were you brought up to politely request permission before you do things or were you dragged up to just do as you please?


I have NEVER mentioned anything about my other username OR any forum elsewhere and you would do well to mind your damn business and post within the rules.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Ziz wrote:

Oh how different the world would have been had Einstein devoted his genius to making witless remarks on forums rather than developing relativity.

Poincare developed the relativity theory before einstein...

So he didn't make witless remarks on forums either?

And others...


http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/site/harryricker/2015/05/23/the-origin-of-the-equation-e-mc2/

Tommy Monk wrote:And others...


http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/site/harryricker/2015/05/23/the-origin-of-the-equation-e-mc2/

Lucky for the world there was no internet then otherwise where would they have found the time?

Ziz wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:
I don't think that would help really. There would need to be absolutely loads and loads of them, and even then, most people wouldn't get one. I can't believe the price of houses and/or rent round here compared to the salaries. I have no idea how anyone is affording anything.

Well generally if there is an abundance of a commodity the price falls.

And we needed even more after WWII but we still managed to build them.

          The level of benefits has very little to do overall with housing costs...

However, the absurdly high current costs of housing does impact on the demand for those benefit levels to be higher...


There are two major factors impacting on the current demand for investment properties outstripping supply:
*  An oversupply of low interest/"low doc'" funds circulating the globe, looking for investors to borrow them;  and
*  stupid "negative gearing" tax provisions introduced into many Western economies during the 1980s,  foolishly favouring property speculators ahead of first home buyers..

Greatly exacerbated by many of those Western guvm'nts decreasing the stock of public housing since the 1980s --  hoping forlornly that private investors would make up the shortfall, by building more 'affordable' housing.  Which, of course, they never did..


Only a couple of complete idiots --with zero economic knowledge and understanding between them --  would be stupid enough to even attempt to lay the blame for rising house prices off onto single mothers, refugees and asylum seekers, and immigration in general...      

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Ziz wrote:
Well generally if there is an abundance of a commodity the price falls.

And we needed even more after WWII but we still managed to build them.

          The level of benefits has very little to do overall with housing costs...
However, the absurdly high current costs of housing does impact on the demand for those benefit levels to be higher...


There are two major factors impacting on the current demand for investment properties outstripping supply:
*  An oversupply of low interest/"low doc'" funds circulating the globe, looking for investors to borrow them;  and
*  stupid "negative gearing" tax provisions introduced into many Western economies during the 1980s,  foolishly favouring property speculators ahead of first home buyers..

Greatly exacerbated by many of those Western guvm'nts decreasing the stock of public housing since the 1980s --  hoping forlornly that private investors would make up the shortfall, by building more 'affordable' housing.  Which, of course, they never did..


Only a couple of complete idiots --with zero economic knowledge and understanding between them --  would be stupid enough to even attempt to lay the blame for rising house prices off onto single mothers, refugees and asylum seekers, and immigration in general...      

Yep, can't disagree with that.

Major wrote:

Jules wrote:

Major wrote:
OUR taxes must go to those worthy of it. Those who do not pay tax think the country owes them a living, well they don't..I admire those who try to get out of this situation by their own efforts but feel they should take all on offer whilst trying as it will speed up. eases their recovery so to speak.
BTW, SHOW QUOTES when accusing me of anything. it makes it really easy for everyone to distinguish between those telling the truth and rotten liars.

Let's get one thing straight, I was not challenging your actual OPINION.  I don't care about your opinion  at all. Never have, never will.  Why should I give two hoots?  Your point of view is entirely your business and it is completely unimportant to me.  Understood?


What I was challenging was your filthy cursing and swearing (ie "tarts" and "slappers"). Similar to ''sluts'' and ''whores''. You are in a forum, not in a latrine and your choice of words turned the forum into a dirty lavatory. Or did you not even realise that those words are dirty cursing words??  If you refuse to stop using such filthy, ungentlemanly words then it would be absurd to call yourself a "gentleman" and it'd also be absurd to preach about women swearing, when you do so much swearing yourself.



Now, since you have asked for proof, I will have a quick lookaround later, to look for proof of some of the things I mentioned.  
After you have got your proof,  this conversation  between us is OVER!!

Let me be direct 'tweety pie', the PROOF I would like you to substantiate is on this thread alone as said earlier.

What would you call a unwed benefit scrounging female with several babiz by several UNKNOWN, UNDISCLOSED  feckless dadiz?????

Do you contribute moneywise to their disgusting habit???? thought not, I do.

Answer this, have you been pm ing memberz here telling them your forum name and how to join you??

But major...you just said, earlier....that you indulged in the shameful practice of tax avoidance......so clearly you are not contributing your full and propper share.....

Ziz wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:
          The level of benefits has very little to do overall with housing costs...
However, the absurdly high current costs of housing does impact on the demand for those benefit levels to be higher...


There are two major factors impacting on the current demand for investment properties outstripping supply:
*  An oversupply of low interest/"low doc'" funds circulating the globe, looking for investors to borrow them;  and
*  stupid "negative gearing" tax provisions introduced into many Western economies during the 1980s,  foolishly favouring property speculators ahead of first home buyers..

Greatly exacerbated by many of those Western guvm'nts decreasing the stock of public housing since the 1980s --  hoping forlornly that private investors would make up the shortfall, by building more 'affordable' housing.  Which, of course, they never did..


Only a couple of complete idiots --with zero economic knowledge and understanding between them --  would be stupid enough to even attempt to lay the blame for rising house prices off onto single mothers, refugees and asylum seekers, and immigration in general...      

Yep, can't disagree with that.

The basic rule of economics of 'supply and demand' dictates that costs rise as demand increases more than supply...


Mass immigration has increased demand to higher levels than supply can accommodate... hence rising costs!

We built 1.2 million homes in 5 years after WWII, no problem - perhaps we need more Poles if we've forgotten how?

But sadly... labour opened up the taps on mass immigration from 1997... and mord houses were built under one year of Thatcher than under the whole total 13 years of labour...


http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/labour-should-apologise-for-social-housing-failure-8932797.html

Not a problem - simply build more affordable homes.