The Conservative Party - Part Two.

[harvey19 541]

25 minutes ago, Mister M said:

How is she trying to change things for the better?

Take her comments recently on people who sleep rough making a "lifestyle choice" to sleep rough. 

So many organisations and people have told her it isn't true, that people's lives are complicated, that the average age of death for those who do sleep rough is 45, and that criminalising organisation who try and help the homeless by giving them tents will only make the situation even worse - if that's possible. 

She, nor you, have told us why it is that so many more people make the "lifestyle choice" to sleep rough under a Tory government than a Labour government.

Here, she is not taking responsibility, in fact she is doing the exact opposite,  she is blaming others for their misfortunes.

She is trying to stop people from sleeping on the streets. !

You must agree with this .

[hackey lad 3,987]

53 minutes ago, harvey19 said:

Because it is true.

Maybe you should be criticising those who hinder her efforts to get things done.

. Things would get done if she would be allowed to .

[Delbow 706]

1 hour ago, harvey19 said:

She is trying to change things for the better !

She is acting constructively !

She is not trying to ingratiate anyone but is doing the opposite and reflecting the views of the population against distracters.

Criticism is easy  of those who take responsibility .

 

Unfortunately you have been conditioned to believe what anyone says who has authority and stands in front of a union flag. That was your job for many years, so it's not surprising, but it shows that all you are able to offer is vague support for them without being able to point to anything they have actually done or that's been effective. Blair's government almost eradicated rough sleeping by creating a central government unit to work closely with local authorities and gave them the money and expertise to tackle the problem. The Tories got rid of that unit and slashed funding to local authorities - in other words they've made it worse. On purpose.

[hackey lad 3,987]

24 minutes ago, Delbow said:

Unfortunately you have been conditioned to believe what anyone says who has authority and stands in front of a union flag. That was your job for many years, so it's not surprising, but it shows that all you are able to offer is vague support for them without being able to point to anything they have actually done or that's been effective. Blair's government almost eradicated rough sleeping by creating a central government unit to work closely with local authorities and gave them the money and expertise to tackle the problem. The Tories got rid of that unit and slashed funding to local authorities - in other words they've made it worse. On purpose.

“On purpose “  . Interesting.

[Delbow 706]

17 minutes ago, hackey lad said:

“On purpose “  . Interesting.

You think they made it worse by accident? There are a number of factors contributing to the increase in rough sleeping: housing benefits cut by a third around 2012; cuts to community mental health provision; cuts to services that help people recover from addiction; huge cuts to local authority funding, meaning specialist posts to tackle rough sleeping were lost; chronic lack of inpatient psychiatric beds; cuts to disability benefits and the arbitrary withdrawal of benefits to people with multiple and complex needs.

 

All measures proactively taken by the Tories since 2010, which they prepared legislation for and debated in parliament. 

[Mister M 1,626]

1 hour ago, harvey19 said:

She is trying to stop people from sleeping on the streets. !

You must agree with this .

No, I don't have to agree with anything.

Braverman is doing whatever she feels will tickle the political erogenous zones of the Conservative electorate. Being vile about the homeless, tick. Being vile about protesters, tick. Being vile about people who don't share her political opinions, tick. Being vile about asylum seekers, tick.

If she was so keen to stop people sleeping rough, then she wouldn't have been part of a government which has cut local government funding and cuts to grants to hostels. Actions speak louder than words. Yes she's good at mouthing off about the vulnerable, but when it comes to doing something to get people off the street, what does she do? Nothing, in fact she just makes the situation worse.

Edited November 8, 2023 by Mister M

[hackey lad 3,987]

4 minutes ago, Delbow said:

You think they made it worse by accident? There are a number of factors contributing to the increase in rough sleeping: housing benefits cut by a third around 2012; cuts to community mental health provision; cuts to services that help people recover from addiction; huge cuts to local authority funding, meaning specialist posts to tackle rough sleeping were lost; chronic lack of inpatient psychiatric beds; cuts to disability benefits and the arbitrary withdrawal of benefits to people with multiple and complex needs.

 

All measures proactively taken by the Tories since 2010, which they prepared legislation for and debated in parliament. 

Why would they increase rough sleeping on purpose? How would they benefit from it ? 

[Delbow 706]

4 minutes ago, hackey lad said:

Why would they increase rough sleeping on purpose? How would they benefit from it ? 

It's not about specifically deciding to increase rough sleeping, it's about pursuing the dogma of the Small State. This says that the state should not play a significant role in people's lives and that state spending should be pared back to the minimum. The theory is that once this has been done, people are then forced to rely on their own agency to improve their circumstances, which is seen as preferable somehow. The biggest problem is that reality doesn't conform to the theory. Some of the key drivers of rough sleeping are childhood abuse, poor mental health, trauma and addiction. In reality, removing state support around these issues doesn't result in people sorting these issues out for themselves, it just means they fall out of society, i.e. they end up living on the street. As with all zealots, the zealots who strongly believe in the Small State dogma are unable to reflect on whether it's the theory that is wrong, so instead have to blame the real life victims of the theory for it not working. The modern Tory party is driven by the Small State dogma.

 

It's a program for unhappiness. The countries with the largest state spending are the happiest in the world.

[harvey19 541]

1 hour ago, Mister M said:

No, I don't have to agree with anything.

Braverman is doing whatever she feels will tickle the political erogenous zones of the Conservative electorate. Being vile about the homeless, tick. Being vile about protesters, tick. Being vile about people who don't share her political opinions, tick. Being vile about asylum seekers, tick.

If she was so keen to stop people sleeping rough, then she wouldn't have been part of a government which has cut local government funding and cuts to grants to hostels. Actions speak louder than words. Yes she's good at mouthing off about the vulnerable, but when it comes to doing something to get people off the street, what does she do? Nothing, in fact she just makes the situation worse.

You are very strong at criticising the government when there is probably a lot being done as a result of her speech.

Do you have respect for any politicians ?

[hackey lad 3,987]

6 minutes ago, harvey19 said:

You are very strong at criticising the government when there is probably a lot being done as a result of her speech.

Do you have respect for any politicians ?

Depends what colour flag they wave .

[hackey lad 3,987]

1 hour ago, Delbow said:

It's not about specifically deciding to increase rough sleeping, it's about pursuing the dogma of the Small State. This says that the state should not play a significant role in people's lives and that state spending should be pared back to the minimum. The theory is that once this has been done, people are then forced to rely on their own agency to improve their circumstances, which is seen as preferable somehow. The biggest problem is that reality doesn't conform to the theory. Some of the key drivers of rough sleeping are childhood abuse, poor mental health, trauma and addiction. In reality, removing state support around these issues doesn't result in people sorting these issues out for themselves, it just means they fall out of society, i.e. they end up living on the street. As with all zealots, the zealots who strongly believe in the Small State dogma are unable to reflect on whether it's the theory that is wrong, so instead have to blame the real life victims of the theory for it not working. The modern Tory party is driven by the Small State dogma.

 

It's a program for unhappiness. The countries with the largest state spending are the happiest in the world.

[Mister M 1,626]

1 hour ago, harvey19 said:

You are very strong at criticising the government when there is probably a lot being done as a result of her speech.

Do you have respect for any politicians ?

I've been listening to a debate on LBC, and across the political divide there is not a lot of support for Braverman's rhetoric. As I indicated earlier, at a very difficult time in the Middle East, when there are members of both Jewish and Muslim faiths in this country, the last thing we need is a Home Secretary is stirring the pot for her own narrow interests.

It's interesting that the meeting between the Met Police Chief Sir Mark Rowley and Braverman has been made public. The normal protocol is that these meetings are not made public, and there is speculation amongst her colleagues that it has been made public for political reasons.

I also heard that Tommy Robinson is going to stage a counter demonstration in London at the same time as the peace march. 

I think it would suit Braveman for there to be trouble on this march.

Yes I do have respect for politicians, and ones I don't agree with too. And I agree with Baroness Warsi that Braverman is ill suited to the role.

Edited November 8, 2023 by Mister M