Mecky Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 Define social cleansing, I suspect your definition won't match that of the calm, moderate majority. Those 700,000 are not all ready for habitation and if they are privately owned they are as relevant as your views on my car. As someone has pointed out, if they were made ready then the poor who you romanticise so much would still have to go there. You'd be tearing your hair out at that too, like a typical leftie you want it both ways and you demand the centre of gravity in our society is with those who least deserve it. I don't have to because you already know what it means and so does everyone else for that matter, what with the recent proposals and changes to benefits etc. I think you're just trying to drag out the argument. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/social+cleansing http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/apr/30/tories-out-of-touch-housing-reality http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2012/08/21/social-cleansing/ http://dictionary.reverso.net/english-cobuild/social%20cleansing http://crookedtimber.org/2010/10/28/social-cleansing/ EDIT: When the government realised how unpopular moving people to other towns was viewed in the media, they changed ttheir plans but still decided to try and hit the same people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 So a series of left wing definitions. You got a telegraph definition ? As I said on an earlier post, if you want to pay for these houses in nice leafy suburbs - you set up a collection. I want value for money and, bizarrely, want to help more people than you do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Prime Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 I don't have to because you already know what it means and so does everyone else for that matter, what with the recent proposals and changes to benefits etc. I think you're just trying to drag out the argument. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/social+cleansing http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/apr/30/tories-out-of-touch-housing-reality http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2012/08/21/social-cleansing/ http://dictionary.reverso.net/english-cobuild/social%20cleansing http://crookedtimber.org/2010/10/28/social-cleansing/ You don't have to. Typical Millie Tant leftie ducks the question as usual. Yawn. Your version of social cleansing is right wingers in top hats laughing as they twirl their moustaches and Bob Cratchitt and Tiny Tim are kicked into some house that is in another town, gasp and aren't allowed to stay in an area they can't afford, gasp as is their divine right. The moderate majority's version is people entirely reliant on the state using up billions and being rehoused, still at the taxpayers expense but somewhere more convenient to the taxpayer. There is nothing wrong with that at all. Bear in mind that if there were referendums on all this then most benefits would be withdrawn, there would be no automatic entitlements and child benefit for one kid only, if any. You know that which means you also know you are miles out of touch with public opinion and part of an unrepresentative cult of around 0.00000000001% of the population. Never mind you think, those masses are just 'sheeple' and their opinions are worthless next to your wisdom. Personal responsibility comes into it, why should the government run a five star service looking after people according to their wishes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mort Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 Any more insults and abuse and I will be banning the offenders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 I don't have to because you already know what it means and so does everyone else for that matter, what with the recent proposals and changes to benefits etc. I think you're just trying to drag out the argument. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/social+cleansing http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/apr/30/tories-out-of-touch-housing-reality http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2012/08/21/social-cleansing/ http://dictionary.reverso.net/english-cobuild/social%20cleansing http://crookedtimber.org/2010/10/28/social-cleansing/ EDIT: When the government realised how unpopular moving people to other towns was viewed in the media, they changed ttheir plans but still decided to try and hit the same people. Labour accuses coalition of 'Social Cleansing' but it is labour that lead the way has Labour-run Newham council pioneers social cleansing in London. But it is labours pathfinder project that truly pioneered social cleansing has they cleared and demolished many occupied housing estates. Pathfinder's Shameful Legacy Exposed in Devastating New SAVE Report Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 Labour accuses coalition of 'Social Cleansing' but it is labour that lead the way has Labour-run Newham council pioneers social cleansing in London. But it is labours pathfinder project that truly pioneered social cleansing has they cleared and demolished many occupied housing estates. Pathfinder's Shameful Legacy Exposed in Devastating New SAVE Report so are you agreeing that it was a good idea from labour or not . or is it just the tory things you agree with Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeaFan Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 There's not much point buying one hundreds of miles away from their jobs. When you have a job there is a need to live near your place of work. What if you can't afford to live anywhere near where you are offered a job? Isn't that a problem too? One of the benefits of social housing is that makes it potentially more feasible to get a job because you can look for jobs in places that are more expensive to live in or that you would otherwise have to spend a lot of money commuting to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 so are you agreeing that it was a good idea from labour or not . or is it just the tory things you agree with Conservative idea, sell vacant high value council houses and build more affordable houses from the proceeds, sounds reasonable. Labour policy, compulsory purchase people’s homes at well below market value and demolish them, that was bad idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 What if you can't afford to live anywhere near where you are offered a job? Isn't that a problem too? One of the benefits of social housing is that makes it potentially more feasible to get a job because you can look for jobs in places that are more expensive to live in or that you would otherwise have to spend a lot of money commuting to. You don't get offered jobs, you apply, and it would be silly applying for a job in an area you can't afford to travel to or live in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeaFan Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 You don't get offered jobs, you apply, and it would be silly applying for a job in an area you can't afford to travel to or live in. Lots of people get offered jobs, didn't you know that? Just because it doesn't happen to you doesn't mean it doesn't happen to others. Are you really saying that applying for jobs you can do would be silly? That seems very much against the current view on much of the Right that says people should consider doing anything, even for no pay. What's silly is that people can be effectively ruled out of jobs they could do well because we've left the cost of housing too much to the market to decide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.