Jump to content

Featured Replies

If *they* can't vote, than where is that 35% Labour vote share coming from?

 

Housing Estates, both Council and private. Contrary to perception, there are lots of areas with people on low paid jobs in an expensive area in both Poole and Bournemouth. There is also the most valuable piece of real-estate outside central London - hello Sandbanks! Very rich and very poor, and lots of middle class well-offs.

  • Replies 235
  • Views 17.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If *they* can't vote, than where is that 35% Labour vote share coming from?

Not that your lovely stereotyping really merits a response, but to build on the earlier point about private tenants - Labour did a lot better in 2017 among socially liberal middle class voters, who didn't mind Cameron too much but thought May was presiding over a nasty government of Little Englanders.

 

When did Hove get a seat of its own?

1950.

1950.

You beat me to it :lol: Having been brought cup in Sussex I can remember Hove being thought o f s ultra-posh. That's why it was such a shock when Labour won the constituency in 1997. The fact that they have held it most of the time since then just shows how much this part of the world has changed.

Have you linked to the right article Vidcapper? I see nothing wrong with that article and no indication of any "preferential status" in relation to rights? :unsure:
  • Author
Have you linked to the right article Vidcapper? I see nothing wrong with that article and no indication of any "preferential status" in relation to rights? :unsure:

 

I assumed this forum would prefer the Guardian version to the Mail one...

I don't see anything wrong with that article. What are you railing against here? That co-habiting couples should be treated as if they were defacto married? That they already are treated properly under Scots Law? The Guardian?
  • Author
Who has been given preferential status?

 

I knew I should have posted the Mail version as well... :rolleyes:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-53...rtnerships.html

 

Heterosexual couples could be allowed to have civil partnerships under a law change to end the 'unfair' inequality with gay people

 

Tim Loughton brought forward bill to extend civil partnerships to all couples

Tory ex minister said this close inequality that currently favours gay couples

Home Office said they will launch onsulttaion on how civil partnership work

Charles Keidan and Rebecca Steinfeld went to court for a civil partnership

 

 

 

Edited by vidcapper

What post are you trying to make? This bill and a good chance of becoming law. My own preference would have been to scrap civil partnerships altogether, but extending CPs to all couples is OK by me. However, the suggestion that existing law is discriminatory is typical right-wing Daily Mail nonsense.

The existing law was a way to attempt to recognise same sex unions without giving them equal rights. That it was left over or not extended to all after equal marriage was attained is sloppy legislating by the Tory/LibDem coalition. It's not a conspiracy against heterosexual couples.

 

You couldn't make this shit up

The existing law was a way to attempt to recognise same sex unions without giving them equal rights. That it was left over or not extended to all after equal marriage was attained is sloppy legislating by the Tory/LibDem coalition. It's not a conspiracy against heterosexual couples.

 

You couldn't make this shit up

 

Exactly right.

 

Those were separate but equal, pandering ro the 4 million Christian base, many i whom don't even have a problem with gay people marrying, this is not America, no matter how much the BBT tried to make it a controversial narrative. I think they shoild be extended to everyone. It is unfair that they aren't ... but it was even MRE unfair that gay people had to hide in secret, then be denied all rifhrs, for hundreds of years, so, you know, not a whole heaping of marma on heterosexual couples in the grand scheme o' things...

  • 4 weeks later...
Landlords who say 'no DSS' breaking equality laws

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-42979242

 

ISTM this could be easily resolved by having HB paid directly to the landlords, as used to be the case..

 

We agree! It's hard to believe I know...

 

Tories can resolve the problem in one quick minor drafting, supported by all parties.....

 

Funny they choose not to...

OK, local government observation.

 

Dorset has just (at long last, a year late) been given the go-ahead to merge into 2 councils:

 

Poole, Bournemouth, Christchurch into one urban council, the rest of Dorset into a large rural-leaning council.

 

This is to cut jobs and make savings based on the economy of scale.

 

Residents of Christchurch demanded (or rather their Tory Councillors and Tory MP demanded) a local referendum so they can go independent (they can't because it small council can't financially provide for anything much). 80% of those who bothered to vote, voted to refuse the joining with Bournemouth & Poole (as they would become a small fish in a bigger pond), but most people didn't bother to vote, presumably because they weren't fussed about the idea, whereas public opinion generally in Dorset seems in favour.

 

Now what's hilarious is the same EU-haters constantly slagging off the leavers for not not submitting to a wafer-thin referendum, and demanding that it is undemocratic for Christchurch to be ignored in its wishes - don't seem to have a problem with Scotland, N. Ireland, London, and many parts of the country being forced out of the EU, and that affects future well-being far more than a minor local government reorganisation does from forced savings from a government they voted for in droves.

 

Loons and hypocrites.

Landlords who say 'no DSS' breaking equality laws

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-42979242

 

ISTM this could be easily resolved by having HB paid directly to the landlords, as used to be the case..

Paying HB to individuals was a pretty stupid idea. It's hardly a surprise that the result was a lot of landlords (for understandable reasons) choosing not to take tenants receiving HB.

  • Author
Paying HB to individuals was a pretty stupid idea. It's hardly a surprise that the result was a lot of landlords (for understandable reasons) choosing not to take tenants receiving HB.

 

Which forces people into B&B, which I would guess is an even more expensive option? :unsure:

Which forces people into B&B, which I would guess is an even more expensive option? :unsure:

 

Yes it is, if basic needs for children are taking into account. A single person, not so much, but then single people are usually the homeless ones. There were 3 sleeping rough in the car park I use last night in sub zero temperatures. I contacted the organisation dealing with it to make sure they have overnight accomodation available - turns out they do. The church floor next door, as long as they get in by 10pm.

Create an account or sign in to comment

Recently Browsing 0

  • No registered users viewing this page.