The main issue isn’t the policy itself, but the double standard in how data is applied.
There is a willingness to look at systemic rates when addressing disparities in financial outcomes, housing and healthcare for minority communities, yet a refusal to analyze the same statistical approach when discussing crime.
If Owen's ideological framework were consistent, supporting targeted assistance based on demographic rates would mean also accepting a higher incarceration rates for those same groups or more selective immigration policy.
The officers need to lose their jobs and Hampshire Police must release all footage unconditionally. To do anything less is a betrayal of truth.
Suicidal empathy isn't compassion; you have sacrificed public safety and institutional accountability for self-preservation.
Shame on you, I don't know how you sleep at night.
I hear you on point 1. I feel this could be addressed with longer stretches between checks (i.e. 10 years instead of 3) OR no inheritance for SH (I favour the latter). Agree the incentives matter.
On point 4. if we could properly assess costs, ie. allocate based on the most accretive option I would be game.
I worry by over generalising the problem today we end up in extremes, ie. not all families being housed today would be more accretive than another option in the waiting list. I also feel wait times itself should be a more influencing factor.
Anyway just throwing ideas out there. Reform needed, there are many options to improve the system.
You should put your degree to better use and apply yourself.
The ruling class, of which you are a cheerleader - is incentivising welfare over work and pricing lower and middle-income workers out of London.
This is why we get perverse outcomes like the first lady of Sierra Leonne being in Social housing, a share of lower earners take home less than people on benefits or 60% marginal tax rate for those earning £100k–£125k (higher than for those above £125k).
London's housing is supply constrained, the government prioritises those in "need" - which too often means non-workers or recent arrivals - over people actually contributing through employment.
The result is workers are being forced out of the city they power and only multimillionaires or those lucky enough to be in social housing are left.
You are a cheerleader for this status quo driven by the ruling class, we wish to reform it.
@RichardBurgon New figures show that the people in the country that are, whatever their other qualities, best at making money… have lost money after inflation this year. If that’s not worrying I don’t know what is.
Daily reminder that Richard Burgon is economically illiterate and is once again trying to deceive the good people of x.
Average billionaire wealth is loosing to inflation (ie the average billionaire has lost real wealth and purchasing power since 2010).
Absolute billionaire wealth is up because there are approximately double the amount of billionaires in the UK today versus 2010 - we just have poorer billionaires (if such a thing can exist 😁)
The system discriminates against the working majority. Prioritising "needs" assumes if you have a job, you belong in a Zone 6 HMO. Low pay and high rent mean most workers simply cannot afford inner London.
Workers pay inheritance tax, yet social housing is passed down. Restricted supply prices the middle out entirely. London is now reserved for the 1% and social housing tenants.
The UK is cooked - it penalises work and incentivises generational dependency.
A fair system balances trade-offs between competing groups, rather than prioritising just one. You are not developing a fair system, you are developing a system that advances grievances.
@stellastafford@CHinchliffMP I’d suggest you stop being a sycophant for our incompetent ruling class.
I’ve highlighted the relevant bit to save you the trouble.
@JeevunSandher "the net effect (inc expenditure) will be growth-enhancing"
Yeah you guys are really nailing this at the moment. More of the same should do it.