Is it just me or does the copper in this story come across as a complete ****?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir C

Wait, there was no homelessness of begging between 1945 and 1985?

Where do you learn this shÃ*t? Is there some special school of leftiness where you leave your brain at the door and get injected with a cranium full of reatrded gibberish?

Forgive my intemperate tone; I have, I fear, become subjected to far too many leftist lies and they have started to grate more than they ought. I must delete Twitter and stop reading The Guardian.

---

F¨ck off, C. I thought you were better than that.

"Gradually stamped out" doesn't mean disappeared over night, does it?

It means it was prioritised and more progress than previously was made, meaning levels of both begging and homelessness began to fall.

This is shown by the post war consensus - WC agreeing to keep the NHS etc - which allowed the poor to happily vote for SuperMac etc.

Obv, WW2 with its bombing and the Cold War with it's threat of Commie revolution played a part in both sides agreeing to build loads of houses.

Indeed it was something the parties competed on, like NHS spending today.

This changed in the '80s, for whatever reason. (And personally, unlike any of my fellow lefty mates, I think the unions brought it on themselves.)

But Maggie sold off the council houses without rebuilding them, and created that greed is good mentality in place of a society she didn't believe existed.

I could go on about Blair and coalition austerity but I'm not writing a thesis.

But if you can't understand what "Gradually stamped out" means in simple, fücking English, then I worry about you, mate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult

F¨ck off, C. I thought you were better than that.

"Gradually stamped out" doesn't mean disappeared over night, does it?

It means it was prioritised and more progress than previously was made, meaning levels of both begging and homelessness began to fall.

This is shown by the post war consensus - WC agreeing to keep the NHS etc - which allowed the poor to happily vote for SuperMac etc.

Obv, WW2 with its bombing and the Cold War with it's threat of Commie revolution played a part in both sides agreeing to build loads of houses.

Indeed it was something the parties competed on, like NHS spending today.

This changed in the '80s, for whatever reason. (And personally, unlike any of my fellow lefty mates, I think the unions brought it on themselves.)

But Maggie sold off the council houses without rebuilding them, and created that greed is good mentality in place of a society she didn't believe existed.

I could go on about Blair and coalition austerity but I'm not writing a thesis.

But if you can't understand what "Gradually stamped out" means in simple, fücking English, then I worry about you, mate.

---

It wasn't grasually stamped out. At times it was reduced, at other times it increased.

Here's a thing I don't understand - and I see it often. "Maggie sold off the council houses without rebuilding them," This suggests that once a house is sold it ceases to be a, well, house. Whether owned by the council, a housing association, an owner occupier or a landlord, it is still a house wherein people live. It doesn't disappear. If Maggie had demolished council houses without rebuilding them, your argument would make sense. Sadly, it doesn't.

You realise that the 'greed is good' mentality at which you love to sneer is what has lifted vast swathes of the earth's population out of abject misery since Thatcher and Reagan defeated communism and ushered in an era of free trade, d0 you? I mean, considering what 'greed is good' has done to India compared with the wasted years of socialism post independence suggests that whilst leftist principles are all well and good, they're generally paid for by the suffering of the poor starving populace.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult

F¨ck off, C. I thought you were better than that.

"Gradually stamped out" doesn't mean disappeared over night, does it?

It means it was prioritised and more progress than previously was made, meaning levels of both begging and homelessness began to fall.

This is shown by the post war consensus - WC agreeing to keep the NHS etc - which allowed the poor to happily vote for SuperMac etc.

Obv, WW2 with its bombing and the Cold War with it's threat of Commie revolution played a part in both sides agreeing to build loads of houses.

Indeed it was something the parties competed on, like NHS spending today.

This changed in the '80s, for whatever reason. (And personally, unlike any of my fellow lefty mates, I think the unions brought it on themselves.)

But Maggie sold off the council houses without rebuilding them, and created that greed is good mentality in place of a society she didn't believe existed.

I could go on about Blair and coalition austerity but I'm not writing a thesis.

But if you can't understand what "Gradually stamped out" means in simple, fücking English, then I worry about you, mate.

---

No. What happened in the 1980s was that the inefficient, uncompetitive mass employment industries of the north, Wales and Midlands closed. The post-war consensus was predicated on mass employment, which was no longer economically viable. This meant that large numbers of young people descended on the cities and - most importantly - London in search of their fortunes. As has always been the case, some of these young people fell between the cracks and got chewed up and spat out as homeless.

So what in fact took place was an economic and demographic shift whose inevitable consequence was a rise in numbers of homeless.

And you're confusing a perpetual anomaly with a societal norm. They're not the same thing at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir C

It wasn't grasually stamped out. At times it was reduced, at other times it increased.

Here's a thing I don't understand - and I see it often. "Maggie sold off the council houses without rebuilding them," This suggests that once a house is sold it ceases to be a, well, house. Whether owned by the council, a housing association, an owner occupier or a landlord, it is still a house wherein people live. It doesn't disappear. If Maggie had demolished council houses without rebuilding them, your argument would make sense. Sadly, it doesn't.

You realise that the 'greed is good' mentality at which you love to sneer is what has lifted vast swathes of the earth's population out of abject misery since Thatcher and Reagan defeated communism and ushered in an era of free trade, d0 you? I mean, considering what 'greed is good' has done to India compared with the wasted years of socialism post independence suggests that whilst leftist principles are all well and good, they're generally paid for by the suffering of the poor starving populace.

---

Come off it, C.

That isn't why I flipped.

Had you wanted to discuss history, then fine. Got a 1st in it - know it ain't all black and white.

But you claimed I'd said or implied that "there was no homelessness of begging between 1945 and 1985?" and as such, I was one of those bogstandard fückwitted leftiies, when I am, in fact, a very superior class of lefty who hates my own side as much as you Tories.

But to continue. How many begging homeless soldiers did we have in the '20s? Lots. Why so many less in the 40s? (And yes I do know the relative casulaty stats. Use pot-Waterloo, if you'd prefer.)

I was at the LSE '89-92 and there were no beggars on the Tottenham Court Road r anywhere central back then. Went there last year and was so, so shocked to see all these homeless beggars bedding down in the furniture shop doorways at 7pm.

Next - you really don't understand about social housing. If a council has loads, it can put a crippled junkie soldier in a flat for no cost to itself and it's rate payers. But if they got sold at a discount, to those who then flog them to property developers and pocket the cash, then rent goes up almost double and therefore it costs too much to house the homeless.

And you don't have to preach to me about free trade. Where have you ever seen me criticise it. I'm a Cain and Hopkins junkie. (Google Gentlemanly Capitalism if you haven't read it. One of the most important works in economic imperialism.)

And while you do need free trade, you do not need "greed is good" to eradicate poverty. cf Scandi countries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

No. What happened in the 1980s was that the inefficient, uncompetitive mass employment industries of the north, Wales and Midlands closed. The post-war consensus was predicated on mass employment, which was no longer economically viable. This meant that large numbers of young people descended on the cities and - most importantly - London in search of their fortunes. As has always been the case, some of these young people fell between the cracks and got chewed up and spat out as homeless.

So what in fact took place was an economic and demographic shift whose inevitable consequence was a rise in numbers of homeless.

And you're confusing a perpetual anomaly with a societal norm. They're not the same thing at all.

---

But they didn't end up as homeless in '80s London, B.

Some got given council flats. People of my persuasion squatted.

You could argue that the C21st wealth of London meaning squats are worth tons to the council is to blame for homelessness. But that's crap. Most of us squatters were resourceful, middle-class, graduate types who could go back to mummy, anyway.

I am not confusing an anomaly, because the end of industry was early 80s and admittedly played out during that decade. We didn't see the effects on homeless until a decade or more later. For various reasons.

Again, there wasn't homelessness in London during my 2nd year when Maggie left. It didn't seem to come back until the time of the crash - when suddenly belts had to be tightened and the lack of social housing began to bite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult

Come off it, C.

That isn't why I flipped.

Had you wanted to discuss history, then fine. Got a 1st in it - know it ain't all black and white.

But you claimed I'd said or implied that "there was no homelessness of begging between 1945 and 1985?" and as such, I was one of those bogstandard fückwitted leftiies, when I am, in fact, a very superior class of lefty who hates my own side as much as you Tories.

But to continue. How many begging homeless soldiers did we have in the '20s? Lots. Why so many less in the 40s? (And yes I do know the relative casulaty stats. Use pot-Waterloo, if you'd prefer.)

I was at the LSE '89-92 and there were no beggars on the Tottenham Court Road r anywhere central back then. Went there last year and was so, so shocked to see all these homeless beggars bedding down in the furniture shop doorways at 7pm.

Next - you really don't understand about social housing. If a council has loads, it can put a crippled junkie soldier in a flat for no cost to itself and it's rate payers. But if they got sold at a discount, to those who then flog them to property developers and pocket the cash, then rent goes up almost double and therefore it costs too much to house the homeless.

And you don't have to preach to me about free trade. Where have you ever seen me criticise it. I'm a Cain and Hopkins junkie. (Google Gentlemanly Capitalism if you haven't read it. One of the most important works in economic imperialism.)

And while you do need free trade, you do not need "greed is good" to eradicate poverty. cf Scandi countries.

---

Come along g, I was just yanking your chain a little. I am aware that you are entirely different kettle of fish to the silly ones.

In truth, I cannot remember a London without some homeless types - from the tramps of my youth in the late 60s and early 70s to the junkies of today, it seems to me that they have always been with us, just to a slightly larger or lesser degree.

There are fewer examples of greedy bástards than Scandis, in my opinion. Have you seen how those fúcker's live, man?