• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics

https://www.theguardian.com/society...20000-homeless-people-in-britain-says-shelter

At least 320,000 people are homeless in Britain, according to research by the housing charity Shelter.

This amounts to a year-on-year increase of 13,000, a 4% rise, despite government pledges to tackle the crisis. The estimate suggests that nationally one in 200 people are homeless.


Shelter says its figures, which include rough sleepers and people in temporary accommodation, are likely to be an underestimate of the problem as they do not capture people who experience “hidden” homelessness, such as sofa-surfers, and others living insecurely in sheds or cars, for example.

Newham in east London is ranked as England’s number one homelessness hotspot, with at least one in every 24 people in housing insecurity. More than 14,500 people were in temporary accommodation in the borough, and 76 were sleeping rough.

In the capital as a whole, 170,000 people – equivalent to one in 52 – have no home. Westminster had the most rough sleepers, 217, followed by Camden, with 127. In Kensington and Chelsea, the UK’s richest borough, there were over 5,000 homeless people – equivalent to one in every 29 residents.

The figures indicate how homelessness and housing insecurity is spreading beyond its traditional heartland of London into the wider south-east and Midlands, and the impact of high rents and welfare cuts ripples outwards.

Outside the capital, high homelessness rates were recorded in Birmingham, Luton, Brighton & Hove, Slough, Dartford, Milton Keynes, Harlow, Watford, Epsom, Reading, Broxbourne, Basildon, Peterborough and Coventry.

Regionally, homelessness grew fastest in the West Midlands and Yorkshire and Humberside, which saw 12% increases, followed by the north-west with an 11% rise. Homelessness fell in the north-east and south-west regions of England by 8%.

The 320,000 figure for England, Wales and Scotland was reached by combining government homelessness and rough-sleeping statistics at July 2018 with data on homeless hostel bed spaces and social services provision of temporary accommodation for families in crisis.

The bulk of those affected, 295,000, are in forms of temporary accommodation after being accepted as homeless by their local authority.

It is Shelter’s third annual analysis of homelessness. In 2016, it estimated there were 255,000 homeless people in England alone, a figure it subsequently adjusted to 294,000 for Britain. This rose to 307,000 in 2017.

Polly Neate, Shelter’s chief executive, said: “Due to the perfect storm of spiralling rents, welfare cuts and a total lack of social housing, record numbers of people are sleeping out on the streets or stuck in the cramped confines of a hostel room. We desperately need action now to change tomorrow for the hundreds of thousands whose lives will be blighted by homelessness this winter.”

The housing and communities secretary, James Brokenshire, said the government was determined to end homelessness but conceded more could be done. “No one should be left without a roof over their head, which is why we are determined to end rough sleeping and respond to the causes of homelessness.”

He added: “Our rough-sleeping strategy, support for councils and those working on the frontline are helping to get people off the street and into accommodation as we enter the colder winter months. But we know that there is more that we need to do and we’re committed to working with Shelter and others to make a positive difference.”

The government’s Homelessness Reduction Act came into force in May with the aim of forcing local authorities to take steps to prevent households at risk from falling into homelessness. It has also aims to eliminate rough sleeping by 2027.

Melanie Onn, the shadow housing minister, said: “It is appalling that enough people to fill a city the size of Saudi Sportswashing Machine will wake up this Christmas without a home. This is the outcome of eight years of austerity that even the United Nations say was designed to hurt the poor.”
 
My experience is the opposite, my kids classes are oversubscribed and under resourced compared to my school years, the teaching appears to be an exercise in box ticking and the kids are overwhelmed with tests and homework from the age of 6.

I didn’t get homework until I was 12, class sizes were never more than 20 and the first “test” I did was the eleven plus.

Im sorry to hear that, it seems perhaps we got lucky - or you unlucky.

I first got homework at 12, it broke me. I couldnt handle it. It was badly managed, but I went from no homework to 4 hours a night in an instant and was completely unprepared.

My 9 year old has started getting homework. Its 2 pages of a maths exercise book, and 2 pages of an English exercise book, a week. I have no issue at all with her getting some to do to prepare her for when she goes to secondary school.

It has to be said, my school was spectacularly bad, we had classes pushing 40 at times. The teaching was terrible and the facilities? Entire winters without heating....

So by comparison most schools would look good!

That said, when we went looking at schools for the kids I saw a large variance in quality, and we were grateful to get ours into a good school.

As I said, speaking only from our personal experience, we havent any real complaints with the schooling our kids get at all - and it certainly seems of a much higher standard than my wife or I experienced.
 
Im sorry to hear that, it seems perhaps we got lucky - or you unlucky.

I first got homework at 12, it broke me. I couldnt handle it. It was badly managed, but I went from no homework to 4 hours a night in an instant and was completely unprepared.

My 9 year old has started getting homework. Its 2 pages of a maths exercise book, and 2 pages of an English exercise book, a week. I have no issue at all with her getting some to do to prepare her for when she goes to secondary school.

It has to be said, my school was spectacularly bad, we had classes pushing 40 at times. The teaching was terrible and the facilities? Entire winters without heating....

So by comparison most schools would look good!

That said, when we went looking at schools for the kids I saw a large variance in quality, and we were grateful to get ours into a good school.

As I said, speaking only from our personal experience, we havent any real complaints with the schooling our kids get at all - and it certainly seems of a much higher standard than my wife or I experienced.

that sounds pretty grim, it's decades ago but I feel like I was eased in to homework and I don't recall it ever hitting 4 hours a night, even at a-level

we've already moved our kids once, the new one is better, considerably, but the classes are still huge and the homework is to my mind ridiculous, not so bad for my eldest but certainly for my 5yr old

we looked at a lot of schools when we decided we had to move them, there is certainly variance, but I didn't think any of them were great
 
that sounds pretty grim, it's decades ago but I feel like I was eased in to homework and I don't recall it ever hitting 4 hours a night, even at a-level

we've already moved our kids once, the new one is better, considerably, but the classes are still huge and the homework is to my mind ridiculous, not so bad for my eldest but certainly for my 5yr old

we looked at a lot of schools when we decided we had to move them, there is certainly variance, but I didn't think any of them were great

Perhaps its another regional thing? Seems so many issue are.

All 3 of ours went through the same Primary. We moved earlier this year and ended up moving the youngest to a new primary that is local.

We feel the old one was excellent, but declined. Not to the degree its "bad", but certainly to the degree it wasnt worth keeping her there. The new one is much much better (and half the size, which I dont think is a coincidence).

The other two are at secondary, and we have no complaints. Homework seems to be fair, its at a level where they need to show responsibility and dilligence, but not at a level that is overwhelming or unfair.
 
BREAKING NEWS

The EU and UK have agreed a draft agreement on their future relationship, paving the way for a Brexit deal to be finalised this weekend.

The political declaration - outlining how trade, security and other issues will work - has been "agreed in principle", the European Council says.

London and Brussels have already agreed the draft terms of the UK's exit from the EU on 29 March 2019.

Theresa May will make a statement to MPs later on Thursday.

European Council President Donald Tusk said in a tweet: "I have just sent to EU27 a draft Political Declaration on the Future Relationship between EU and UK. The Commission President has informed me that it has been agreed at negotiators' level and agreed in principle at political level, subject to the endorsement of the leaders."

If the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration are signed off at an EU summit on Sunday, the prime minister will then turn her attention to getting the deal through the UK Parliament, where there is not thought to currently be a majority in favour of it.

It follows a meeting in Brussels on Wednesday evening between Mrs May and European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker.

Downing Street has repeatedly made clear that agreement is needed on the future framework in order to press ahead with the legally-binding withdrawal agreement.
 
Interesting article in the Grauniad today..

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/22/respect-eu-britain-outside-left-economy

We overdo our respect for the EU. Britain can flourish outside it
Larry-Elliott,-R.png

Larry Elliott

Theresa May’s mantra should fool no one. While the prime minister insists repeatedly that her Brexit blueprint will mean the UK controlling its borders, laws and money, the real aim of the government is to keep as close as possible to the status quo.

Whitehall, with the Treasury to the fore, was highly pessimistic about Britain’s economic prospects outside the EU and hasn’t changed its mind about the desirability of finessing the softest of all Brexits. Philip Hammond has been able to whistle up plenty of support from employers’ organisations which – unsurprisingly, perhaps – want as little disruption to business as usual as possible.

This pessimism is curious for two reasons. It suggests that the low-wage, low-skill, low-investment economy that existed on the day Britain voted in the June 2016 referendum is as good as it gets. What’s more, the pessimism about the UK is mirrored by an optimism about the health of the EU that is unwavering, despite a plethora of evidence to the contrary.

Brexit would lead to an immediate and deep recession and a massive increase in unemployment. None of these things happened.

On the other hand, the predictions made by those who thought the single currency was one of the daftest ideas of all time have come true. The euro, it was said, would lead to economic divergence not convergence between member states, be run along monetarist lines, entrench high levels of unemployment and leave Europe in the growth slow lane. The rise of populism across Europe, which is being documented by the Guardian this week, has everything to do with the failure of Europe’s flagship project.

As the single currency struggled, its devotees took comfort in the prediction from Jean Monnet, one of the pioneers of the original common market, that Europe would be forged in crisis. The design flaws glaringly exposed by the bailouts required for Ireland, Greece, Portugal and Cyprus, together with the run on Italian and Spanish bonds would give the drive for integration fresh vigour. But as Bruno Le Maire, the French finance minister, noted recently, none of the things that would be required to make the euro work have happened. The banking union has not been completed, the capital markets union has not been completed, and there is not the remotest prospect of a common eurozone budget overseen by its own finance minister because Germany fears that would result in its taxpayers footing the bill for public spending in other countries (as it would). Europe is still, as Monnet said, being forged in crisis, but the forces of disintegration are currently much more powerful than the forces of integration.

A prolonged period of slow growth has highlighted another weakness: Europe’s lack of economic dynamism. There are strong, world-beating European companies but almost all of them were created many decades ago. There is no European Facebook or Google, no rival – as there is in China – to eBay. When it comes to artificial intelligence, Europe is lagging well behind the US and China. Europe’s position as the world’s biggest market is a legacy of its success in developing the products that were behind the economic boom in the first three decades after the second world war – cars and other consumer durables. In terms of the fourth industrial revolution, Europe is playing catch-up.

It is this slow-growing and politically riven Europe, not the confident rapidly expanding Europe that gave West Germany its Wirtschaftswunder and France its Trente Glorieuses from 1945-75 that Britain is planning to leave.

And while there would certainly be a short-term hit to the economy from a no-deal Brexit, this would be mitigated by policy easing. Interest rates would be cut by the Bank of England, while the Treasury would sound the death knell for austerity by announcing tax cuts and spending increases. Even at its gloomiest, the Treasury cannot come up with forecasts that suggest the impact of Brexit will be anything like as serious as the financial crisis of a decade ago.

There are those who say the answer is not for Britain to leave but to reform Europe from within, so that it is run along progressive rather than neoliberal lines. But Germany is never going to agree to a common budget and the European Commission wants to fine Italy because the government in Rome is seeking to stimulate growth by running a higher deficit than is allowed under the eurozone’s hardline budget rules, so that might take a while.

In the meantime, there is an opportunity to do things differently, to exploit the policy space that Brexit affords and tackle the structural problems that have plagued the economy for decades. The right has its plan: more liberalisation. It is time for the left to come up with its own vision that would deploy every available policy tool to modernise the economy, rebuild Britain’s industrial space and spread prosperity more widely.

Such a transformation is much more likely to happen outside the EU than inside. That’s because the two most significant UK imports from the rest of Europe – German industrial goods and cheap labour – have helped to bend the economy out of shape by holding back the manufacturing sector and encouraging the growth of low-wage service sector jobs. It is possible to do better than that.

• Larry Elliott is the Guardian’s economics editor
 
Come on now @glorygloryeze , you know this kind of talk isnt welcome.

There are rules.

Anything that suggests the UK being out of the EU as anything other than the worst thing ever is clearly utter clap trap. No matter how well thought through.

Anything that suggests the UK being out of the EU is bad, not matter how far fetched or fanciful is to be taken as an absolute fact.

And, of course, the EU is the promised land, so anything negative RE the EU is of course utter nonsense and should not be entertained.
 
The tax owed by any person or business is what HMRC can prove in court is owed - not a penny more or less.

Do you voluntarily pay more tax than they ask for?
I, like everyone use tax avoidance vehicles such as isas and pay into a pension fund. But their existence is a benefit to society as a whole, encouraging people to save and to put something aside for their futures. There are also limits on these as to the amounts you can put in.

Otherwise I pay the taxes I owe. I don’t buy properties through an offshore Company registered in Gibraltar or the Cayman Islands where I am not named as a director. I do not receive rent paid into an off shore account. I do not set up shell companies through which I hide my income. I do not invest in dubious charitable tax avoidance vehicles. Lots of people who claim to be British do. They are stealing from the British people, stealing from the NHS, the police and schools and they should be booted out. Except they, like a certain Mr Redknapp who you so despise, hide their affairs cleverly from HMRC and can afford the best legal professionals to protect them from HMRC’s reach.

So no I do not voluntarily pay more tax. But I declare all my earnings and pay monthly into proper charities. I have a moral compass.
 
Last edited:
I could be more tax efficient than I am, I chose not to and therefore pay more tax than I have to.

(cant be bothered for the £200 p/a saving and it means I can say I pay more than I need to when this comes up, worth it!)
 
I, like everyone use tax avoidance vehicles such as isas and pay into a pension fund. But their existence is a benefit to society as a whole, encouraging people to save and to put something aside for their futures. There are also limits on these as to the amounts you can put in.

Otherwise I pay the taxes I owe. I don’t buy properties through an offshore Company registered in Gibraltar or the Cayman Islands where I am not named as a director. I do not receive rent paid into an off shore account. I do not set up shell companies through which I hide my income. I do not invest in dubious charitable tax avoidance vehicles. Lots of people who claim to be British do. They are stealing from the British people, stealing from the NHS, the police and schools and they should be booted out. Except they, like a certain Mr Redknapp who you so despise, hide their affairs cleverly from HMRC and can afford the best legal professionals to protect them from HMRC’s reach.

So no I do not voluntarily pay more tax. But I declare all my earnings and pay monthly into proper charities. I have a moral compass.
Anyone taking those measures and not being convicted is paying everything they are supposed to be paying.

HMRC are not the arbiter of compliance. They set the guidelines we must follow, but we have judges and juries to decide who has followed them for very good reasons.

If those judges and juries decide that a person or business has followed the rules then they have.
 
Anyone taking those measures and not being convicted is paying everything they are supposed to be paying.

HMRC are not the arbiter of compliance. They set the guidelines we must follow, but we have judges and juries to decide who has followed them for very good reasons.

If those judges and juries decide that a person or business has followed the rules then they have.
if the glove don't fit you must acquit!!
 
Anyone taking those measures and not being convicted is paying everything they are supposed to be paying.

HMRC are not the arbiter of compliance. They set the guidelines we must follow, but we have judges and juries to decide who has followed them for very good reasons.

If those judges and juries decide that a person or business has followed the rules then they have.
Sounds good in principle. Sadly the complexities of the shell companies mean many of the tax avoidance schemes are beyond the reach of HMRC and the Courts. There are Individuals and Companies, because of their resources, are simply beyond the law.
 
In which case they are compliant with the law.
That is not the case at all. People who break the law but arenot Prosecuted are not compliant with the law. It means that either HMRC who are the appointed investigators either choose to not take the case or may not have the resources to.
 
That is not the case at all. People who break the law but arenot Prosecuted are not compliant with the law. It means that either HMRC who are the appointed investigators either choose to not take the case or may not have the resources to.
They haven't broken the law until or unless a jury decides so in court. Until that point they are innocent.

HMRC cannot decide a person or a company's guilt for very good reasons.
 
I, like everyone use tax avoidance vehicles such as isas and pay into a pension fund. But their existence is a benefit to society as a whole, encouraging people to save and to put something aside for their futures. There are also limits on these as to the amounts you can put in.

Otherwise I pay the taxes I owe. I don’t buy properties through an offshore Company registered in Gibraltar or the Cayman Islands where I am not named as a director. I do not receive rent paid into an off shore account. I do not set up shell companies through which I hide my income. I do not invest in dubious charitable tax avoidance vehicles. Lots of people who claim to be British do. They are stealing from the British people, stealing from the NHS, the police and schools and they should be booted out. Except they, like a certain Mr Redknapp who you so despise, hide their affairs cleverly from HMRC and can afford the best legal professionals to protect them from HMRC’s reach.

So no I do not voluntarily pay more tax. But I declare all my earnings and pay monthly into proper charities. I have a moral compass.


Great rebuttal. One of the posts of the year IMO.
 
They haven't broken the law until or unless a jury decides so in court. Until that point they are innocent.

HMRC cannot decide a person or a company's guilt for very good reasons.
Apologies Scara we were mixing up phrases. HMRC determine compliance with the law. Where they have sufficient evidence of non compliance they may prosecute through the Courts who decide on guilt. So yes you are right tax dodgers are not guilty until proven so in Court.

In the same way everyone who receives whatever is the current equivalent of job seekers allowance is actively seeking work unless proven in Court not to be doing so. In addition every one claiming benefits is doing so legally until a court proves their guilt. After all why wouldn't you claim benefits you were not entitled to.
 
They haven't broken the law until or unless a jury decides so in court. Until that point they are innocent.

HMRC cannot decide a person or a company's guilt for very good reasons.
Erm.....yes they have. They just haven't been convicted yet. Which does often come down to resources and best use of public money tests
 
Erm.....yes they have. They just haven't been convicted yet. Which does often come down to resources and best use of public money tests
Strictly speaking they haven't, as HMRC can only give an advisory position and not a declaration or judgement of legality.
 
Back