That was lucky

! This post hasn't been updated in over a year. A lot can change in a year including my opinion and the amount of naughty words I use. There's a good chance that there's something in what's written below that someone will find objectionable. That's fine, if I tried to please everybody all of the time then I'd be a Lib Dem (remember them?) and I'm certainly not one of those. The point is, I'm not the kind of person to try and alter history in case I said something in the past that someone can use against me in the future but just remember that the person I was then isn't the person I am now nor the person I'll be in a year's time.

Less than a fortnight, El Gordo said in his Building England’s Britain’s Future speech that he wanted English local authorities to favour “British” people when letting out council houses over immigrants.  He has been told that this would be illegal.
When refinery workers went on strike a few months ago he declared that there would be “British jobs for British people”.  He was, of course, told that this would be illegal and so he backed down.

When half of his cabinet were exposed as expenses fraudsters, he declared that there would be prosecutions and prison sentences for any MP that was caught fiddling expenses.  He was told that this would cause problems, such as MPs getting into trouble for fiddling their expenses, and that it would probaly be illegal so he backed down.

Who comes up with this stuff?  Does he just make up policy himself or is there someone in Downing Street deliberately telling him to say things he will later have to back down on?  Co-incidentally, the Inequalities and Human Rights Commission have rushed out a report based on 2 year old figures from one of their left wing sockpuppet research quangos, IPPR, saying that immigrants don’t get any preferential treatment when it comes to housing.  That was lucky, their our glorious leader might have lost face otherwise.

Technorati Technorati Tags: ,


  1. Daggs (55 comments) says:

    In less than twelve months we get our chance to tell the Scottish chump what we think of him.
    He will of course be replaced by Dave, who will also do nothing. Because the EU won’t let him do anything.

    To think my Grandfather died to keep Britain free. My father fought in WW2 to keep Britain free and united.
    New Labour destroyed the British Union. Given the chance, the EU will destroy England.
    Sometimes i despair…….

  2. revinkevin (176 comments) says:

    The person who tells our glorious leader these wonderful ideas is the fuck up fairy.

    The fuck up fairy is responsible for all those silly mistakes people make, but the fuck up fairy is very busy at the moment at 10 Downing Street advising the Prime Minister and is one of the few businesses to experience growth at the moment and is looking to take on extra staff.

  3. Charlie Marks (365 comments) says:

    The issue with social housing is that Thatcher’s “right to buy” – hasn’t been dumped, meanwhile councils aren’t building new housing and are doing their best to wash their hands of it through “arms-length management organisations”, etc. So housing stock is still being sold off at knock-down prices at the same time demand is increasing.

    As to the research, it’s obvious that ethnic minorities don’t get preferential treatment on those grounds – but since a large number of people in dire need of housing will be from an ethnic minority, a perception has built up – with the help of the gutter press and the racists – that there’s positive discrimination going on.

  4. wonkotsane (1133 comments) says:

    Charlie, when I was knocking doors selling cable, I once struck up a conversation with some asylum seekers. They had come into the country, gone to the processing centre, granted asylum and were given a house, a mobile phone and food vouchers. Granted, the house was in a part of Wolverhampton that you wouldn’t wish on your worst enemy but it’s in these low dem areas that people are most in need of social housing.

  5. Daggs (55 comments) says:

    I’ve been listening to government ministers claming ‘new immigrants’ do not get housing priority (which begs the question, why did the Scottish chump pledge British homes for British people ?)
    They keep telling us it’s a problem of perception. But actually the problem is caused by insufficient social housing.
    Of course there’s insufficient social housing!!!!!! For twelve years Liebour have allowed uncontrolled immigration. Increasing the population by millions!

  6. Charlie Marks (365 comments) says:

    Wonko – no doubt true, but it’s also true that they weren’t given these things on grounds of nationality, but because of their circumstances.

    Daggs – Again, true. Increased population means more competition for a scarce resource – in this case a diminishing resource.

  7. axel (1214 comments) says:

    Low dem? Is this code for slum?

    Up here, in Muirhouse, the place where train spotting is set, its full of Poles, they took the houses that no one else wanted, cleaned them up, cleaned up the neighbour hood and now Muirhouse is an oki area.

    The main reason it is an oki area is because if you are an asshole you get spanked, if you are an asshole again you get thouroughly spanked and get to spend time in A&E. Now these ground rules have been established, everyone is finding it easier to act like human beings and it is an oki area because everyone is acting like a huiman being

    who says the big stick does not work

  8. axel (1214 comments) says:

    charlie- was there not some bizarre set of rules that stopped the councils building more council houses with the money they got for selling the first ones?

  9. Charlie Marks (365 comments) says:

    “as there not some bizarre set of rules that stopped the councils building more council houses with the money they got for selling the first ones?”

    Whatever the rules, you face diminishing returns, don’t you?

    Since the turnout in council elections is lower, particularly amongst low income groups who most require social housing, there’s something of a Tory dominance in local government. Which kind of means it isn’t a high priority…

  10. axel (1214 comments) says:

    charlie–no back in the 80s, when most of them were sold, was there not some kind of bar to the councils spending all the money they got on building more?

    Tory dominance? Oh, south of the tweed, you mean!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.