Except of course that none of things that you mention which I agree are all real issues are set by the EU. They are set by the government so leaving the EU will not solve them, and economically when we suffer they are likely to make them worse. Pension age and rates are set by the government and vary from country to country. https://fullfact.org/europe/pensioners-eu-uk/ Housing situation could easily be improved by err building more houses (which has nothing to do with the EU and could easily be done by the government) And zero hour contracts wells topped me if you've heard this before but the uk is one of the few countries where zero hour contracts are legal and commonly used so again government not EU to blame. https://fullfact.org/europe/pensioners-eu-uk/ Staying in the EU and voting out this shower of Tory ****e (or even leaving and voting out this shower of Tory ****e) are the only ways to improve all of the above.
The shower of ****e we presently have are trying to clear the mess the previous shower of ****e left, who ironically were the ones who introduced the zero hours contract. Building more houses is needed but is not helped by unlimited immigration which makes solving the problem as hard as building sand castles when the tide is coming in.
Zero hour contracts have been around for decades but the number of people on them have quadrupled since 2010. Housing crisis has been building since the eighties ever since Thatcher decided to sell council housing and not allow councils to use the money to build more and then successive governments used and allowed housing to be used for economic gain rather than being a basic need.
Wasn't the right to buy council houses for the tenants who have lived in them for so many years, and the majority still live in those same houses, I never got that argument about Thatcher allowing tenants the right to buy caused a shortage it just doesn't add up. I still hate the dead bastard and there was an ulterior motive why she did this, but I think it was a good idea despite that.
As I say it was not so much the selling of them that was the issue. It was the fact that the money raised from them was used to fund tax cuts for election wins and councils weren't allowed to use the money to build more. They should have been allowed to reinvest any money made in replacing the stock.
The tories bought in the ‘right to buy ‘ for long serving council house tenants but Labour decided tenants had ‘a right to buy ‘ after three years which is why finding a council house is about as hard of finding a hard on from a eunuch
Au contraire, he sidestepped the decision quite neatly and gave it to someone else - respect. Now it’s someone else who will be getting suspicious packages in the mail when eventually they jail the ‘journalist’ that is SYL.
You're really hoping they jail him, aren't you 2020? Look at the procedure so far and analyse it. Right at beginning they couldn't get Tommy in Jail fastest enough, then hoped some backward "DERR" spraying Muslim would kill him. Now, no one wants to put him in jail, or deal with his case, not the decent judges who realise the wrongdoing against Tommy anyway. 5 court appearances so far, plus 1 rescheduled, plus time in jail. There's only a certain number of times a person can be tried before they have to quash the charges. However, the Judge who handed it back to the Attorney General added another charge / accusation. I have a suspicious feeling the Judge did this purposely to help Tommy's case..........What doesn't make any sense is, why add another charge / accusation then refer it back to the AG? From memory, Tommy's case cannot now be heard at the Old Bailey Level, or higher, and the AG cannot jail Tommy.
Agreed 2020, that is an alternate reason, however, It was the AG who referred Tommy's case to the Old Bailey after the Highest Court Judges in Country referred it back to the AG yet again, If I remember rightly, this is the third time the AG has had Tommy's case in his hands.........Why didn't the AG refer Tommy's case to it's rightful level in the first place? The AG referred Tommy's case to the Old Bailey knowing the level of Justice and status the OB holds. The AG would also be aware that Tommy's case was not at a level, or seriousness for it to be tried in the OB, it just didn't qualify, as it hasn't in past. So, considering the AG is only answerable to Parliament, but is also the legal advisor to the Government......question is, who has something over the AG, or, who is instructing the AG regarding Tommy's case.
If you're expecting Tommy to be jailed again, why does his case keep ending up back with the AG, yet again. No one seems to be in a hurry to jail Tommy any more.
Apparently, fatty Champagne socialist Prescott rents out many houses in Hull a lot of them ex council houses, another **** feathering his own nest at the expense of the people he was supposed to be serving
Err wrong way round, right to buy was introduced by the Tories with a right to buy for just about all secure tenants of three years standing. In 2005 Labour increased that to 5 years. The reason finding a council house is so hard is that local councils were restricted to using the money raised (of which they received about 50%) to reducing debt but not to replacing the council stock. (I would agree that all previous Labour and Conservative governments are responsible for the state of the housing market).
