Cameron's Christmas message

Or am I considered right wing because I don't automatically condemn the list of Conservative MP's (housing- landlords) when I don't know enough of their reasons for doing so.

these M.P.s voted for slums

What a ridiculous statement, durhamjen. Talk about hyperbole...

I have openly stated in the past that I voted Labour this time but came close to voting Conservative because they were offering things that appealed to me; nursery places that would benefit my son and his partner and the change in the rules regarding nursing home fees. Both of which were then discounted by them when they were re elected, which is why I'm so bitter about this government. The Labour Party and LibDems in my village have always worked closely together until the LibDems allied themselves to the Conservatives. The S.O. is a LibDem voter. What I can't understand is why it's so hard for people to be critical of things that are happening when so many people are suffering from it. I'm also not a Corbyn supporter. But I do support those who are voicing concerns about what is happening to the lower echelons of society at a time when the rich are getting richer. I read what Annie and jen post and make up my own mind; sometimes agreeing with them sometimes not;I don't automatically agree or disagree with anyone, only what they post. And if no one believes me sobeit .

Nick Clegg did a tremendous job( and the other Lib Dems) working in the coalition government, but Lib Dem voters made them pay for it by not voting for them last time thus wiping out their own party.
The coalition government, and this Conservative government are doing well with the economy now, and I won't like all that they do, but can see that some of the policies make sense.To simply growl at everything they do or say or suggest, is too partisan for me.

Nick Clegg went along with the Tory government to stop houses being improved in poor areas. How was that doing a tremendous job?
The reason we have had the first strikes by doctors in over forty years is because Clegg went along with Andrew Lansley. Really tremendous.

Roses, you growl at everything Corbyn says. He was at least elected leader by his party, not by a small elite in parliament.

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tories-refused-force-landlords-make-7180996

If those MPs had been local councillors, they would not have been able to vote on housing issues.

djen there is a big difference between what Corbyn says and what the government says ( or does) in that Corbyn is not in power, therefore is not in a position to implement any policies.If that day ever comes I would judge him then.
You have a short memory..... When the coalition took over, there was hardly money for either new or existing projects, thanks to the last Labour Government!

Rosesarered, you judge Corbyn almost daily

I'm not joining in this debate because I don't know enough about the subject under discussion to make any meaningful comment. All I will say is that I totally agree with roses, particularly her comment about the state of the country's finances at the end of the last labour government, well, perhaps not completely, as I would substitute 'hardly' for 'no' money!! The coalition had a financial tsunami to grapple with, and yes, Nick Clegg did put the welfare of the country before his party, when he could so easily have caused chaos. it's cost the Lib dems dearly, and for that they and Nick Clegg should be admired.

Never been a socialist government ? good grief , you mean the tories brought in the NHS, Ny Bevan, Tony Benn, Babara Castle, Tam Dyall, Donald Dewer , Mo Molam, Robin Cooke , the list goes on, were not socialists ?

.nigglenellie, with respect you just joined the debate

Well, I suppose I sort of have, but only in passing, not for the long haul I assure you. The only other thing I would say is that opposition parties should be very careful of what they promise in opposition (promises are so easy!) bearing in mind their bluff could be called. The Lib dems found this with tuition fees, a salutary lesson for all parties I would think, particularly for the present opposition.

Oh I don't think it matters any more what you promise either in opposition or in government. Once you get in you can do what you want- no re-organisation of the NHS (done), no cuts to working tax credit (tried)

You mean like Cameron and his hug a husky stunt?

Very probably!

Cameron and his greenest government ever promise?

This is very worrying.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35321767

Of course the DWP say that Frank Field is wrong, but they do not have the figures to support what they say. Frank Field is asking them to look into it, but they will not, just in case he is right.

I know who I would believe.

Oh for the days when we thought at least the NHS was reasonably safe in Cameron's hands as his family had benefitted so much from NHS care for his little boy. And in many countries you couldn't go off on holiday when 7 months pregnant and just roll up in premature labour at the nearest hospital and get great care.
But no, he's presiding over a systematic attack on it.
And as for the greenest government pitch - the only thing that remains of that is the cynical tree logo.
Of Cameron does not give a damn about anything other than his post-2019 career now does he.

This is what the CQC is being allowed to get away with.

www.disabilitynewsservice.com/maximus-owned-remploy-slashes-pay-of-disabled-experts-by-half/

Every month, more than 500 experts are sent on CQC inspections across adult social care, primary care and hospitals, and by the end of 2016 that is set to double to 950 a month.

Currently, more than 50 per cent of inspections involve EbE, and CQC wants that to increase to up to 80 per cent in some areas of its work in the next two years.

A Remploy spokesman said: “Discussions are continuing with CQC and we have nothing to add to our previous statement to you.”

CQC has problems doing its inspections at the moment. They are talking of paying their experts only £8.25 an hour, instead of the £17 they get now.

“Among the joyous celebrations we will reflect on those very Christian values of giving, sharing and taking care of others,” he said, making a roll call of all those employed in the public services and forces, and church and charity volunteers/workers who are working hard, despite enormous challenges, both here and overseas.

I think it is rather ironic that a prime minister who represents a government that has introduced policies which have significantly weakened all our vital public services and institutions and our charities then appears to be trying to bask in their glory.

Apart from many of their policies being far from caring and sharing, they are not even achieving savings. The I reported on 8 January "Cost of fit-to-work scheme exceeds £1bn benefits cut".

On 9 January the I reported that in the UK more patients are having to rely on a charity which was set up to aid poor people in the developing world in order to access dental care. On 15 January it reported "Back-room deal" abolishes grants for poor students". And, of course, we already know that cuts to social care budgets have not made savings but just pushed the cost somewhere else. Neglecting a nation's health, social care and education has a financial and social cost which is, I believe, likely, in the long run, to negate any savings.

As far as the landlord thing is concerned, I have comments to make. I own a number of fairly low-rental properties in the north-east of England. ( I don't have a company pension, so these are my equivalent.) I have spent quite a lot of money and a huge amount of time ensuring that they are damp-proofed, well decorated, properly supplied with adequate, often new carpets, curtains, boilers, cookers, fridges, freezers, and washing machines, clean, warm and checked for safe gas (an annual legal requirement) and electricity. They are also all fitted with carbon monoxide and smoke alarms.

There was one house that took absenthusband and me some months to get in order, including paying a professional damp-proofer several thousand pounds and a builder quite a bit to make some walls safe and the roof watertight. The house next door and the one I had bought were advertised to be rented at the same time, but by different agents. The one next door had rotting window frames and sills, a huge damp problem, smelt terrible, the wiring was unsafe and both the inside and outside of the house clearly hadn't be painted for several decades. My pristine, newly renovated house and that slum were both snapped up at the same monthly rate within days of each other.

People need places to live and will take what they can get at any price. Unscrupulous landlords give us all a bad name and make money as well.

I wouldn't have the slightest problem about a law that insists a rental property is fit for human habitation.

Me neither, absent (I don't own rental properties, btw). But first, I think whoever makes such a law needs to define "fit for human habitation": a dwelling does not have to be perfect to be that. Dampness or poor decoration, for example, can be an issue without being such a big issue that it makes a dwelling 'unfit' for human habitation.

I think defining such an idea will be tricky.

Correction: IS tricky.

If not impossible.

You could start with:

hot and cold running water
heating system that works
all energy-saving measures recommended by standard assessment in place (efficient boiler, insulation, draught proofing and - well why not - double glazing)
annual gas safety check/ other boiler safety check
wiring up to standard.

It doesn't seem that difficult to me. Other businesses are expected to maintain certain standards of health and safety and I don't see why landlords should not. I think Jess has provided a fairly straightforward list of reasonable criteria re habitability.

I believe there is also some sort of test that can be done to establish whether the damp mold, which is often cited as a problem in rented homes, is injurious to health.

People who have money do not rent homes with damp problems. Only those who have no choice have to.
It's well known that mould affects people's lungs.