David Cameron pledges 'assault on poverty' with social reforms

" Research by the Building Research Establishment in 2015 found that 8.4m homes in England have a significant hazard. The annual cost to the NHS of these hazards is thought to be around £2bn in England and £2.5bn for the UK as a whole.

Buck said tenants should be given the right to sue over uninhabitable conditions because enforcement levels were too low overall. “Some local authorities do this very well, but there is a lack of consistency. We need to complement what local authorities do with a power for tenants.”

It is understood that amendments may be tabled to the government’s controversial housing and planning bill, giving tenants the right to sue, when the legislation passes through the House of Lords."

At least the house of Lords are going to try and stick up for tenants, as the Tories talked out Karen Buck's Bill.

Rather like the words 'own my own home' and 'live in my own home'.

What has 'formal English' got to do with using the correct word in a quote? Surely you understand that there's a difference between 'could' and 'would'?

Especially as you say you used to teach English.

So you still haven't read it then, Elegran.

This is just a load of grans discussing things. What we say on here does not count, as far as this government is concerned.
I gave up teaching formal English years ago.

Exactly, Elegran.

As for the article in The Times, presumably it's not possible to copy and paste any extracts even if someone has paid to view it online.

Have we any Times newspaper readers on here who could provide the actual wording, I wonder...?

Exact wording is important (including the "prefer" in my post, rather than "refuse to read any other than") so could anyone throw any light on whether the words used were "could affect your ability to stay" or "would affect your ability to stay" ?

If anyone wonders why I prefer to read the exact words used, then pondering the difference in meaning between these two versions should show you why.

Cameron announced his proposition in an article in The Times.
I wonder why he chose that? It's behind a paywall. Owned by Murdoch.
You should be able to read it online, Elegran, if you want to comment on it further. Otherwise, there's no point in you commenting as you refuse to read anything other than the original.
Note he did not say it in the commons. He rarely does, these days.
However, he'll have to account for it in PMQs tomorrow. A shame you will not be able to watch it.
I watch as much news on my laptop as I do on television these days. Have you never thought of doing that, Elegran?

Exactly so Elegran , there was no need for him to word it as he should, more concerned with sounding tough, he knows nothing of the carrot or the stick

Two negatives - not being able to speak English and not having the tools to fight radicalisation in their children. Now if he'd said that if they could speak English, they might be better armed to fight that radicalisation, it would have made a more positive impression, just as emphasising that the good things about speaking the language of their new country would mean they could become more settled here would have done.

He needs a new speech-writer - or perhaps he needs to pay more attention to the speeches he writes himself.

He didn't put it across very expertly, did he?

Parents who are unable to speak English have less of a chance of preventing radicalization of their children, Cameron argued."

As you say, Elegran, that's perfectly true. Far from saying that not speaking English could lead to radicalisation, he's pointing out that if parents can't understand the language being used by those who preach radicalisation they're at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to protecting their own children.

And some of those publishing short excerpts say "At the moment, someone can move here with very basic English and there's no requirement to improve it over time. We will change that. We will now say: if you don't improve your fluency, that could affect your ability to stay in the UK. This will help make it clear to those men who stop their partners from integrating that there are consequences." while other reports say "would impact"

There is a difference between those two words. I can't find a definitive report of the actual word he used.

You can say that this is nitpicking, but the exact words do matter.

Also nitpicking- he doesn't say how much improvement over two and a half years - that would be relevant - does he mean they should be able to say a few common words or phrases, or understand Shakespeare? Two and a half years is not long enough to be completely fluent in a language, but it is long enough to learn a little.

"Parents who are unable to speak English have less of a chance of preventing radicalization of their children, Cameron argued." - that is perfectly true. And if you can't understand English, you can't buy anything in a shop, or talk to the teacher, or tell the GP what your symptoms are, or make friends with your English neighbours.

And I am finding it very difficult to find any reports which include more than a sound-bite (or whatever the text equivalent is)

No, durhamjen My TV is bust. But in any case I prefer to read an exact transcript of the speech, rather that a second-hand report of what he said.

Westminster council's assault on the poor.

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tory-run-council-spends-90000-7200898

They will be, though, Elegran. Do you not watch the news?

So Muslim men do not want Muslim women educated, there are no Muslim female doctors, teachers , no Muslim daughters in our universities . That Muslim schools are doing so well is a lie I suppose

No, they are not deported for not learning English.

Sorts out the immigration problem, though. If they do not learn English, they are deported.

I agree in theory, Re, Muslim women being helped to speak English. But once again, this hasn't been thought through.
How are the women going to hear about these classes. Many of them are not allowed out without a male relative. And they certainly don't want the women educated. Good try, Dave, but it isn't going to work.

Halleluyah! He has seen the light. Rejoice.

He has now pledged twenty million pounds to support Muslim women to break free of mail dominance , this from a PM who said to a fellow MP - calm down dear , she is female

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/01/18/oxfams-message-is-simple-and-blunt-if-we-want-to-improve-most-peoples-lives-we-are-going-in-the-wrong-direction/

This is obscene. 62 people own as much as half the rest of the world.
The super-wealthy have seen an increase of 44% since 2010.
Report produced for Davos where the super-rich discuss how much more they can help each other to get even richer.

i1.wp.com/voxpoliticalonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/160117workdoesnotpay.jpg?resize=529%2C396