i'm housing a friend of mine soon so i'm going to need a lot more donations for food! we can eat for ten dollars a day so any amount really helps & reblogs are always appreciated! DM me for payment info
i'm housing a friend of mine soon so i'm going to need a lot more donations for food! we can eat for ten dollars a day so any amount really helps & reblogs are always appreciated! DM me for payment info
i'm housing a friend of mine soon so i'm going to need a lot more donations for food! we can eat for ten dollars a day so any amount really helps & reblogs are always appreciated! DM me for payment info
My partner dug up the parliamentary records for the second reading of what would become the Housing Bill 1988, which is essentially the debate in the house of commons where they discuss our estate being built, the private company trying to use it to provide affordable housing on the private market. Everyone who opposes the bill and this strategy essentially describes exactly the problems that we are now facing and it's making me quite insane.
Continue below the cut for truly mindrending frustration
The Conservative MP who is pushing the bill, Baron Ridley of Liddesdale, sings the praises of companies like the one that built our estate and talks at length about how good the free market is and how easily it will create affordable rentals.
Labour MP Clive Soley talks about "rachmanism", a term based on the notoriously evil and exploitative landlord Peter Rachman, and says: "The Government's policy in the Bill is deregulation of the private sector and damaging intervention on housing associations. As the Secretary of State admitted, the Government tried this crazy idea in 1957 and again in 1980. In 1957 a new word entered the English language — "Rachmanism". The Secretary of State should remember that everyone acknowledges that some of Mr. Rachman's activities were illegal, but he was never convicted of anything. I criticise the Liberal amendment because the Liberals do not recognise—I hope that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who is a lawyer, will recognise this—The Government's policy in the Bill is deregulation of the private sector and damaging intervention on housing associations. As the Secretary of State admitted, the Government tried this crazy idea in 1957 and again in 1980. In 1957 a new word entered the English language — "Rachmanism". The Secretary of State should remember that everyone acknowledges that some of Mr. Rachman's activities were illegal, but he was never convicted of anything. I criticise the Liberal amendment because the Liberals do not recognise—I hope that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who is a lawyer, will recognise this— that the law on harassment is not strong."
and wouldn't you know, we are now here being harassed by our landlords...
Labour MP John Battle, talking about how basically idiotic this proposal is, highlights how it will exacerbate the housing crisis: "I shall be interested to know from the Secretary of State what work has been done to assess market rent levels, because there has been some suggestion that in London they could be between £200 and £250 per week, and in Leeds between £70 and £80 per week. That envisages a massive increase in rents. In the future, how will homeless people be able to find housing at a price that they can afford, either through their income or through housing benefit? […] where people are too poor to exert economic demands, the private sector will not supply their needs. We cannot claim that their needs will be met because their rent will be covered by housing benefit when the DHSS has given absolutely no assurances that housing benefit will be increased."
and wouldn't you know, nobody can fucking afford a home any more and housing benefits won't cover it...
In fact, there are people who have lived in this neighbourhood more than 35 years who are on housing benefits, who were protected only by a clause in their contract that said the landlord couldn't raise the rent too sharply, until those clauses were deleted by the Renters Rights Act 2025. Now their only recourse is to have a "fair market rent" determined for them which will ultimately result in eviction.
But Baron Ridley of Liddesdale has an answer to this, of course.
Local MP Simon Hughes challenges the bill by saying: "Can the Secretary of State tell us what the position will be for a prospective tenant who does not have a high income? In London, for example, how will a market rent accommodate low-paid or non-paid people who need to rent? How can they be assured that they will have an income sufficient to pay the rent that the market will demand? Can the Secretary of State tell the House that anybody who does not have the necessary income will be guaranteed the shortfall and that it will be made up by housing benefit and the social security system?"
And the Baron, in his infinite wisdom, replies: "It is clear that anybody who qualifies for housing benefit will qualify for the full amount of the rent that his accommodation costs him."
either you believe "minors" deserve bodily autonomy even when they choose to do things that you don't like, or you think their consent doesn't matter and adults should have ownership over them like property, this really isn't something you can be centrist about lol like,, someone has to be making these choices.
it's just a topic that makes adults uncomfortable so they pretend there's a third option so they don't have to think about it.
from now on the daily life of every child will be determined by a wheel of fortune where the options are "play toys", "go to school", "take drugs", "have sex", "do chores", and "change gender"
there's no point in arguing with trans men about their gender politics for the same reason that there's no point in arguing with cis men about feminism, or a member of the bourgeoisie about communism. they don't hold their beliefs because they haven't been convinced, they hold them because it benefits their class interests. come on.
why would somebody whose gender project has been to enlist in the class of man and maintain the integrity of the male class category be at all invested in the liberation of women? it's opposite to the entire project. it doesn't make sense. when you view them as people who should "know better" by merit of being trans or whatever you forget the very basic thing: they chose to be men, which is a class defined by its relationship with gender power. there is no such thing as becoming a man without a tacit or explicit endorsement and self-enlistment in patriarchy.
Now Statrdey valley. thats a little where it gets to be a little sacry. cause you cant really get out easily you have to climb out. if hteres a guy its pretty rough
romaincrisis
dailybridgerton
izzy806
titsay
pixelskylines
andulkaphoto
vaporwave
