It's not a happy chart. But we are still talking less than 5k rough sleepers in a country of 55m people, that is approximately 0.0001%. The government should be doing more and it is undeniable that this problem is actually small enough that some genuine will to sort it really should work. To suggest that Big Issue sellers are the backbone of the 400K or so increase in employment in the last year, however, is, well, overblown.
I think that is 0.01%. One in every 11,000 people is a rough sleeper.
Which reminds me, why is the government covering up that DUP Brexit donation?
I don`t know, Mr Eagles. Why is the Conservative government covering up that DUP Brexit donation?
Just to clarify, by ‘covering up’ you mean complying with British law.
We have different rules in Northern Ireland for a reason. Perhaps you don’t agree with that, but don’t say refusing to go beyond legal requirements is a cover-up.
Wrong.
Labour has criticised an attempt by the government to allow the Democratic Unionist party to conceal details of past political donations, including during the EU referendum, despite a 2014 law that extended party transparency rules to Northern Ireland.
The government has announced it will bring into force new transparency rules for Northern Ireland’s political parties to allow the Electoral Commission to publish details of donations over £7,500.
The provision for the new rules, which will bring Northern Ireland in line with the rest of the UK, was first introduced in legislation in 2014, with the wide understanding it would be applied from that year.
However, the Northern Ireland secretary, James Brokenshire, said he intended the act to be applied from 1 July 2017, which would mean donations during the EU referendum in 2016 would not be made public.
May was careful to say there were no 'government' contracts with SCL or Cambridge Analytica, but that doesn't say anything about the Conservative party.
Which reminds me, why is the government covering up that DUP Brexit donation?
I don`t know, Mr Eagles. Why is the Conservative government covering up that DUP Brexit donation?
Just to clarify, by ‘covering up’ you mean complying with British law.
We have different rules in Northern Ireland for a reason. Perhaps you don’t agree with that, but don’t say refusing to go beyond legal requirements is a cover-up.
Wrong.
Labour has criticised an attempt by the government to allow the Democratic Unionist party to conceal details of past political donations, including during the EU referendum, despite a 2014 law that extended party transparency rules to Northern Ireland.
The government has announced it will bring into force new transparency rules for Northern Ireland’s political parties to allow the Electoral Commission to publish details of donations over £7,500.
The provision for the new rules, which will bring Northern Ireland in line with the rest of the UK, was first introduced in legislation in 2014, with the wide understanding it would be applied from that year.
However, the Northern Ireland secretary, James Brokenshire, said he intended the act to be applied from 1 July 2017, which would mean donations during the EU referendum in 2016 would not be made public.
Nope, there's plenty of evidence that said it would be applied from 2014.
I'll have to check to make sure it wasn't the serial liar Gove who made that promise.
Let's put it another way. If the DUP have broken the law as it is (not the law as you would like it to be) then they can be prosecuted. If they haven't, then they can't be..
Well they've created an Estoppel by convention in 2015.
Something like 25% of rough sleepers in London are from Romania, Poland and Lithuania, and less than half overall are U.K. nationals.
The joys of free movement.
Rough sleepers from Romania are not covered by freedom of movement under any sane interpretation of EU rules.
They might have entered the UK legally, and overstayed, which is of course what a non-EU national could also do - but they'd be less likely to get a "speculative" visa in the first place.
There's no such thing as 'over-staying' under FoM, is there?
Which reminds me, why is the government covering up that DUP Brexit donation?
I don`t know, Mr Eagles. Why is the Conservative government covering up that DUP Brexit donation?
Just to clarify, by ‘covering up’ you mean complying with British law.
We have different rules in Northern Ireland for a reason. Perhaps you don’t agree with that, but don’t say refusing to go beyond legal requirements is a cover-up.
Wrong.
Labour has criticised an attempt by the government to allow the Democratic Unionist party to conceal details of past political donations, including during the EU referendum, despite a 2014 law that extended party transparency rules to Northern Ireland.
The government has announced it will bring into force new transparency rules for Northern Ireland’s political parties to allow the Electoral Commission to publish details of donations over £7,500.
The provision for the new rules, which will bring Northern Ireland in line with the rest of the UK, was first introduced in legislation in 2014, with the wide understanding it would be applied from that year.
However, the Northern Ireland secretary, James Brokenshire, said he intended the act to be applied from 1 July 2017, which would mean donations during the EU referendum in 2016 would not be made public.
Nope, there's plenty of evidence that said it would be applied from 2014.
I'll have to check to make sure it wasn't the serial liar Gove who made that promise.
Let's put it another way. If the DUP have broken the law as it is (not the law as you would like it to be) then they can be prosecuted. If they haven't, then they can't be..
Well they've created an Estoppel by convention in 2015.
What have they got to hide?
The only issue is whether the DUP's behaviour is (a) legal or (b) illegal. If it's illegal, then make a complaint to the relevant authority.
I think that Corbyn is faster on his feet than May (not a high bar) but Corbyn also has a script to follow for social media purposes that makes his live performance a little stilted. After suitable editing, and cut-ins of May's gurning, his performance will look fantastic.
Watched by how many floating voters? A number bigger than zero? Really?
Certainly a number bigger than zero. Also some wobbly Tories suffering local cuts might be persuaded to stay at home and sit on their hands. Plus Labour supporters who will be further motivated to come out and vote. I wouldn't underestimate the power of targeted social media.
EDIT: If you are not one of these three groups (and I suspect you're not) then you will never see it or be aware of it.
May was careful to say there were no 'government' contracts with SCL or Cambridge Analytica, but that doesn't say anything about the Conservative party.
PMQ is questions to the head of government
According to the BBC she specifically said party but she also used the word "current" which has the potential to raise more questions. I wasn't listening so I don't know whether this was right or not.
Which reminds me, why is the government covering up that DUP Brexit donation?
I don`t know, Mr Eagles. Why is the Conservative government covering up that DUP Brexit donation?
Just to clarify, by ‘covering up’ you mean complying with British law.
We have different rules in Northern Ireland for a reason. Perhaps you don’t agree with that, but don’t say refusing to go beyond legal requirements is a cover-up.
Wrong.
Labour has criticised an attempt by the government to allow the Democratic Unionist party to conceal details of past political donations, including during the EU referendum, despite a 2014 law that extended party transparency rules to Northern Ireland.
The government has announced it will bring into force new transparency rules for Northern Ireland’s political parties to allow the Electoral Commission to publish details of donations over £7,500.
The provision for the new rules, which will bring Northern Ireland in line with the rest of the UK, was first introduced in legislation in 2014, with the wide understanding it would be applied from that year.
However, the Northern Ireland secretary, James Brokenshire, said he intended the act to be applied from 1 July 2017, which would mean donations during the EU referendum in 2016 would not be made public.
Nope, there's plenty of evidence that said it would be applied from 2014.
I'll have to check to make sure it wasn't the serial liar Gove who made that promise.
Let's put it another way. If the DUP have broken the law as it is (not the law as you would like it to be) then they can be prosecuted. If they haven't, then they can't be..
Well they've created an Estoppel by convention in 2015.
What have they got to hide?
A what? Either the rules had been brought into force or they had not. Of course they could have chosen to apply the rules retrospectively but are you seriously suggesting that the government of Cameron and Osborne really wanted to hide an embarrassing payment by or to (its not clear) the leave campaign?
May was careful to say there were no 'government' contracts with SCL or Cambridge Analytica, but that doesn't say anything about the Conservative party.
PMQ is questions to the head of government
According to the BBC she specifically said party but she also used the word "current" which has the potential to raise more questions. I wasn't listening so I don't know whether this was right or not.
I was watching and I'm almost certain she said "government" not "party", and she used the word "current".
EDIT: "As far as I'm aware, the government has no current contracts with Cambridge Analytica or with the SCL group," she said.
A what? Either the rules had been brought into force or they had not. Of course they could have chosen to apply the rules retrospectively but are you seriously suggesting that the government of Cameron and Osborne really wanted to hide an embarrassing payment by or to (its not clear) the leave campaign?
You don't know what an Estoppel by convention is?
At the time the legislation was passed it was stated by the Cameron led government the law would apply from 2014 onwards.
In 2015 the Northern Ireland parties complied, creating the Estoppel by convention.
In 2016/17 the DUP and a Mrs May led government said the law would apply from 2017 onwards, so the DUP wouldn't have to declare that donation.
I wouldn't disagree that the Tories are favourites to win most seats. However, I still expect them to go into opposition against a formal/informal Progressive Alliance.
A Labour government supported by SNP MPs, passing controversial legislation that doesnt affect Scotland?
No, sorry, that just aint going to happen...Besides, the SNP's real enemy is Labour, not the Tories.
I think that Corbyn is faster on his feet than May (not a high bar) but Corbyn also has a script to follow for social media purposes that makes his live performance a little stilted. After suitable editing, and cut-ins of May's gurning, his performance will look fantastic.
Watched by how many floating voters? A number bigger than zero? Really?
Certainly a number bigger than zero. Also some wobbly Tories suffering local cuts might be persuaded to stay at home and sit on their hands. Plus Labour supporters who will be further motivated to come out and vote. I wouldn't underestimate the power of targeted social media. EDIT: If you are not one of these three groups (and I suspect you're not) then you will never see it or be aware of it.
The delights of Cambridge Analytica eh?
The best friends of the Conservative Party, Mr Marks. And of Trump and Putin.....
A what? Either the rules had been brought into force or they had not. Of course they could have chosen to apply the rules retrospectively but are you seriously suggesting that the government of Cameron and Osborne really wanted to hide an embarrassing payment by or to (its not clear) the leave campaign?
You don't know what an Estoppel by convention is?
At the time the legislation was passed it was stated by the Cameron led government the law would apply from 2014 onwards.
In 2015 the Northern Ireland parties complied, creating the Estoppel by convention.
In 2016/17 the DUP and a Mrs May led government said the law would apply from 2017 onwards, so the DUP wouldn't have to declare that donation.
So what have they got to hide.
I think in Scotland we would call that personal bar. I am not aware of it being applied to legislation and I am not really sure how it could be. A law is either in force or it is not.
I have no idea what they have to hide but it looks like NI was used to get a bit of extra funding to the Leave campaign. Nothing like what the government spent on their oh so neutral leaflet of course.
David Clegg - @davieclegg: BREAKING: Former SNP MP Natalie McGarry appeared in private at Glasgow Sheriff Court this morning on six charges related to money allegedly missing from the Women for Independence campaign group.
A what? Either the rules had been brought into force or they had not. Of course they could have chosen to apply the rules retrospectively but are you seriously suggesting that the government of Cameron and Osborne really wanted to hide an embarrassing payment by or to (its not clear) the leave campaign?
You don't know what an Estoppel by convention is?
At the time the legislation was passed it was stated by the Cameron led government the law would apply from 2014 onwards.
In 2015 the Northern Ireland parties complied, creating the Estoppel by convention.
In 2016/17 the DUP and a Mrs May led government said the law would apply from 2017 onwards, so the DUP wouldn't have to declare that donation.
So what have they got to hide.
Estoppel by convention can apply in contractual or quasi-contractual cases. It has no relevance to electoral or constitutional law.
A what? Either the rules had been brought into force or they had not. Of course they could have chosen to apply the rules retrospectively but are you seriously suggesting that the government of Cameron and Osborne really wanted to hide an embarrassing payment by or to (its not clear) the leave campaign?
You don't know what an Estoppel by convention is?
At the time the legislation was passed it was stated by the Cameron led government the law would apply from 2014 onwards.
In 2015 the Northern Ireland parties complied, creating the Estoppel by convention.
In 2016/17 the DUP and a Mrs May led government said the law would apply from 2017 onwards, so the DUP wouldn't have to declare that donation.
So what have they got to hide.
Estoppel by convention can apply in contractual or quasi-contractual cases. It has no relevance to electoral or constitutional law.
The relevant doctrine is legitimate expectation, but I can't see one on the facts. Where is the reliance? Where is the detriment?
Please can we call homelessness homelessness and rough sleeping rough sleeping?
There are lots of people in B&Bs at a cost to the taxpayer who are homeless but not sleeping rough.
Rough sleeping itself is a weird phrase. I had a pretty rough sleep last night but I was in my own bed. My wife is pretty much perfect in every way but she snores.
A what? Either the rules had been brought into force or they had not. Of course they could have chosen to apply the rules retrospectively but are you seriously suggesting that the government of Cameron and Osborne really wanted to hide an embarrassing payment by or to (its not clear) the leave campaign?
You don't know what an Estoppel by convention is?
At the time the legislation was passed it was stated by the Cameron led government the law would apply from 2014 onwards.
In 2015 the Northern Ireland parties complied, creating the Estoppel by convention.
In 2016/17 the DUP and a Mrs May led government said the law would apply from 2017 onwards, so the DUP wouldn't have to declare that donation.
So what have they got to hide.
Estoppel by convention can apply in contractual or quasi-contractual cases. It has no relevance to electoral or constitutional law.
The relevant doctrine is legitimate expectation, but I can't see one on the facts. Where is the reliance? Where is the detriment?
I’ve no idea what estoppel is. This is not a matter of legal doctrine. The simple questions are:
What was the nature of Cambridge Analytica’s involvement with Brexit - with Vote Leave, with the DUP, or with anyone.
Have the Conservative (and Labour for that matter - as it is rumoured that they were used by Momentum) commissioned Cambridge Analytica before and what were the services rendered?
And then there are more complicated questions. What is the nature of CA’s interaction with Russian-based social media accounts? Is there any Russian link to CA or to those who commissioned CA?
Time to clean the stables.
I don’t for a minute think May has anything to hide — she should get ahead of this whole farrago.
Sadly not all of them as we see in the wage data, FDI figures, and business surveys, and - if such a thing existed - opinion polling of EU migrants into the U.K. on questions around social acceptance.
Please can we call homelessness homelessness and rough sleeping rough sleeping?
There are lots of people in B&Bs at a cost to the taxpayer who are homeless but not sleeping rough.
Rough sleeping itself is a weird phrase. I had a pretty rough sleep last night but I was in my own bed. My wife is pretty much perfect in every way but she snores.
A better phrase might be 'people who refuse a bed in a hostel'.
Sadly not all of them as we see in the wage data, FDI figures, and business surveys, and - if such a thing existed - opinion polling of EU migrants into the U.K. on questions around social acceptance.
Please can we call homelessness homelessness and rough sleeping rough sleeping?
There are lots of people in B&Bs at a cost to the taxpayer who are homeless but not sleeping rough.
Rough sleeping itself is a weird phrase. I had a pretty rough sleep last night but I was in my own bed. My wife is pretty much perfect in every way but she snores.
A better phrase might be 'people who refuse a bed in a hostel'.
Sadly not all of them as we see in the wage data, FDI figures, and business surveys, and - if such a thing existed - opinion polling of EU migrants into the U.K. on questions around social acceptance.
Something like 25% of rough sleepers in London are from Romania, Poland and Lithuania, and less than half overall are U.K. nationals.
The joys of free movement.
True. London is exceptional, though.
72-80% of rough sleepers across England are British nationals. Free movement does not come close to explaining the terrible rise in numbers seen over the last few years.
No shit Sherlock. If it was going to be all wrapped up in a pretty ribbon already then we wouldn't need a transition period.
The key point though is we will have left. Are you still thinking we won't?
I still think we won't. The political logic for a second referendum is overwhelming.
I think the grounds for a second referendum are superb. However the mechanics for getting there (the political logic) is less clear or shall we say certain.
It would need Corbyn (or his replacement!) to commit to it as a necessary first step. LDs and SNP would of course be pro, but we can be sure that the Tory whip and DUP would be against.
It's not a happy chart. But we are still talking less than 5k rough sleepers in a country of 55m people, that is approximately 0.0001%. The government should be doing more and it is undeniable that this problem is actually small enough that some genuine will to sort it really should work. To suggest that Big Issue sellers are the backbone of the 400K or so increase in employment in the last year, however, is, well, overblown.
I think that is 0.01%. One in every 11,000 people is a rough sleeper.
5k/55m = 0.00009091. I rounded it up to 0.0001.
Rough sleepers are a very small proportion of the total homeless population. A lot of mental health problems and substance abuse issues mean their behaviour can't be tolerated in hostels and shelters.
No shit Sherlock. If it was going to be all wrapped up in a pretty ribbon already then we wouldn't need a transition period.
The key point though is we will have left. Are you still thinking we won't?
I still think we won't. The political logic for a second referendum is overwhelming.
I think the grounds for a second referendum are superb. However the mechanics for getting there (the political logic) is less clear or shall we say certain.
It would need Corbyn (or his replacement!) to commit to it as a necessary first step. LDs and SNP would of course be pro, but we can be sure that the Tory whip and DUP would be against.
I don't see the mechanics that way. The two most important factors are which side of the bed Theresa May gets out of, and whether the Article 50 deal has a majority in the House of Commons.
Please can we call homelessness homelessness and rough sleeping rough sleeping?
There are lots of people in B&Bs at a cost to the taxpayer who are homeless but not sleeping rough.
Rough sleeping itself is a weird phrase. I had a pretty rough sleep last night but I was in my own bed. My wife is pretty much perfect in every way but she snores.
A better phrase might be 'people who refuse a bed in a hostel'.
Or are refused due to their condition. At the risk of being overly paternalistic about this people who are in such a condition regularly arguably should be locked up in secure accommodation for their own safety and health. I think we are too slow to intervene and too reluctant to intercede with alcoholics and drug addicts.
Comments
Mrs May and the DUP are showing off the worst excesses of Richard Nixon here.
https://twitter.com/BrunoBrussels/status/976471845322067969
Which means the EU knows if push comes to shove they'll get their way.
What have they got to hide?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/mar/20/rees-mogg-criticised-over-firms-russian-bank-investment
EDIT: He's slipped a little bit on Betfair but not by much.
EDIT: "As far as I'm aware, the government has no current contracts with Cambridge Analytica or with the SCL group," she said.
At the time the legislation was passed it was stated by the Cameron led government the law would apply from 2014 onwards.
In 2015 the Northern Ireland parties complied, creating the Estoppel by convention.
In 2016/17 the DUP and a Mrs May led government said the law would apply from 2017 onwards, so the DUP wouldn't have to declare that donation.
So what have they got to hide.
No, sorry, that just aint going to happen...Besides, the SNP's real enemy is Labour, not the Tories.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/dec/14/home-office-policy-deport-eu-rough-sleepers-ruled-unlawful
Somebody has just reminded me of the following
During the 2015 general election campaign here's how much the Tories and Labour spent on Facebook ads.
Labour £16.5k
Tories £1.2 million.
I have no idea what they have to hide but it looks like NI was used to get a bit of extra funding to the Leave campaign. Nothing like what the government spent on their oh so neutral leaflet of course.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-21/u-k-could-leave-eu-before-trade-deal-is-agreed-liam-fox-says
There are lots of people in B&Bs at a cost to the taxpayer who are homeless but not sleeping rough.
The key point though is we will have left. Are you still thinking we won't?
What was the nature of Cambridge Analytica’s involvement with Brexit - with Vote Leave, with the DUP, or with anyone.
Have the Conservative (and Labour for that matter - as it is rumoured that they were used by Momentum) commissioned Cambridge Analytica before and what were the services rendered?
And then there are more complicated questions. What is the nature of CA’s interaction with Russian-based social media accounts? Is there any Russian link to CA or to those who commissioned CA?
Time to clean the stables.
I don’t for a minute think May has anything to hide — she should get ahead of this whole farrago.
72-80% of rough sleepers across England are British nationals. Free movement does not come close to explaining the terrible rise in numbers seen over the last few years.
It would need Corbyn (or his replacement!) to commit to it as a necessary first step. LDs and SNP would of course be pro, but we can be sure that the Tory whip and DUP would be against.
NEW THREAD