GBC wrote:
gusmac wrote:
I'm sure that doesn't apply to everyone who voted for him. It could be argued that if those who could afford to live elsewhere have done so, you can't be surprised that the ones left behind are the poor, disabled, elderly, ethnic minorities etc.
Or the Lefties?
Theres no need to be 'poor' (whatever that is in 2007) in London, unless you really are unable to work. I find most able bodied unemployed citizens of London, are in that position because they're fecking lazy bone idle spongers, simple as that.
Thats why the millions of asylum seekers head for London, as there are jobs, jobs and more jobs there.
Livingstone seems to have a natural affinity with the lazy and useless in London society, freebies galore, all paid for by the London tax payer.
Most of us who live outside London do so as the London house prices force us to, given a choice I'd love to live in leafy Hampstead or Merton, but I'd have to swap my house for a 1 bed flat, not exactly condusive to family life.
If house prices are too high in London, who is paying them?
Surely not the "fecking lazy bone idle spongers" who vote for red Ken?
Most of them would likely be paying rent to landlords who have fuelled this housing crisis by buying up all the housing and letting the system pay the inflated rents through housing benefit.
This means average or even above average earnings are not enough to pay the rent/ mortgage and give you a decent standard of living.
I take it this is why you can't live in "leafy Hampstead or Merton" or even somewhere a little more modest in London?
Asylum seekers and illegal immigrants don't get a vote, but living in overcrowded conditions, they can work for less than you and still get by (even if they're not supposed to).
It's not lefties who employ them illegally, is it?
Is this the free market Thatcher promised?
I think you have more than just red Ken and the lefties to blame.
The right wing are not so innocent either.
That aside, what do you think can be done to change things?
Login
Register
FAQ
