Absolutely 100% agree Bob. Like Brown's British Jobs for British People, these intiatives are the sort of thing a 12 year old William Hague would have come up with and we would have (rightly)laughed at him.

For all the right wing rhetoric of the tabloids and for all the focus groups etc I am still sure that this kind of nasty party stuff is not what British people want (if they did then the Tories would be in power). Or at least not what the people who are bothered enough to vote want.

You can virtually see the have and have-not divide widening. In the three years I was out of the UK it has changed dramatically. The media might think it is funny to laugh at "Chavs" but these are the people left behind.

Now as you say - it's bad enough they don't have a job - now people suggest we take their homes too.

It's not a society I want to live in and I least expected it from a Labour government.

It gets worse.
The People's Republic submitted a Conference resolution to..and here's the controversial bit........'To build new council houses'.

Thrown out as 'unconstitutional'.

We're well tooled up here now.We have to be to protect ourselves from fellow members that we keep sedated, until a 'rainy day'.

Gary

Forgive me if I happen to be wrong, but don't you need a permanent address to gain employment?

No, ZinZin, there is no legal requirement, although I suspect employers may be influenced by someone registering without a permanent address.

Have to admit, when my dad mentioned Flint's plan this afternoon I told him he'd got it wrong or had probably misheard what was said. It was only when I heard the Child Poverty Action Group laying into 'this Labour government' on Radio 5 that I realised my old man was indeed correct in his assertion- "I see old Iron drawers is back". To add insult to injury the caring sharing Tories have condemned the idea!!

Unbloodybelievable!!!

It's astonishing, isn't it? Imagine if the Tories under Thatcher had suggested something similar to this - Labour would have had it blown up and used as election posters as a prime example of the "nasty party" at work. Last week Progress said that Labour could no longer rely on casting the Tories as that in order to win. What it didn't mention was that was because Labour seems determined to win the definition for itself.

I would have sworn that this was one of Dave's excellent schemes until I heard the newsreader state that it was dreamt up by Labour. If the workhouse is reintroduced then they will be in work and have a roof over their heads at the same time.

Following our rebranding, we are no longer the Nasty Party, but the Eff Off I'm Rich Party. Get with it Mr Piper.

But are we supposed to pay for "social rented housing" (as opposed to 'anti-social rented housing', I assume) to those who steadfastly refuse to work and take the dole instead? And perhaps you could explain to me how all these Poles, Czechs, Hungarians, and so on, manage to come over here, find and keep jobs whilst housing themselves without any help at all?

Just asking!

Bob you support unrestrained immigartion , welfare dependency , EU membership , so we cannot stop unrestrained immigration and the maintenance of slums.

I see not a penny of coherence in your views. You do appreciate thatn not everyone paying more and more and more for the idle are rich don`t you. Why should we ? Simple question , why should we ..when they can work ?

"But are we supposed to pay for "social rented housing" (as opposed to 'anti-social rented housing', I assume) to those who steadfastly refuse to work and take the dole instead? "

of course not.You could always kick them out, therefore making the local authority legally obliged to re-house them in private accommodation at (at least) twice the cost of their previous rent.Flint is a toughie,Daily Mail is sated, you are happy , a few more scrounger headlines etc etc.The fact that it's almost certainly not legally enforcable and will probably double the housing benefit bill is neither here nor there.

This may come as a surprise to you Duff, but not all council tenants are anti-social scroungers.

Sadly your witless comments are no surprise at all.

See? Flynn must be right.She has the support of Tory bloggers like Newmania, hurrah for Flint,darling of the right!

newmania, Can you point me in the direction of one jot, even the tiniest, that supports your assertion that I support "unrestrained immigartion (sic), welfare dependency , EU membership ."

Go on, one little piece of supporting evidence for your lies.

If you can, I will apologise immediately. If not, you will be proved to be the lying, ignorant little Tory snot-gobbler that you are.

Now, there's the challenge. Have you got the balls to back up your mouth.

Don't worry Bob,

it's headline grabber like many others from Labour's spin doctors.

Here today, gone tomorrow.

This one will sink without trace!

"Have you got the balls to back up your mouth."

I believe they are in front of his eyes..just as well, it means he can't see that massive phallus on his head.

"it's headline grabber like many others from Labour's spin doctors.Here today, gone tomorrow.This one will sink without trace!"

Of course,Downing Street are already pouring cold water on it BUT do we need a Minister like Flint putting her foot in it to this extent?It takes a rare talent to unite every housing and poverty charity ,AND the Tories against us, on a single issue.

Spot on, yozza.

My evidence is simply that you are an assertive supporter of the Labour Party, whose policies have quadrupled the rate of immigration. They are also , as we speak forcing ratification of the Constitution through, thus reneging on a manifesto commitment . Labour Party Policy has fostered welfare dependency as Caroline Flint so eloquently opined in a forthright statement to ...someone outside Parliament . I took it that you supported those policies.
Actually I honestly thought you were proud of them, my mistake,I must apologise confusing you with a Labour Party member.

PS Yozza is quite right . Blair we go again.

Running true to form, 'ZitZit' fails to understand my point that there is no such thing as 'social' housing, any more than there is 'social' justice. The adjective 'social' is attached to any noun which is the object of socialist aims and desires in order to make it more palatable for the great unwashed, like ... no, I mustn't be cruel to him, he tends to cry easily. If you called it accurately 'State' housing or 'Government' housing you can see the difficulty of selling the whole atrocious idea.

However, my two questions remain unanswered. Is a family with both parents working on low wages to be taxed in order to keep a lazy yob and yobette, who only get up when either the pub or the dole office is open, in their, er, 'social' house next door for ever?

And, how do all those young Poles manage without dole and without state housing?

True to form, David Duff can't see outside his ideological prism and throws in a few cheap jibes.

"However, my two questions remain unanswered. Is a family with both parents working on low wages to be taxed in order to keep a lazy yob and yobette, who only get up when either the pub or the dole office is open, in their, er, 'social' house next door for ever?"

David no-one is going to accept the narrow parameters that you are setting here. Tax revenues are used to paying for a lot of things which many of us object to, for varying reasons.

"no, I mustn't be cruel to him, he tends to cry easily."

Care to back this up with any evidence? I know why you are making this claim and why you feel that you can make such a claim. My suggestion is that you don't repeat it.

In spite of being a life-long conservative party voter [at the left end of the spectrum] I am as astounded by this plan as you are Bob. It defies all logic as well as Labour party principles. It seems such a wicked stab of cruelty to level at the poorest in our society at a time when economic hardships looms over the economy.

I have to hand it to you, if the rest of your Labour colleagues were as of sound mind as yourself I might be tempted to change my voting habits of a lifetime.

Spot on Bob Labour are fast becoming the nasty party under Brown. If you get me started on his attitude to pensioners I'll be on all day. Its time we had a leadership contest before he does anymore damage.