TUC claim

and 100,000 more families were homeless at the
end of the 1980s than at the beginning

Umm, no, I don\’t think so. There weren\’t 100,000 families homeless at all, let alone 100,000 more.

There haven\’t been 100,000 homeless families in the UK since the Blitz.

Inadequate, sub-standard housing, perhaps, but that ain\’t \”homeless\”.

And in 1976 death from adult
diseases was 80 per cent higher for men in the lowest social class than those in
the highest social class but this rose to a 128 per cent difference by 1989.

Anyone willing to take bets on how that gap widened? That death rates (I assume early death rates) from adult diseases fell in both groups, but fell faster for the richer?

Oh, and the basis of the entire paper (which isn\’t improved by several references to you know who\’s work) is that the cuts won\’t actually reduce the deficit.

Hmm, well, we\’ll see, won\’t we? Check back in 2015 to get your answer!

8 thoughts on “TUC claim”

  1. The “n” doesn’t seem to work on their computer.

    I had one like that once except itwas “f”

    ucking nuisance.

  2. BTW, very wise that the text says “lowest social class” and not something like “working class”. Too often the working class is smeared by calling people “working class” when the one thing tih sclass never does is work.

  3. So they reckon the cuts wont reduce the deficit. Bigger cuts needed then, or soon there’ll be nothing at all for social housing etc.

  4. Not going to open a damn PDF from the TUC to check, but pretty sure they’re using ‘homeless’ correctly there.

    Homeless means ‘without home’, you’re I think referring to ‘roofless’, which means nowhere to sleep.

    If you’re living in a B&B, or in emergency shelters or similar, you’re homeless. Who does and doesn’t count can be controversial, but the stats are normally clear.

    But most people, when they see the term homeless, think of people living on the streets, whcih isn’t what’s meant.

    I might be reading you wrong, of course. (yes, I had to learn all these damn stupid definitions once, no, I can’t remember many of them anymore)

  5. The legal definition of homelessness under the 1996 Housing Act covers people who’ve got accommodation but which it would be unreasonable for them to continue living in.

  6. “The legal definition of homelessness under the 1996 Housing Act covers people who’ve got accommodation but which it would be unreasonable for them to continue living in.”

    I’ve just bought and moved in to house that is, in effect my retirement home. It meets my needs now but if I live another 30 years (no chance given my alcohol intake. lack of 5-a-day etc) to 83 it probably won’t my my needs. Does that mean I’ll be homeless?

    If it does then the law is a ass, a idiot.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *