The 2015 Popularity Contest (aka UK General Election )

[daylightrobber]

IF the Tories got in and they did implement this policy, how exactly are they going to be able to force the housing associations to sell their assets at below market value, or are they proposing to subsidise the purchase? (has this already been raised? - apologies if so)

Also, are they suggesting that the tenants of charitable housing associations should be allowed to purchase too?

So, I've done some research and it turns out that this policy would allow the tenants of charitable housing associations to purchase.

I am a shareholder in a housing trust in the town where I live. It is not for profit, with every penny coming in from rent being ploughed back into purchasing land and building houses for locals otherwise priced out of the market. It is a real community effort as shareholders are basically donors to the charity.

Occupants of the housing either rent, or purchase a 50% share in a property, with no further rent payable.

The assets are everything. On the back of a small project of 11 family homes, the trust is currently building a further 30, to hold in perpetuity for the locals of the town. It is a fantastic scheme.

Now the Tories are proposing to allow right to buy which could result in these community assets being transferred from the trust, to the tenants putting into jeopardy everything the trust is trying to achieve.

It's a disgraceful policy. Why allow this but not the tenants of private landlords the opportunity to purchase. You know the ones who are probably being exploited the most.

Anyone who thinks this is a good idea needs their bumps felt.

 

[Mrk]

I would say the majority of those on zero hours contracts do not find them useful compared to jobs which offer regular work. Don't get mixed up between zero hours and casual work. We are talking about people who have regular outgoings and no guaranteed income from one month to the next here.

I genuinely don't know - do you have any evidence (i.e. a poll) to back that assertion up?

 

[Seanjd]

So, I've done some research and it turns out that this policy would allow the tenants of charitable housing associations to purchase.

I am a shareholder in a housing trust in the town where I live. It is not for profit, with every penny coming in from rent being ploughed back into purchasing land and building houses for locals otherwise priced out of the market. It is a real community effort as shareholders are basically donors to the charity.

Occupants of the housing either rent, or purchase a 50% share in a property, with no further rent payable.

The assets are everything. On the back of a small project of 11 family homes, the trust is currently building a further 30, to hold in perpetuity for the locals of the town. It is a fantastic scheme.

Now the Tories are proposing to allow right to buy which could result in these community assets being transferred from the trust, to the tenants putting into jeopardy everything the trust is trying to achieve.

It's a disgraceful policy. Why allow this but not the tenants of private landlords the opportunity to purchase. You know the ones who are probably being exploited the most.

Anyone who thinks this is a good idea needs their bumps felt.

Because living in social housing is 'scrounging', and privately letting marked up accommodation is entrepreneurism.

 

[Seanjd]

I genuinely don't know - do you have any evidence (i.e. a poll) to back that assertion up?

Just common sense this time. How could a zero hours contract benefit more than they exploit?

 

[Mrk]

Just common sense this time. How could a zero hours contract benefit more than they exploit?

I've done some research for you (albeit brief) and found this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25098984

As I said above, I genuinely don't know if people like them or not, but I think it's ludicrous that you think something should be banned just because you think people don't like them without having any kind of empirical evidence to back it up.

 

[daylightrobber]

Just common sense this time. How could a zero hours contract benefit more than they exploit?

.

I'm of the opinion that they do work for some employees. I'm also of the opinion that many employers use them to exploit. If it's a reciprocal arrangement whereby an employee doesn't have to commit any more than an employer then they can work fine.

 

[Seanjd]

I've done some research for you (albeit brief) and found this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25098984

As I said above, I genuinely don't know if people like them or not, but I think it's ludicrous that you think something should be banned just because you think people don't like them without having any kind of empirical evidence to back it up.

I'm sorry, I didn't realise that you weren't supposed to have opinions without a poll to back it up.

For some people, of course, zero hours contracts will be useful. If your a full time student perhaps, or somebody who is preparing to retire, you won't be affected by the uncertainty which such a job could bring.

However, lots of jobs have been replaced by zero hours contracts. If you are somebody who depends on a zero hours contract, the situation is different. You cannot budget month to month because you don't know what your monthly income could be, it could be zero, hence zero hours.

You don't need a poll to know that.

 

[Mrk]

I'm sorry, I didn't realise that you weren't supposed to have opinions without a poll to back it up.

For some people, of course, zero hours contracts will be useful. If your a full time student perhaps, or somebody who is preparing to retire, you won't be affected by the uncertainty which such a job could bring.

However, lots of jobs have been replaced by zero hours contracts. If you are somebody who depends on a zero hours contract, the situation is different. You cannot budget month to month because you don't know what your monthly income could be, it could be zero, hence zero hours.

You don't need a poll to know that.

I'm not suggesting for a second that you can't have an opinion, I'm simply saying that if you want the government to ban something, at least have a reason for it based on evidence... I'm sure could find a load of frenzied UKIP members who think that Unions are evil and a drain on society - should we ban them too? Likewise, I'm sure I could find a sizeable amount of people who would like to ban immigrants - does that make it okay to ban them?

Policy should be based on fact, not prejudice.

I've no doubt that there are many people on zero hour contracts who would kill for a full-time contract, in the same way that there are many on part-time contracts who would like a full-time contract, but does that mean the government should ban them? Of course not.

If there are people out there who are being forced to sign up to zero hour contracts, the government has a mandate to step in and stop that, but the government has no mandate to go around banning things simply because a small minority of the population ideologically disagree with them.

 

[davek]

Oops, that's a bit awkward for the Tories and LDs talk of 'finishing the job off'......

 

[Groucho]

And if you thought the Tories were bad....

 

[Mrtallywacker]

Proverbs 14:23
In all toil there is profit, but mere talk tends only to poverty.

 

[peteblue]

My wife and I have been married for years and she is very much a contributing member of our society, having left Poland 18 years ago, and yet, since she has to fork out about £700 to become a British citizen, she cannot vote in General Elections. Which is a pity because she's more of a socialist than I am.

That's why we don't let her vote mate......

 

[Mrk]

Oops, that's a bit awkward for the Tories and LDs talk of 'finishing the job off'......

Indeed, but haven't Labour also committed to 'balancing the books' by 2020?

 

[Clint Planet]

 

[peteblue]

Just common sense this time. How could a zero hours contract benefit more than they exploit?

Well it could be argued that an employer ( very small concern) wouldn't hire if they had the full weight of employment law and pensions etc etc to follow just to get a 20 Hr job done.......and the lad or lass doing the job would have had no work........don't fall into the trap of believing that what is good for the city folk is also good for the country folk, or vice versa........