The 2015 Popularity Contest (aka UK General Election )

[Chang Elephant]

Latest forecast suggests the Tories will be the largest party but EdM will end up PM:

You've been trawling the net looking for a poll in their favour all night ?

 

[Eggs]

You've been trawling the net looking for a poll in their favour all night ?

.....looking at the betting the Tory's are strong favourites to gain the most seats. Most interesting and potentially attractive odds is the 16-1 offer from Paddy Power for Labour and SNP to form the next coalition government. I appreciate Millaband has turned the coalition offer down but if it's his only way of getting the keys to no10 it could be on.

 

[Groucho]

I agree with this. The real problem with the NHS is that the people leading it are useless. Medical providers, drugs and equipment, are making a fortune and the so called NHS managers haven't a clue. I would bet my own house that I could go into the NHS and review it's spending and produce savings of 20% without any reduction in service. They are civil service type amateurs........

I've said for years, put me in charge for a week and I'd save millions for the NHS.

If only they'd promote me that far.......

 

[Eggs]

....In reality, I wonder if the Tory's will actually come out of last night's debate well. The reason being that UKIP continue to shoot themselves in the foot and be found out. Increasingly I can see many who thought about voting UKIP 6 months ago reverting to Conservative. Hope I'm wrong.

 

[daylightrobber]

Missed the debate last night. Did the Right to Buy policy get mentioned much?

It was a hot topic at our local hustings yesterday evening. A very very emotive subject, with the Labour, Liberal and Green candidates all labeling it not only bad for the country, but immoral in regards to the impact on society and in particular future generations

It was pointed out that the policy announcement came shortly after that of the inheritance tax cuts, where Cameron said he understood the human instinct to provide a nest egg for the next generation. It was further pointed out that two policies cannot live side by side. The transfer of social housing to private ownership will result in depletion of social housing stock, rising house prices in areas where affordable housing is most in demand and higher private rents. This is the real legacy that will be left to our children.

The LD candidate in particular spoke really eloquently on the subject (about the only one he did mind). His professional background included over 25 years setting up and running housing associations which specifically provided roofs over the heads of homeless and destitute citizens in this country.

I live in a constituency that hasn't been held by anyone other Labour for as long as anyone can remember (we have be fortunate to have some exceptional constituency mps), but the town I live in is traditionally Conservative supporting. When the Tory candidate tried to defend the policy there was a real air of disgust in the room and the guy was heckled from all angles. I really wasn't expecting it.

I wonder if there is a similar sentiment country wide, or whether there needs to be increasingly strong opposition to it in the public domain. The LD candidate advised that Housing Associations in particular should hold strong on this one, refuse to give up their assets and fight any necessary legal battles, for the good of all of us.

 

[peteblue]

....In reality, I wonder if the Tory's will actually come out of last night's debate well. The reason being that UKIP continue to shoot themselves in the foot and be found out. Increasingly I can see many who thought about voting UKIP 6 months ago reverting to Conservative. Hope I'm wrong.

What I dislike is how the UK is becoming more polarised. Scotland looks well on the way to becoming a one party state.....

 

[Eggs]

What I dislike is how the UK is becoming more polarised. Scotland looks well on the way to becoming a one party state.....

.....to be fair it was historically dominated by Labour, now it's looking like SNP. I reckon folk are generally becoming increasingly disenchanted with Westminster centric politics. Come election time they reach out to the corners of the nation but stay in their own little bubble the majority of time.

 

[daylightrobber]

Is there anything more fecking horribly odious and despicable than Grant Shapps the two faced [Poor language removed].

Michael Gove, IDS, Esther McVey, Nadine Dorries?

 

[peteblue]

.....to be fair it was historically dominated by Labour, now it's looking like SNP. I reckon folk are generally becoming increasingly disenchanted with Westminster centric politics. Come election time they reach out to the corners of the nation but stay in their own little bubble the majority of time.

I took this from an article discussing how it went wrong for the Tories in Scotland.......'The Tories were the most successful party in Scottish electoral politics from 1912 till 1964. In the general election of 1955, they won a majority of votes and a majority of seats – the only party in Scotland ever to have achieved that double.'.........

 

[SpurtingLesbian]

.....to be fair it was historically dominated by Labour, now it's looking like SNP. I reckon folk are generally becoming increasingly disenchanted with Westminster centric politics. Come election time they reach out to the corners of the nation but stay in their own little bubble the majority of time.

correct, an remember, the SNP is actually a 'rainbow' coalition of a broad sweep of politics pitched together with independence in mind.
Once Independence has been achieved the party will have no purpose and split back into it's multiple warring factions.
It's only been since Salmond came to the fore that they've managed to get all the individual parts of the party into order and not continually look like a bunch of squabbling Schoolkids.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Missed the debate last night. Did the Right to Buy policy get mentioned much?

It was a hot topic at our local hustings yesterday evening. A very very emotive subject, with the Labour, Liberal and Green candidates all labeling it not only bad for the country, but immoral in regards to the impact on society and in particular future generations

It was pointed out that the policy announcement came shortly after that of the inheritance tax cuts, where Cameron said he understood the human instinct to provide a nest egg for the next generation. It was further pointed out that two policies cannot live side by side. The transfer of social housing to private ownership will result in depletion of social housing stock, rising house prices in areas where affordable housing is most in demand and higher private rents. This is the real legacy that will be left to our children.

The LD candidate in particular spoke really eloquently on the subject (about the only one he did mind). His professional background included over 25 years setting up and running housing associations which specifically provided roofs over the heads of homeless and destitute citizens in this country.

I live in a constituency that hasn't been held by anyone other Labour for as long as anyone can remember (we have be fortunate to have some exceptional constituency mps), but the town I live in is traditionally Conservative supporting. When the Tory candidate tried to defend the policy there was a real air of disgust in the room and the guy was heckled from all angles. I really wasn't expecting it.

I wonder if there is a similar sentiment country wide, or whether there needs to be increasingly strong opposition to it in the public domain. The LD candidate advised that Housing Associations in particular should hold strong on this one, refuse to give up their assets and fight any necessary legal battles, for the good of all of us.

Am I missing something here? Surely the right to buy scheme is giving tenants in social housing the opportunity to buy their house for a reduced rate? So it's not depriving a 'poor' person of a home, it's merely giving a person who would be renting their home a chance to buy it.

Surely the point of welfare isn't to keep people on it indefinitely but to give them a chance to get back onto their own two feet? If that is the purpose of it then it shouldn't matter if a social tenant buys their home as that's a sign that they're in a much better place.

If you have 100 social tenants at the moment (ie demand for 100 social houses), and 20 of those decide to try and buy their home through this scheme, then yes it will take 20 social houses out of the 'system', but it will also take 20 social tenants out of the system.

Now you may well say that there isn't enough social housing to meet the demand and that more should be built, but that is a completely different issue to a scheme surely designed to help people get themselves out of welfare?

What am I missing here?

 

[Toffeelover]

I've said for years, put me in charge for a week and I'd save millions for the NHS.

If only they'd promote me that far.......

You need to fill in an application form for the post of CEO.

 

[Toffeelover]

correct, an remember, the SNP is actually a 'rainbow' coalition of a broad sweep of politics pitched together with independence in mind.
Once Independence has been achieved the party will have no purpose and split back into it's multiple warring factions.
It's only been since Salmond came to the fore that they've managed to get all the individual parts of the party into order and not continually look like a bunch of squabbling Schoolkids.

That is a very interesting view. First time anyone has come up with that slant on the SNP! For Srurgeon and the SNP the question of independence has not been put away for a generation per Salmond but I think quite likely to resurface in this forthcoming parliament. So independence is the glue holding them together for the moment.

 

[Brennan]

Am I missing something here? Surely the right to buy scheme is giving tenants in social housing the opportunity to buy their house for a reduced rate? So it's not depriving a 'poor' person of a home, it's merely giving a person who would be renting their home a chance to buy it.

Surely the point of welfare isn't to keep people on it indefinitely but to give them a chance to get back onto their own two feet? If that is the purpose of it then it shouldn't matter if a social tenant buys their home as that's a sign that they're in a much better place.

If you have 100 social tenants at the moment (ie demand for 100 social houses), and 20 of those decide to try and buy their home through this scheme, then yes it will take 20 social houses out of the 'system', but it will also take 20 social tenants out of the system.

Now you may well say that there isn't enough social housing to meet the demand and that more should be built, but that is a completely different issue to a scheme surely designed to help people get themselves out of welfare?

What am I missing here?

TORY SCUM

 

[Blue 1]

Am I missing something here? Surely the right to buy scheme is giving tenants in social housing the opportunity to buy their house for a reduced rate? So it's not depriving a 'poor' person of a home, it's merely giving a person who would be renting their home a chance to buy it.

Surely the point of welfare isn't to keep people on it indefinitely but to give them a chance to get back onto their own two feet? If that is the purpose of it then it shouldn't matter if a social tenant buys their home as that's a sign that they're in a much better place.

If you have 100 social tenants at the moment (ie demand for 100 social houses), and 20 of those decide to try and buy their home through this scheme, then yes it will take 20 social houses out of the 'system', but it will also take 20 social tenants out of the system.

Now you may well say that there isn't enough social housing to meet the demand and that more should be built, but that is a completely different issue to a scheme surely designed to help people get themselves out of welfare?

What am I missing here?

There already is a shortage of social housing, look at the waiting lists.

This means 20 less houses available to those on the waiting list.

The two things can't be separated. I don't really understand how you can say it's a completely different issue when one clearly has such an effect on the other.

If the social housing stock was replaced it wouldn't be so much of a problem, but it won't be.