The 2015 Popularity Contest (aka UK General Election )

[peteblue]

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?

Client state politics and guaranteed votes for Labour.......

 

[Brennan]

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.

You're missing his point.

If tenants are able to buy the social housing then there's 20 less houses available, but there's also 20 less social tenants. If those social tenants can't buy the house then they will remain in the social housing system, so the result is the same.

If the issue is that there aren't enough houses, more need to be built regardless of Right to Buy.

 

[daylightrobber]

You're missing his point.

If tenants are able to buy the social housing then there's 20 less houses available, but there's also 20 less social tenants. If those social tenants can't buy the house then they will remain in the social housing system, so the result is the same.

If the issue is that there aren't enough houses, more need to be built regardless of Right to Buy.

Not when they die it isn't

 

[Bruce Wayne]

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.

Ok, for the sake of argument. Lets say there are 100 social houses at the moment, with 120 people wanting one, so a shortfall of 20 houses.

If 20 current tenants decide they want to buy their house rather than rent it, that means there are 80 social houses left, with 100 people now wanting one, so a shortfall of 20 houses.

The situation hasn't changed. Has it?

 

[peteblue]

Not when they die it isn't

Even if every single house in the UK was social housing, the waiting list would be the same. There are only so many houses. If we need more, build more. But the ownership of the house is irrelevant........

 

[The Mighty Quint]

Big mistake Cameron made last night, in the eyes of the public he's looking cowardly and arrogant.

Poll for the Mirror for who would make the best PM, 45% Milliband, 40% Cameron.

Milliband's turnaround of the public perception of him has been staggering, they are seeing him as a leader now.

 

[peteblue]

Big mistake Cameron made last night, in the eyes of the public he's looking cowardly and arrogant.

Poll for the Mirror for who would make the best PM, 45% Milliband, 40% Cameron.

Milliband's turnaround of the public perception of him has been staggering, they are seeing him as a leader now.

Poll in Labour supporting newspaper puts Labour man in front shock............ I wonder what a poll in the Telegraph would say.........

 

[SpurtingLesbian]

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.

They were completely unelectable a few years back with constant squabbling between the factions, once Salmond took over and started organising them a bit better by reigning in a few loudmouths/factions, they saw they were starting to gain a bit of traction so went along with it. Now they are quite a polished battle hardened machine (after the constant slagging off by all of the UK press/media during the referendum campaign). That campaign also energised a lot of people in Scotland to get involved in politics, this is why SNP supporters are all over social media attacking everything that is negative about them, they are still angry about the lies told about them and broken promises made to No voters in the Referendum campaign which lost them victory.

The referendum campaign was close, pretty much a 50/50 split, but even the morning after as Westminster backtracked on all it's promises it made support for the SNP has rocketed, because they didn't cheat. If the Referendum was held today it would be somewhere around 70% in favour, instead Scotland is going to be punished whoever takes over in Westminster this time because there are no votes for either side up here.

Scotland is fighting for it's life.

The only reason this came about is because of the Independence issue. The only way Scotland will get another referendum in the next 30-50 years is with an increased voice in Westminster, this is the SNP's priority. It also wouldn't surprise me to see candidates in an SNP based protest party South of of the Border in 5 years time as a way of increasing their power to get another referendum vote.

 

[Blue 1]

Ok, for the sake of argument. Lets say there are 100 social houses at the moment, with 120 people wanting one, so a shortfall of 20 houses.

If 20 current tenants decide they want to buy their house rather than rent it, that means there are 80 social houses left, with 100 people now wanting one, so a shortfall of 20 houses.

The situation hasn't changed. Has it?

When people live out their lives as social tenants the housing stock remains.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Ok, for the sake of argument. Lets say there are 100 social houses at the moment, with 120 people wanting one, so a shortfall of 20 houses.

If 20 current tenants decide they want to buy their house rather than rent it, that means there are 80 social houses left, with 100 people now wanting one, so a shortfall of 20 houses.

The situation hasn't changed. Has it?

Lets continue with the rough analogy. If those 20 houses are sold for 70% of their market value (which seems the estimate at the moment), then even at that knock down price, the council/housing association would have enough capital there to build 14 new homes right away (even assuming that construction price = market value, which seems unlikely). If the councils could sort out planning permissions etc. then it could jolt construction couldn't it?

 

[peteblue]

Big mistake Cameron made last night, in the eyes of the public he's looking cowardly and arrogant.

Poll for the Mirror for who would make the best PM, 45% Milliband, 40% Cameron.

Milliband's turnaround of the public perception of him has been staggering, they are seeing him as a leader now.

It was a very clever move putting Labour with the rest of the nutter parties and it kept Cleggy off the TV.......

 

[Bruce Wayne]

When people live out their lives as social tenants the housing stock remains.

So, using my fag packet maths from above, it's better to keep social tenants as social tenants until they die than let them stand on their own feet whilst at the same time securing the capital to build another 14 new social homes?

 

[peteblue]

So, using my [Poor language removed] packet maths from above, it's better to keep social tenants as social tenants until they die than let them stand on their own feet whilst at the same time securing the capital to build another 14 new social homes?

Is the correct Labour answer.......

 

[Blue 1]

So, using my [Poor language removed] packet maths from above, it's better to keep social tenants as social tenants until they die than let them stand on their own feet whilst at the same time securing the capital to build another 14 new social homes?

If they want to become homeowners they should have to do it the same way the rest of us do.

 

[The Mighty Quint]

It was a very clever move putting Labour with the rest of the nutter parties and it kept Cleggy off the TV.......

It's not done Cameron any favours him hiding out of view refusing to debate Milliband live on TV, the general public have a right and want to see them both go head to head, ironic he calls Milliband weak.

And lets not forget his stance on these debates 5 years ago, screaming from the rooftops to have them then, did Brown try to duck him?