Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

The 2015 Popularity Contest (aka UK General Election )

Who will you be voting for?

  • Tory

    Votes: 38 9.9%
  • Diet Tory (Labour)

    Votes: 132 34.3%
  • Tory Zero (Greens)

    Votes: 44 11.4%
  • Extra Tory with lemon (UKIP)

    Votes: 40 10.4%
  • Lib Dems

    Votes: 9 2.3%
  • Other

    Votes: 31 8.1%
  • Cheese on toast

    Votes: 91 23.6%

  • Total voters
    385
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
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........

Nonsense.

You have 1 social house. The occupier has the option to buy that house or rent it from the social housing provider.

If they rent it, when they die or move (and some do due to upturns in fortunes), the property returns to stock as it were. Offering someone on the waiting list a chance to move in at an affordable rate.

If it is sold, it becomes a private commodity. When the owner no longer has need for the property it won't necessarily end up in the possession of someone who has a need for it and by comparison, it almost certainly won't be as affordable.
 
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?

you are assuming they arent going to want to buy a house elsewhere if the right to buy didnt exist,(therefore freeing up a socialhousing/council house for those in need) and the fact that right to buy often end up as private rented lets(ie people buy them so they can make a profit)
 

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?

No, but Blair ducked out back in the day... did you conveniently forget that?
 
Why ?.....do you not believe in helping the disadvantaged ?.........


Social housing does help the disadvantaged. Your perception that social housing tenants live a life time of scrounging couldn't be further from the truth. Social tenants are often young people starting out in their careers but priced out of the private rental and ownership markets. A few years in social housing often gives them the opportunity to save and move into those private markets.

What a great idea removing that opportunity is.
 
No, but Blair ducked out back in the day... did you conveniently forget that?
Really, Blair would wipe the floor with Cameron, nothing for Blair to fear there for sure.

Strongest PM we've had since Thatcher is Blair, Cameron isn't in the same league.

As far as I'm aware these US style TV debates were something new 5 years ago.
 
Social housing does help the disadvantaged. Your perception that social housing tenants live a life time of scrounging couldn't be further from the truth. Social tenants are often young people starting out in their careers but priced out of the private rental and ownership markets. A few years in social housing often gives them the opportunity to save and move into those private markets.

What a great idea removing that opportunity is.

Where I live it's usually smackheads and young women who can't stop having kids... sorry to generalise, but that's just what I see.
 
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?
I think the point may be that the waiting list is growing at a much quicker rate than availability.
 

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.

And to hell with the rest of the United Kingdom.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Back
Top