The 2015 Popularity Contest (aka UK General Election )

[Toffeelover]

He was a violent piece of **** who used to knock her about when she was pregnant and in front of the kid. I always hated the [Poor language removed]. Now lives on a site in Ireland somewhere, last I heard, and doesn't have anything to do with them. She was young and vulnerable when they had the kid, her old fella used to knock her about as well. She is best rid of him. She wanted a child because she was in love with him and wanted to make a family. Didn't work out.

In which case I feel sorry for her. God help her and her child. Sounds to me she would be well better off away from the lot of them.

 

[Toffeelover]

Probably centre

At the end of the day Sean such distinctions are blurred these days.

 

[SpurtingLesbian]

Can you clarify, which companies are those exactly, surely if that was the case it would be corruption. Which privatisations did the Scottish Government block?

You'd think it would be corruption wouldn't you, but Westminster doesn't seem to have a problem with people who have vested interests voting to open up the NHS, HomeCare, etc to give contracts to their own companies.

I'm not wasting my lunch hour doing your research for you it's all easy to find.
here's a start though.
http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2014/...e-government-mps-profiting-from-nhs-sell-off/

 

[daylightrobber]

That's a different argument though isn't it? I'm not sure many are saying that the scheme is unfair to those who aren't getting any welfare and want to buy a house. The argument is that it's harming the poorest.



I'm afraid much of the UK economy is built upon rising house prices. I mean that's largely the whole point for buying a house isn't it? It just seems a bit peculiar that predominantly left leaning parties seem opposed to the concept of helping those on welfare to get on that gravy train. As I showed with my basic calculation, even if they sold the houses at 70% of market value they'd be able to build a good number of new houses to make up for any existing shortfall.



That may be the case, but again, isn't that a different issue? To use my simple example again. If right to buy doesn't exist, then the 100 existing homes are filled by 100 tenants, with the existing rent covering costs plus perhaps a little bit extra to go towards new builds, of which you may get one or two new homes for those on the waiting list.

If right to buy exists and those 20 people buy their homes, then you have the proceeds of those sales to spend on building around 14 new homes to help house those currently on the waiting list.

It seems to me that in order to build new homes you need 1) capital, and 2) land/planning permission to build. This doesn't help with the latter but surely does with the former?



Surely it's irrelevant what they do with it? Are we going to try and control what folks do with their own legally bought property now? That's akin to saying that not only is someone on welfare not allowed to buy their own home, but they're also strictly forbidden to sell that home again should someone offer more money for it.

I thought we were supposed to be helping the poor here not getting snarky if they do alright for themselves?

The fact is though that the owners of these properties will be forced to sell them in any right to buy scheme. This includes charities who have a worked tirelessly. They will be sold from underneath them at less than market value. The Tories ARE going to control what folks do with their own legally bought property

 

[Blue 1]

In which case I feel sorry for her. God help her and her child. Sounds to me she would be well better off away from the lot of them.

They're fine, she's looking for work at the moment as her kid started school in September. Kid talks about her dad a lot though and doesn't really remember what he was like as she was so little, it's quite sad. She is better off away from the prick.

 

[SpurtingLesbian]

I think SNP are far more to the left than that, a long way from the centre.

nah, only if you take the centre to be offset to the right as it is in England. the Libdems are about as near to the centre as you can find. Labour are off to the right of that, SNP just to the left.

Probably centre

under Jim Murphy? you're having a laugh.

 

[Seanjd]

At the end of the day Sean such distinctions are blurred these days.

Yep. Hence why I'd say Labour are centre and SNP are centre left. Just because SNP want to see a better welfare system etc, doesn't make them far left revolutionaries.

 

[neil999]

That's a different argument though isn't it? I'm not sure many are saying that the scheme is unfair to those who aren't getting any welfare and want to buy a house. The argument is that it's harming the poorest.



I'm afraid much of the UK economy is built upon rising house prices. I mean that's largely the whole point for buying a house isn't it? It just seems a bit peculiar that predominantly left leaning parties seem opposed to the concept of helping those on welfare to get on that gravy train. As I showed with my basic calculation, even if they sold the houses at 70% of market value they'd be able to build a good number of new houses to make up for any existing shortfall.



That may be the case, but again, isn't that a different issue? To use my simple example again. If right to buy doesn't exist, then the 100 existing homes are filled by 100 tenants, with the existing rent covering costs plus perhaps a little bit extra to go towards new builds, of which you may get one or two new homes for those on the waiting list.

If right to buy exists and those 20 people buy their homes, then you have the proceeds of those sales to spend on building around 14 new homes to help house those currently on the waiting list.

It seems to me that in order to build new homes you need 1) capital, and 2) land/planning permission to build. This doesn't help with the latter but surely does with the former?



Surely it's irrelevant what they do with it? Are we going to try and control what folks do with their own legally bought property now? That's akin to saying that not only is someone on welfare not allowed to buy their own home, but they're also strictly forbidden to sell that home again should someone offer more money for it.

I thought we were supposed to be helping the poor here not getting snarky if they do alright for themselves?

i think if they replaced sold houses it would be a different argument(not giving a time frame on having to replace them is ridiculous)

the policy seems to me a way of getting rid of council housing stock so they have to pay less money maintaining a council house AND its populist so it wins votes

i saw an interesting documentary on how people being able to buy their houses has led to the debt culture we have today , as suddenly people who have bought their house can borrow more money against their house and led to the 'want it now' culture we have now

not sure what political point this makes but interesting anyway! be interesting to see the levels of debt/borrowing pre and post right to buy

 

[The Cowboy]

In a twist on an oft-used phrase, 'vote Labour, get SNP'. Will marginal voters concerned about the future of the UK be tempted to err towards Tory to ensure the union remains intact?

As mentioned previously, the SNP want the moon on a stick but they want the UK to pay for it. This makes me err towards any situation which keeps Labour out, ie a vote for Tory/LD/other.

 

[Kurt.]

That's a different argument though isn't it? I'm not sure many are saying that the scheme is unfair to those who aren't getting any welfare and want to buy a house. The argument is that it's harming the poorest.



I'm afraid much of the UK economy is built upon rising house prices. I mean that's largely the whole point for buying a house isn't it? It just seems a bit peculiar that predominantly left leaning parties seem opposed to the concept of helping those on welfare to get on that gravy train. As I showed with my basic calculation, even if they sold the houses at 70% of market value they'd be able to build a good number of new houses to make up for any existing shortfall.



That may be the case, but again, isn't that a different issue? To use my simple example again. If right to buy doesn't exist, then the 100 existing homes are filled by 100 tenants, with the existing rent covering costs plus perhaps a little bit extra to go towards new builds, of which you may get one or two new homes for those on the waiting list.

If right to buy exists and those 20 people buy their homes, then you have the proceeds of those sales to spend on building around 14 new homes to help house those currently on the waiting list.

It seems to me that in order to build new homes you need 1) capital, and 2) land/planning permission to build. This doesn't help with the latter but surely does with the former?



Surely it's irrelevant what they do with it? Are we going to try and control what folks do with their own legally bought property now? That's akin to saying that not only is someone on welfare not allowed to buy their own home, but they're also strictly forbidden to sell that home again should someone offer more money for it.

I thought we were supposed to be helping the poor here not getting snarky if they do alright for themselves?

and again Bruce the problem as we all know is the fact none of the monies received from selling off housing stock was reinvested in new housing stock.

 

[Joey66]

1) Alex Salmond will be the Leader in Westminster when he wins his seat as I said.
2) Scotland still pays in more than it gets out under the Barnett Formula
3) you only pay for Uni's and home care that down South because you let the Tories syphon off billions from the public purse into their own companies. The Scottish Government have blocked such privatisations up here.

Well they should have been given independence then as oil has dropped by Half in value, and the SNP based all their wealth on oil in their white paper are you a scot by any chance????

 

[SpurtingLesbian]

Well they should have been given independence then as oil has dropped by Half in value, and the SNP based all their wealth on oil in their white paper are you a scot by any chance????

Nope, not a Scot, from the North West of England, Have lived in Glasgow for a few years though.

Always was vaguely pro-Union, mainly because coming from England I'd never really thought about it. Was absolutely shocked by the lies and terror tactics from the No Campaign in the Referendum, they only won because of the last minute panic when Brown promised them a better deal from the Union to stay. It was backed by Con/Lab/Libs then denied the morning after the result was announced

 

[Bruce Wayne]

and again Bruce the problem as we all know is the fact none of the monies received from selling off housing stock was reinvested in new housing stock.

That's down to each council/housing association though I'd have thought? I'd imagine it's hard for Westminster to mandate where money from this program has to be spent.

 

[Mrk]

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

Who's favour, Labour or Tories?

And no, twitter is useful for this kind of thing.

 

[Kurt.]

That's down to each council/housing association though I'd have thought? I'd imagine it's hard for Westminster to mandate where money from this program has to be spent.

Oh for sure, but it still doesn't detract from the fact it hasn't been happening for possibly 30 years