The 2015 Popularity Contest (aka UK General Election )

[daylightrobber]

ICM have released the following statement in regards to the audience recruitment. Suggests Farage stitched himself up.

ICM employed a recruitment strategy that was premised on orthodox random location selection techniques. A total of 30 small geographical areas (Super Output Areas, as defined by the Office for National Statistics) were selected within a 20-mile radius of the venue.

A minimum of 8 people were recruited within each area, in line with both demographic quota variables that reflected the composition of the UK population by gender, age, ethnicity, and social grade, and political protocols that reflected the balance as agreed between the broadcasters and the political parties. One fifth of the total number recruited was on the basis of being a self-defined 'undecided voter'.

Separately, a small number of SNP and Plaid Cymru supporters were recruited in Scotland and Wales, using alternative recruitment strategies, reasonably decided upon by ICM.

The recruitment approach replicated those used by ICM at all the 2010 leader debates, both the Clegg vs Farage debates last year, and the recent ITV debate

 

[daylightrobber]

That independent ICM has always been bias agaisnt ukip even right now their poll results show ukip percentage to be half of what it is on all the other polls.

Half a %age point will be well within the margins for error.

 

[Clint Planet]

I think that Nicola women

**SEXISM ALERT**

 

[SNova]

**SEXISM ALERT**

How?

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Bruce (without even getting into the pre-supposition that owning is intrinsically better than renting - which it isn't), is it really that hard to comprehend that any LA should have a certain amount of social housing at any one time to house those who either can't buy or don't want to buy? If the Local Authority sells to the sitting tenants, how does it cater for the needs of the next generation looking for social housing?

I don't really know how to explain it any better than I already have. The example I gave many pages ago showed that not only would right to buy not shrink the available supply any more than is currently the case, but it would also give housing associations/LA significantly more capital with which to build new houses. Capital they otherwise wouldn't have.

Now you could ask whether they will receive all the money from the sale of houses (as @Woolly Blue did), but I think the only person who has made the suggestion that this is a decent enough policy providing its implemented properly is @Kurt

 

[Clint Planet]

Maybe I'm just looking at it from my own experience with lots of my children's families not able to buy, being low income, refugees or immigrants, and I don't know much about the ways of housing associations at all, but I will repeat that local authorities will always need social housing, particularly in a place like London with all its influxes of refugees and economic migrants, and selling social housing will thus create a potential problem (even if it doesn't materialise right away).

Do you think there should be social housing?

 

[Elong]

I'll tell you what would help people get into buying their own homes and out of social housing (and therefore helping the burden of waiting lists and taxpayer's money), the banks should be brought into line and offering cheaper interest rates, especially to people on lower incomes. It's a bloody scandal how much profit they continue to make, despite being bailed out in the past.

In New Zealand, a law was passed that anyone earning under a certain percentage was entitled to a mortgage on a lower interest rate and without a deposit required, and even given lump sums to ensure the house was insulated and water tight. The mortgage only went up to a certain amount ($200,000), and only first home buyers were allowed to take the loan, so it encouraged people to buy a first home that was modest and affordable to them, and not affecting a higher priced market.

Without that I would never have been able to purchase my house. Many people have taken advantage of the scheme and it has kept house pricing at a stable price for a few years now, except in Auckland, the main city, which is an economy onto it's own.

 

[beautifulthing]

Maybe I'm just looking at it from my own experience with lots of my children's families not able to buy, being low income, refugees or immigrants, and I don't know much about the ways of housing associations at all, but I will repeat that local authorities will always need social housing, particularly in a place like London with all its influxes of refugees and economic migrants, and selling social housing will thus create a potential problem (even if it doesn't materialise right away).

Do you think there should be social housing?

There might be an obvious answer to this but isn't there going to be a gap between selling off the high end social housing; residents buying their place and then building the replacement housing? I can see that the suggested scheme is better than the Thatcher original but it seems that it's creating a couple of hostages to fortune.

 

[davek]

So Farage was right and the BBC have to admit that 58 of the audience were conservative or UKIP yet 102 were left wingers with 40 undecided..........another BBC stitch up..........

Here's the only stitch up I see at the BBC:

BBC political editors...

Chris Cook Newsnight - former researcher for the Tory Party
Alegra Stratton - married to political chief of Tory Spectator magazine
Evan Davis - ex-Tory policy maker
James Landale - classmate of Cameron at Eton
Nick Robinson - ex-Tory national leader of the Young Conservatives


That lot have got the three flagships of BBC news (BBC1 6 o'clock and 10 o'clock news and Newsnight) boxed off for the Tories, framing every campaign story their ex-employers' way.

You're having a laugh with your BBC left wing bias. It's utter horse sh1t. The national broadcaster of this country is firmly under the control of Conservative Central Office. That's how democracy works, apparently.

 

[SpurtingLesbian]

Poor the Call me Dave....

Voters walked out of a Tory campaign event – leaving flailing David Cameron red faced as he defended Conservative cuts.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/david-cameron-left-red-faced-voters-5532730

 

[Clint Planet]

Here's the only stitch up I see at the BBC:

BBC political editors...

Chris Cook Newsnight - former researcher for the Tory Party
Alegra Stratton - married to political chief of Tory Spectator magazine
Evan Davis - ex-Tory policy maker
James Landale - classmate of Cameron at Eton
Nick Robinson - ex-Tory national leader of the Young Conservatives


That lot have got the three flagships of BBC news (BBC1 6 o'clock and 10 o'clock news and Newsnight) boxed off for the Tories, framing every campaign story their ex-employers' way.

You're having a laugh with your BBC left wing bias. It's utter horse sh1t. The national broadcaster of this country is firmly under the control of Conservative Central Office. That's how democracy works, apparently.

You only have to look at the disgraceful reporting of last summer's assault on Gaza by Israel (You'd think they were toe to toe, trading blows, by the sound of it) to realise the BBC - and I'm sad to say this - is rapidly losing credibility as an even-handed reporter of events.

I still go to it, of course, just to see what they're saying but I trust thr Guardian and the Indie much more and alsokeep an eye on this these days:

http://www.medialens.org/

"Since 2001, we have been describing how mainstream newspapers and broadcasters operate as a propaganda system for the elite interests that dominate modern society. The costs of their disinformation in terms of human and animal suffering, and environmental breakdown, are incalculable. We show how news and commentary are ‘filtered’ by the media’s profit-orientation, by its dependence on advertisers, parent companies, wealthy owners and official news sources..

We check the media’s version of events against credible facts and opinion provided by journalists, academics and specialist researchers. We then publish both versions, together with our commentary, in free Media Alerts and invite readers to deliver their verdict both to us and to mainstream journalists through the email addresses provided in our ’Suggested Action’ at the end of each alert. We urge correspondents to adopt a polite, rational and respectful tone at all times – we strongly oppose all abuse and personal attack. We also publish Cogitations, exploring related personal and philosophical themes.

In 2007, Media Lens was awarded the Gandhi Foundation International Peace Prize.

John Pilger has commented:

“The creators and editors of Medialens, David Edwards and David Cromwell, have had such influence in a short time that, by holding to account those who, it is said, write history’s draft, they may well have changed the course of modern historiography. They have certainly torn up the ‘ethical blank cheque’, which Richard Drayton referred to, and have exposed as morally corrupt ‘the right to bomb, to maim, to imprison without trial...’. Without Media Lens during the attack on and occupation of Iraq, the full gravity of that debacle might have been consigned to oblivion, and to bad history.” (John Pilger, foreword, David Edwards and David Cromwell, Guardians Of Power - The Myth Of The Liberal Media, Pluto Press, 2006, p.x)"

 

[daylightrobber]

Maybe I'm just looking at it from my own experience with lots of my children's families not able to buy, being low income, refugees or immigrants, and I don't know much about the ways of housing associations at all, but I will repeat that local authorities will always need social housing, particularly in a place like London with all its influxes of refugees and economic migrants, and selling social housing will thus create a potential problem (even if it doesn't materialise right away).

Do you think there should be social housing?

You are absolutely right.

On the whole HAs are charities, run by people who know what they're on about. Charities generally exist because of a specific need. In this case to put roofs over the heads of people who otherwise can't afford one. The benefits to the country in terms of savings made on the social care, welfare and health bills are enormous.

Now, as charities there are so many potential problems ahead if the scheme was ever to be introduced. Often, the HAs do not own their housing stock outright. They are paying mortgages on them and servicing debt. If they sell their assets below market price (a practice illegal for charities btw) they will not have the capital for purchasing 14 more properties, or whatever the ridiculous figure stated earlier in the thread was. Now I can hear the supporters of this scheme saying that the HAs will receive full market value as it is subsidised by government. This is by no means the same as maximising the potential in their assets. If any of us wanted to sell up, we would choose to do so at a time that suits us.

They are unlikely to receive the same amount of external financial support that they receive now. Why would any one who gave to a charity because they believed in what the charity was doing continue to do so if the rules changed? I might be wrong on this but I doubt it. It is pretty much a certainty that those HAs benefiting from low rates on their lending are unlikely to see that continue

To be able to purchase new properties HAs would have to wait until after any sale, they can't just go out and buy properties in case a sale of one of their own might occur. There is no guarantee any suitable properties will become available, meaning the HAs would have to spread geographically to find new ones. New developments aren't always an option due to planning restrictions, lengthy consultation periods etc.

All these factors mean that HAs will become more expensive to run. Rents will have to rise, pushing rental values up across all markets. This means that the poorest tenants in social housing will require more support from government through housing benefit. Tenants of all landlords will simply have to pay more, often squeezing their living standards further still.

This plan is idiotic. We are still feeling the effects through the housing mess we are in now from the time Thatcher implemented it.

 

[davek]

You only have to look at the disgraceful reporting of last summer's assault on Gaza by Israel (You'd think they were toe to toe, trading blows, by the sound of it) to realise the BBC - and I'm sad to say this - is rapidly losing credibility as an even-handed reporter of events.

I still go to it, of course, just to see what they're saying but I trust thr Guardian and the Indie much more and alsokeep an eye on this these days:

http://www.medialens.org/

"Since 2001, we have been describing how mainstream newspapers and broadcasters operate as a propaganda system for the elite interests that dominate modern society. The costs of their disinformation in terms of human and animal suffering, and environmental breakdown, are incalculable. We show how news and commentary are ‘filtered’ by the media’s profit-orientation, by its dependence on advertisers, parent companies, wealthy owners and official news sources..

We check the media’s version of events against credible facts and opinion provided by journalists, academics and specialist researchers. We then publish both versions, together with our commentary, in free Media Alerts and invite readers to deliver their verdict both to us and to mainstream journalists through the email addresses provided in our ’Suggested Action’ at the end of each alert. We urge correspondents to adopt a polite, rational and respectful tone at all times – we strongly oppose all abuse and personal attack. We also publish Cogitations, exploring related personal and philosophical themes.

In 2007, Media Lens was awarded the Gandhi Foundation International Peace Prize.

John Pilger has commented:

“The creators and editors of Medialens, David Edwards and David Cromwell, have had such influence in a short time that, by holding to account those who, it is said, write history’s draft, they may well have changed the course of modern historiography. They have certainly torn up the ‘ethical blank cheque’, which Richard Drayton referred to, and have exposed as morally corrupt ‘the right to bomb, to maim, to imprison without trial...’. Without Media Lens during the attack on and occupation of Iraq, the full gravity of that debacle might have been consigned to oblivion, and to bad history.” (John Pilger, foreword, David Edwards and David Cromwell, Guardians Of Power - The Myth Of The Liberal Media, Pluto Press, 2006, p.x)"

Yes, media lens is excellent. As has been the work of the Glasgow Media Group (who Pilger also rates).

Good peice here from a few weeks ago by Marl Steel on the cosy relationship between the top Tories and the BBC political editors:
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-chillaxing-in-camerons-kitchen-10137059.html

 

[daylightrobber]

There might be an obvious answer to this but isn't there going to be a gap between selling off the high end social housing; residents buying their place and then building the replacement housing? I can see that the suggested scheme is better than the Thatcher original but it seems that it's creating a couple of hostages to fortune.

The high end social housing will be out of the reach of many social tenants. They will end up in the hands of developers/private landlords through one method or another.

 

[Chang Elephant]

You're having a laugh with your BBC left wing bias. It's utter horse sh1t. The national broadcaster of this country is firmly under the control of Conservative Central Office. That's how democracy works, apparently.

Dave can you just go along with the BBC left wing cliche please mate, I've read about that since I was old enough to read in the papers controlled by benevolent billionaires and heard it from various Tory politicians on a regular basis. That way everyone knows where they are and feels safe.