The 2015 General Election

[Demitri_C]

 

i like under labours manifesto they say they will gurantee patients can be seen within 48hours in GPS's but dont actually say how

Its a common theme with all of them

Haha so very true but the one I got in the post had more strong words llike gurantee, the ones I got from lib dems, UKIP and tories havent been.

 

Labour didnt even spell the hospital close to me names right how can I trust someone one who promises to protect our NHS, that doesnt even know the name of my closest hospital?

[tonyh29]

i like under labours manifesto they say they will gurantee patients can be seen within 48hours in GPS's but dont actually say how

Its a common theme with all of them

Haha so very true but the one I got in the post had more strong words llike gurantee, the ones I got from lib dems, UKIP and tories havent been.

Labour didnt even spell the hospital close to me names right how can I trust someone one who promises to protect our NHS, that doesnt even know the name of my closest hospital?

Your not seriously pulling up someone over their spelling are you

[OutByEaster?]

Case in point - Right to buy - where a politician tells us he's a man of the people, allowing the working man a chance to get on the property ladder, letting those that have worked for it buy property that's council owned and make it a home of their own - when actually what that politician is looking for is the movement of that property from public to private hands - a couple of thousand homes at £150k is up to £300m of borrowing from banks. We as a nation start by owning a couple of thousand homes and end up in hundreds of millions of pounds worth of good profit making debt to our banks. It's privatisation, and they're lending us the money to buy the things we already own in order to make profit on our debts. Oh, and the £300m that the government collected? Straight into the deficit, with a bit of luck it should cover the interest that we owe to guess who.

 

The whole system is a mess.

[Demitri_C]

 

 

 

i like under labours manifesto they say they will gurantee patients can be seen within 48hours in GPS's but dont actually say how

Its a common theme with all of them

Haha so very true but the one I got in the post had more strong words llike gurantee, the ones I got from lib dems, UKIP and tories havent been.

Labour didnt even spell the hospital close to me names right how can I trust someone one who promises to protect our NHS, that doesnt even know the name of my closest hospital?

Your not seriously pulling up someone over their spelling are you

 

Haha I was asking for that one! You would think they hired me to type those cards out 

 

But seriously how can you justify your point if you can't spell the name of the hospital correctly? Doesnt inspire me with much confidence!

[mockingbird_franklin]

Case in point - Right to buy - where a politician tells us he's a man of the people, allowing the working man a chance to get on the property ladder, letting those that have worked for it buy property that's council owned and make it a home of their own - when actually what that politician is looking for is the movement of that property from public to private hands - a couple of thousand homes at £150k is up to £300m of borrowing from banks. We as a nation start by owning a couple of thousand homes and end up in hundreds of millions of pounds worth of good profit making debt to our banks. It's privatisation, and they're lending us the money to buy the things we already own in order to make profit on our debts. Oh, and the £300m that the government collected? Straight into the deficit, with a bit of luck it should cover the interest that we owe to guess who.

 

The whole system is a mess.

Isn't the new system even worse than that, From what I've has explained to me, Camemorons new proposal is to effectively force social housing tenants to buy their rented property within 5 years of the start of their tenancy or face being kicked out of it supposedly to rent in the private sector, of course it could have been explained wrongly to me as I find it hard to believe even this bunch of fools could come up with such a stupid idea.

 

But then this bunch of incompetent fools are responsible for the mandatory consideration of ESA which automatically places the claimant on JSA and effectively forces them to declare themselves as fit for work and hence ineligible for ESA in the first place. Even though assessment phase ESA is paid at the same rate as JSA, of course the claimant can insist they are unfit for work, unfortunately then will not receive any payment of ESA benefits whilst under a non time limited consideration of the decision. they also won't receive and JSA payments as they will be deemed as not being available for work as they are unfit for work, Which the DWP claimed was not the case in their original decision to deny them ESA.

Edited April 15, 2015 by mockingbird_franklin

[blandy]

I think a few have commented here that the Greens having an influence on UK politics might not be a bad thing ... they could well be right , but there should still be some debate on the conflicting views relating to climate change rather than a more blinkered approach that tends to be adopted ( by either side)

(but we have a climate change thread for that as well so maybe that is the best place for it)

Re the highlighted bit. I think it's important to separate valid debate from invalid debate.

By this I mean it's absolutely valid to say what should be done, or if nothing should be done. What is totally invalid and downright harmful is "debate" over established fact. Climate Change is FACT. It's as fact-y as you will ever get with science. Science is the studying of evidence and data and experimentation and publishing the results for peer review, and for challenge, and then any challenge or interpretation is again open to peer review and so it goes on. That's what science is...

But back to modern times Google Eisenman who found flaws in the science , flaws that have been ackowledged , he still supports climate change so he isn't a maverick or in the pocket of BP .... But he does show that science can get it wrong and therefore you claims of "fact" whilst likely are not actually conclusively fact

thanks. You've illustrated my point perfectly, with an example. A scientist looked at the modelling being used, challenged part of the methodology, published his views and theory and critique and so the modelling gets adjusted where it's found, by his peers, that his observations are valid, and a better model results. As you say he also recognises the fact of climate change.

[Jon]

 

 

i like under labours manifesto they say they will gurantee patients can be seen within 48hours in GPS's but dont actually say how

Its a common theme with all of them

Haha so very true but the one I got in the post had more strong words llike gurantee, the ones I got from lib dems, UKIP and tories havent been.

 

Labour didnt even spell the hospital close to me names right how can I trust someone one who promises to protect our NHS, that doesnt even know the name of my closest hospital?

 

 

I'm not surprised they can't spell the name of the hospital if they can't even spell 'guarantee'!

 

 

 

 

i like under labours manifesto they say they will gurantee patients can be seen within 48hours in GPS's but dont actually say how

Its a common theme with all of them

Haha so very true but the one I got in the post had more strong words llike gurantee, the ones I got from lib dems, UKIP and tories havent been.

Labour didnt even spell the hospital close to me names right how can I trust someone one who promises to protect our NHS, that doesnt even know the name of my closest hospital?

Your not seriously pulling up someone over their spelling are you

 

People in grammatical glass houses should not throw stones ....

[bickster]

Nobody on here seems to have mentioned that Housing trusts tend to have charitable status and it is illegal for any charity to sell any asset for less than market value.

Also I don't see how this will solve a housing crisis. History proves that overtime something like this has been attempted less than 30% of the housing stock sold is replaced. Also the supposed idea that selling off council houses was supposed to give more people the chance of owning their own home but 60% of those houses sold under the Witches scheme are now owned by landlords and privately rented.

[Jon]

Nobody on here seems to have mentioned that Housing trusts tend to have charitable status and it is illegal for any charity to sell any asset for less than market value.

Also I don't see how this will solve a housing crisis. History proves that overtime something like this has been attempted less than 30% of the housing stock sold is replaced.

Let 'em sleep on the steets, innit.

 

Let 'em get ill.

 

Let e'm die.

 

Classic Tory policy.

[snowychap]

Nobody on here seems to have mentioned that Housing trusts tend to have charitable status and it is illegal for any charity to sell any asset for less than market value.

Also I don't see how this will solve a housing crisis. History proves that overtime something like this has been attempted less than 30% of the housing stock sold is replaced. Also the supposed idea that selling off council houses was supposed to give more people the chance of owning their own home but 60% of those houses sold under the Witches scheme are now owned by landlords and privately rented.

I suppose that if the difference due to the discount is met by funds from central government (as I think the claim was, i.e. that they were going to get the money out of a pot from councils selling their most expensive homes), this isn't going to be a problem (as the books of the HAs will show a market value sale with monies coming from the buyer and government?

 

As for the second bit, I thoroughly agree. On the owned by landlords and privately rented, there was a BBC programme that I caught part of the other night which highlighted this issue in one or two London boroughs where the local council (in order to satisfy their obligations under homelessness legislation) were renting properties which they owned only a few years ago, from private landlords, at market rates in order to house people. This then has an adverse knock on effect on the housing benefit bill (but I guess it gives the Tories the ammunition to claim that it is further spiralling out of control and the rates need to be reduced more).

[mockingbird_franklin]

Nobody on here seems to have mentioned that Housing trusts tend to have charitable status and it is illegal for any charity to sell any asset for less than market value.

Also I don't see how this will solve a housing crisis. History proves that overtime something like this has been attempted less than 30% of the housing stock sold is replaced. Also the supposed idea that selling off council houses was supposed to give more people the chance of owning their own home but 60% of those houses sold under the Witches scheme are now owned by landlords and privately rented.

Isn't it the case that owner occupation is at the same percentage rate as it was before right to buy, so effectively all it did was convert council tenants with controlled regulated and secure tenancies into for profit private sector insecure tenants.

 

This of course means the policy was a huge failure in it's stated aim to increase owner occupation, unless some other hidden motivation was the real reason behind the policy.

Edited April 16, 2015 by mockingbird_franklin

[blandy]

Case in point - Right to buy - where a politician tells us he's a man of the people, allowing the working man a chance to get on the property ladder, letting those that have worked for it buy property that's council owned and make it a home of their own - when actually what that politician is looking for is the movement of that property from public to private hands - a couple of thousand homes at £150k is up to £300m of borrowing from banks. We as a nation start by owning a couple of thousand homes and end up in hundreds of millions of pounds worth of good profit making debt to our banks. It's privatisation, and they're lending us the money to buy the things we already own in order to make profit on our debts. Oh, and the £300m that the government collected? Straight into the deficit, with a bit of luck it should cover the interest that we owe to guess who.

 

The whole system is a mess.

A lot of the social housing is owned and run by Charities, or Private enterprises (not for profit). They are being forced to sell their houses at below the market rate to tennants. The tories would go absolutely yampy if labour or SNPs or anyone esle were to come up with a policy forcing private businesses or charities to sell their assets. edit - Bicks has nailed it above.

It's pure headline grabbing and massive hypocrisy

[tonyh29]

Nobody on here seems to have mentioned that Housing trusts tend to have charitable status and it is illegal for any charity to sell any asset for less than market value.

Also I don't see how this will solve a housing crisis. History proves that overtime something like this has been attempted less than 30% of the housing stock sold is replaced. Also the supposed idea that selling off council houses was supposed to give more people the chance of owning their own home but 60% of those houses sold under the Witches scheme are now owned by landlords and privately rented.

Some housing association big wig was on 5 live today touched on this scheme his conclusion was housing associations will have lots of money but will have lost all their assets.... And then it will take around 5 years or so before they get new property to replace the ones they've sold

He didn't necessarily say it was a bad policy just that they were on the fence on it at present

[Rodders]

 

if it hasn't already come up yet: yet another thingy to do: https://uk.isidewith.com/

 

highly suspicious of the 99% siding with Labour. 

 

siding with 

labour 99%

green 92%

lib edm 92%

plaid 89%

tory 28%

ukip 15%

 

your score along with some of the others I'm finding quite surprising  (even my own to a degree)

 

I think its widely accepted there is very little difference between Labour and Tory policies and yet the results we are seeing from everyone show a huge gap  one way or another

 

 

It surprised me, too but just to confirm - as it was discussed a little later in the thread- I didn't consciously try and work out which policy was attached to one party or another, but I suspect some of them are unavoidably obvious. But even so if I felt I intuitively supported a policy, I wouldn't unlike it just because it was Tory, well I don't think I would.

 

I dunno how it takes into account the "very important / not important" elements into the score. I think some of them are quite flawed in how the questions are phrased.

[bickster]

Nobody on here seems to have mentioned that Housing trusts tend to have charitable status and it is illegal for any charity to sell any asset for less than market value.

Also I don't see how this will solve a housing crisis. History proves that overtime something like this has been attempted less than 30% of the housing stock sold is replaced. Also the supposed idea that selling off council houses was supposed to give more people the chance of owning their own home but 60% of those houses sold under the Witches scheme are now owned by landlords and privately rented.

Some housing association big wig was on 5 live today touched on this scheme his conclusion was housing associations will have lots of money but will have lost all their assets.... And then it will take around 5 years or so before they get new property to replace the ones they've sold

He didn't necessarily say it was a bad policy just that they were on the fence on it at present

There were plenty saying yesterday that they'd sue the government if it was implemented

[tonyh29]

 

 

Nobody on here seems to have mentioned that Housing trusts tend to have charitable status and it is illegal for any charity to sell any asset for less than market value.

Also I don't see how this will solve a housing crisis. History proves that overtime something like this has been attempted less than 30% of the housing stock sold is replaced. Also the supposed idea that selling off council houses was supposed to give more people the chance of owning their own home but 60% of those houses sold under the Witches scheme are now owned by landlords and privately rented.

Some housing association big wig was on 5 live today touched on this scheme his conclusion was housing associations will have lots of money but will have lost all their assets.... And then it will take around 5 years or so before they get new property to replace the ones they've sold

He didn't necessarily say it was a bad policy just that they were on the fence on it at present

 

There were plenty saying yesterday that they'd sue the government if it was implemented

 

can you sue a government ? and if so , can we sue the government for all our bank money back whilst we are at it ?

[Jon]

Parties you side with...

97%

Labour

on foreign policy, healthcare, economic, social, environmental, education, and immigration issues.

compare answers

 

97%

Green ^{Regional Party}

on foreign policy, healthcare, social, economic, domestic policy, environmental, education, and transportation issues.

compare answers

 

88%

Liberal Democrats

on foreign policy, healthcare, social, environmental, economic, and education issues.

compare answers

 

 

36%

UK Independence

on education issues.

compare answers

 

23%

Conservatives

no major issues.

compare answers

 

 

96%

Scottish Nationals ^{Regional Party}

Just answered this as honestly as possible. Happy with the results. I side with the nasty party on "no major issues". 

[Eames]

Labour 86%

Lib Dem 84%

Tory 79%

Green 78%

UPKIP 39%

 

Meh.

[Avfc96]

Position dial thing:

 

Tories: 75%

Lib Dems: 71%

Labour: 66%

SNP: 20%

Plaid Cymru: 4%

UKIP: 1%

Greens: -16%

 

I would say im just right of centre.

[Eames]

Parties you side with...

97%

Labour

on foreign policy, healthcare, economic, social, environmental, education, and immigration issues.

compare answers

 

97%

Green ^{Regional Party}

on foreign policy, healthcare, social, economic, domestic policy, environmental, education, and transportation issues.

compare answers

 

88%

Liberal Democrats

on foreign policy, healthcare, social, environmental, economic, and education issues.

compare answers

 

 

36%

UK Independence

on education issues.

compare answers

 

23%

Conservatives

no major issues.

compare answers

 

 

96%

Scottish Nationals ^{Regional Party}

Just answered this as honestly as possible. Happy with the results. I side with the nasty party on "no major issues". 

 

And yet you side with the "Really nasty party" on education issues.