General Election 2015 official thread

DamoNorthStand

Easy on the personal abuse and name calling. It was all going so well......

bobmunro

The Organiser said:

Quoting balls up - quote was fish, next bit was bobmunro and last paragraph only was mine.

I think there was something in UKIP's manifesto about stopping the quoting balls up - although it might be more linked to the behaviour of their prospective parliamentary candidates.

aliwibble

Addickted said:

Most of the G15 biggest Housing Associations in the South East build very few properties for 'social rent'.

The majority of their new stock is for 'market rent' which is significantly higher than the real social housing rental levels, or the properties are for 'shared ownership' and outright purchase.

A great deal of the issues with the current trend in social housing is the way most developers are getting away with more flexible section106 agreements. The quality of Social Housing has now become ridiculously high. Now there is nothing wrong with that per se, but the repair, maintenance and H&S costs of running a social housing property is about three times that of a similar property that is privately owned.

The reason very little of new Housing Association stock is for social rent, is because the coalition government changed the funding formula for it in 2010, so that the assumption was that they would charge affordable rents (up to 80% of market rates). In order to be able to charge social rents on any new properties, they have to subsidise these by charging full market rents on other new properties in certain areas. Shared ownership allows people who wouldn't be able to get a mortgage to buy the place outright to have a stake in their property, but the money that people pay to own that stake is reinvested to build more properties. As the bloke from one of the Swindon Housing Associations said on Channel4 News last night, the discount that they give on one Right to Buy place could be used to build 3 shared ownership places instead. It is a monumental waste of money just to buy a small number of votes, when expanding shared ownership would be a much more efficient way of achieving the same end.

nth_london_addick

Can we please return to the healthy disagreement rather than calling people liars and pricks we have enough threads to do that in, I am actually enjoying this one and also understanding more about the opposite views than I thought I would

AFKABartram

Well said, agreed

ShootersHillGuru

AFKABartram said:

Well said, agreed

Me too

stonemuse

sinking feesh said:

stonemuse said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

Fiiish said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

Fiiish said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

Lang Buisson: Spending on outsourced services increased from 4.8 per cent in 2009 to 7 per cent in 2014

So on average 0.44% of services each year. A lot of Labour campaigners claimed in 2010 that by 2015 the NHS would no longer be free at the point of use. Yet at the rate you have quoted it will take until 2226 for the NHS to be fully privatised. If your lie that David Cameron is trying to privatise the NHS had any basis, do you also have the knowledge of how he intends to keep himself alive for more than 200 years in order to finish the job as clearly you're hiding some kind of medical or scientific miracle of longevity.

You've called me a liar. I'm calling you a prick. Shall we call it quits ?

I'm not calling you a liar but you have believe a claim that is based on a lie and are repeating it here. I am telling you now it is a lie, much like the claim that Labour caused the global financial crash is a lie. You can call me a prick but I don't think that helps you in any way.

Perhaps I'm anti it because I believe that profit should be nowhere near our nations healthcare.

I think I agree with that (fence-sitting I know, but bear with me) but ...playing devils advocate ...if they are accountable to shareholders, and only receive recompense if they are successful in their healthcare ...which would then result in a financial return ...would that necessarily be wrong?

Like national rail companies?

I don't get the comparison ...they have not been successful.

se9addick

Had a flick through UKIP's manifesto and nothing in it sounds inherently racist (although some more detail on how things like "Allow British businesses to choose to employ British workers first" would be implemented would be nice) it's just that they, like the Lib Dems and the SNP, can pretty much claim they'll do anything if they were in government because they'll never actually have the opportunity to implement any of those policies.

McBobbin

se9addick said:

Had a flick through UKIP's manifesto and nothing in it sounds inherently racist (although some more detail on how things like "Allow British businesses to choose to employ British workers first" would be implemented would be nice) it's just that they, like the Lib Dems and the SNP, can pretty much claim they'll do anything if they were in government because they'll never actually have the opportunity to implement any of those policies.

The lib dems thought that with their tuition fees pledge... They are on safer ground this election

se9addick

McBobbin said:

se9addick said:

Had a flick through UKIP's manifesto and nothing in it sounds inherently racist (although some more detail on how things like "Allow British businesses to choose to employ British workers first" would be implemented would be nice) it's just that they, like the Lib Dems and the SNP, can pretty much claim they'll do anything if they were in government because they'll never actually have the opportunity to implement any of those policies.

The lib dems thought that with their tuition fees pledge... They are on safer ground this election

Exactly, they made promises they couldn't keep and now they're paying the price.

nth_london_addick

I don't see how as a British business owner that if you wanted to you cant do that already tbh, but why on earth you would not choose the best person for your position regardless of nationality is beyond me,

So what needs to happen for a party to win out right

I don't understand the whole way it works out and I didn't last time

nth_london_addick

Why is there such uproar over people paying to go through higher education??

se9addick

nth london addick said:

I don't see how as a British business owner that if you wanted to you cant do that already tbh, but why on earth you would not choose the best person for your position regardless of nationality is beyond me,

So what needs to happen for a party to win out right

I don't understand the whole way it works out and I didn't last time

To win outright they just need to win over 50% of seats. If no one wins as much as 50% then we'll probably have another coalition (where two or more parties get together to form a government, and between them they have over 50% of the seats).

nth_london_addick

Fair enough way to do it in spose, so for each area that goes blue or red for example that's one seat?

McBobbin

nth london addick said:

Why is there such uproar over people paying to go through higher education??

Partly because its relatively recent - none of the mps would have paid i doubt (i was in the first year to do so and im 34), partly there was a promise not to raise them that was reneged upon, partly not everyone can afford it or wants debt so it divides on socio economic lines and partly people are tight and feel entitled to everything for free

se9addick

nth london addick said:

Fair enough way to do it in spose, so for each area that goes blue or red for example that's one seat?

Yep, to win a seat a party just needs to get more votes than any other party in that area. The slightly annoying thing is the party doesn't need to get more than 50% of the votes in that area to win the seat, just more than any other party.

nth_london_addick

That seems fair also


Too many go to university imo that shouldnt probably get butchered for saying it, i have no real issue that you don't need 50% to win in an area,

AFKABartram

One party has to get 323 seats I think to effectively win (you strip out a few NI seats I think.

Neither will, so the ruling PM has first opportunity to form a coalition in the first instance. If this doesn't prove possible, And no other parties could form a clear coalition, a minirity government will be in place, but they have to prove to be able to hold 'the confidence of the house'. They do this when the Queens speech is presented, effectively setting out the legislation mandate which mp's vote on. If Cameron lost the vote, then Labour would call no confidence in the government. Milliband would then be allowed to try and form a gov.

After a coupl of weeks there would be another house confidence vote on milliband. If he wins, he stays as pm, if he loses, another election is called.

I think!

nth_london_addick

cheers smudge, all seems a bit long winded tbh,

So IF I have understood correctly, if cons and labour don't get the vote, then Cameron can speak to his old mucka Clegg and they can agree to just continue

Is that a real possibility or can he only do it with a party that would get him over the 50%

Addickted

ShootersHillGuru said:

Fiiish said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

Fiiish said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

Lang Buisson: Spending on outsourced services increased from 4.8 per cent in 2009 to 7 per cent in 2014

So on average 0.44% of services each year. A lot of Labour campaigners claimed in 2010 that by 2015 the NHS would no longer be free at the point of use. Yet at the rate you have quoted it will take until 2226 for the NHS to be fully privatised. If your lie that David Cameron is trying to privatise the NHS had any basis, do you also have the knowledge of how he intends to keep himself alive for more than 200 years in order to finish the job as clearly you're hiding some kind of medical or scientific miracle of longevity.

You've called me a liar. I'm calling you a prick. Shall we call it quits ?

I'm not calling you a liar but you have believe a claim that is based on a lie and are repeating it here. I am telling you now it is a lie, much like the claim that Labour caused the global financial crash is a lie. You can call me a prick but I don't think that helps you in any way.

As for the NHS performing well. I'm not at all sure what measure you are using. Certainly not the same one that noted that A&E in NHS England has not hit its targets for what is it now 27 consecutive weeks.

It has performed well though - between 91.5% and 93.3% in the last six weeks alone. That's pretty efficient if you ask me. Current year to date performance is 92.4%. 100% would be lovely, but surely even you realise you need to be realistic with 'targets'?

The biggest issue to me in the current stats on A&E attendance is the significant increase in numbers attending A&E - up an average 30,000 a week from just five years ago. Those increases are frightening.

sadiejane1981

I will for the first time in my life be voting labour.

As a parent of kids with special needs I have seen over the last few years most of the services that my kids use and need having the funding ripped out from under them, a lot of the grants and support they got from the labour government were considered unnecessary by our coalition. The other issue is the nhs, with my MIL currently about to die from cancer we have seen the failings of the nhs, not really the fault of the doctors and nursing staff but the fact the hospitals are over stretched and over worked she had to wait months between scans and appointments and chemo etc, this could have been the difference between life and death. I've seen more and more schools pushed into academies and good schools are losing their identities, teachers losing a lot of their benefits and schools performances going backwards. I have serious issues with social services and their inability to help in certain situations because their budget is too limited and they have to focus on some problems over others. I've seen my MIL struggling for years with a disability in an over priced private rented house because she was unable to get a council flat suitable because of the bedroom tax everyone decided to downsize at once. I've also seen hard working proud fathers in tears after having to use a food bank as their wages don't stretch quite far enough.

I don't think immigration and the EU are should be highest on the priorities given the state of everything else.

nth_london_addick

The a and e that I have the misfortune to have to visit normally when one of the kids has a cut or it looks like a busted bone are always full of non English speaking people, who delay the process by having to get people to translate the info, do you think that would make a difference to the 4 hrs rule

AFKABartram

nth london addick said:

cheers smudge, all seems a bit long winded tbh,

So IF I have understood correctly, if cons and labour don't get the vote, then Cameron can speak to his old mucka Clegg and they can agree to just continue

Is that a real possibility or can he only do it with a party that would get him over the 50%

Yes, though its s real unknown on just how many seats LIb Dem will lose from last time. Personally I have doubts whether a Con / LD coalition would have enough seats as things currently stand, though I'm sure the bookies odd will give a clearer picture.

The line that UKIP will effectively put Labour in power is I think going to prove a very high probability

AFKABartram

Blimey, just flicked on Newsnight and some blokes just said almost exactly the same as me!

nth_london_addick

I don't for one min think that ukip will do aswell as they would in local elections for that very reason, I also think that lib dems will do better than anticipated, but then I don't think that you should be allowed to vote whilst in education or in jail so my thoughts are probably as wrong as that statement

Thanks for explaining it though dan these threads are a cracking example of why this place is so good

ShootersHillGuru

Addickted said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

Fiiish said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

Fiiish said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

Lang Buisson: Spending on outsourced services increased from 4.8 per cent in 2009 to 7 per cent in 2014

So on average 0.44% of services each year. A lot of Labour campaigners claimed in 2010 that by 2015 the NHS would no longer be free at the point of use. Yet at the rate you have quoted it will take until 2226 for the NHS to be fully privatised. If your lie that David Cameron is trying to privatise the NHS had any basis, do you also have the knowledge of how he intends to keep himself alive for more than 200 years in order to finish the job as clearly you're hiding some kind of medical or scientific miracle of longevity.

You've called me a liar. I'm calling you a prick. Shall we call it quits ?

I'm not calling you a liar but you have believe a claim that is based on a lie and are repeating it here. I am telling you now it is a lie, much like the claim that Labour caused the global financial crash is a lie. You can call me a prick but I don't think that helps you in any way.

As for the NHS performing well. I'm not at all sure what measure you are using. Certainly not the same one that noted that A&E in NHS England has not hit its targets for what is it now 27 consecutive weeks.

It has performed well though - between 91.5% and 93.3% in the last six weeks alone. That's pretty efficient if you ask me. Current year to date performance is 92.4%. 100% would be lovely, but surely even you realise you need to be realistic with 'targets'?

The biggest issue to me in the current stats on A&E attendance is the significant increase in numbers attending A&E - up an average 30,000 a week from just five years ago. Those increases are frightening.

Still missing targets set by this administration. if something keeps failing across the board you have to ask the question why. It can't be down to purely local issues so what is it ? I think most of us would say it's being overwhelmed and underfunded.

se9addick

AFKABartram said:

One party has to get 323 seats I think to effectively win (you strip out a few NI seats I think.

Neither will, so the ruling PM has first opportunity to form a coalition in the first instance. If this doesn't prove possible, And no other parties could form a clear coalition, a minirity government will be in place, but they have to prove to be able to hold 'the confidence of the house'. They do this when the Queens speech is presented, effectively setting out the legislation mandate which mp's vote on. If Cameron lost the vote, then Labour would call no confidence in the government. Milliband would then be allowed to try and form a gov.

After a coupl of weeks there would be another house confidence vote on milliband. If he wins, he stays as pm, if he loses, another election is called.

I think!

Didn't realise it was the current PM who got the first crack at forming a coalition in the event of a hung parliament - I just assumed it would be the leader of the party with the most seats.

McBobbin

nth london addick said:

but then I don't think that you should be allowed to vote whilst in education

May I ask why?

BTW, I think there will be a voter squeeze and the main parties will do better and smaller parties do worse as often happens.

nth_london_addick

I don't mean uni or once 18, I meant the those wanting 16 yr olds, there was some woman from one of the parties saying they should be allowed

cafcfan

nth london addick said:

I don't mean uni or once 18, I meant the those wanting 16 yr olds, there was some woman from one of the parties saying they should be allowed

It's in the Labour manifesto. But they want kids to still be learning English until they are 18 - go figure. Not old enough to understand your native language but old enough to vote?