I thought it was a big improvement for Natalie Bennett tonight,
I thought she just reinforced how out of depth she was compared to all the others.
500,00 homes. Firstly where on earth does she get this figure from - she has absolutely no idea how this can possibly be delivered. Everything about housebuilding and the infrastructure required to provide decent homes is against what the Greens stand for.
Yes, but the ideal, the aspiration on housing was one I agree with. For the Greens the devil is in the detail, so yes, probably out of her depth practically, but in the lead idealistically because who doesn't think we need to really sort the housing crisis out? The Tory announced policy on housing, although apparently detailed, I thought was not aimed at those who are obliged to rent, but those who will tie their lives to a mortgage for good or ill. I personally believe housing is a serious issue in this election, and I am glad it is high on the debate agenda.
Tie their lives to a mortgage?
Does your landlord stop charging you rent after 25 years then?
Yes, but saving for a deposit can add a lot of years prior to the 25 years kicking in, especially if you're on a minimum wage.
If a couple are proposing to pay £1500 a month for a mortgage then putting away £1500 month towards a deposit, shouldn't take you too long. That's £36k in two years - a pretty decent deposit I would have thought.
Except they have to pay for accommodation during those two years of saving. They will like as not be renters. In the private rental market how can a minimum wage earner pay the rent and also save for a deposit?
Live with their parents.
As about 90% of those saving for a deposit do.
Why keep cracking on about minimum wage earners?
If you want to own your own house, then you will make whatever sacrifice you need to own it. No cars, no holidays, no kids, no nights out. It all depends on your priorities. And living in a Capitalist Society allows people to have those independent choices.
When living at home I still paid a (at the time) significant board to my parents. Plus not all Parent could fit another two adults in, nor might they want to.
I still agree with your point about sacrafices but its not always as easy as it seems for all cases.
Can't understand how Ed Miliband is taken so seriously. He comes across as like an actor in a film playing a politician with the cliche phrases and his body language. Just seems like a complete caricature.
I thought it was a big improvement for Natalie Bennett tonight,
I thought she just reinforced how out of depth she was compared to all the others.
500,00 homes. Firstly where on earth does she get this figure from - she has absolutely no idea how this can possibly be delivered. Everything about housebuilding and the infrastructure required to provide decent homes is against what the Greens stand for.
Yes, but the ideal, the aspiration on housing was one I agree with. For the Greens the devil is in the detail, so yes, probably out of her depth practically, but in the lead idealistically because who doesn't think we need to really sort the housing crisis out? The Tory announced policy on housing, although apparently detailed, I thought was not aimed at those who are obliged to rent, but those who will tie their lives to a mortgage for good or ill. I personally believe housing is a serious issue in this election, and I am glad it is high on the debate agenda.
Tie their lives to a mortgage?
Does your landlord stop charging you rent after 25 years then?
Yes, but saving for a deposit can add a lot of years prior to the 25 years kicking in, especially if you're on a minimum wage.
If a couple are proposing to pay £1500 a month for a mortgage then putting away £1500 month towards a deposit, shouldn't take you too long. That's £36k in two years - a pretty decent deposit I would have thought.
Except they have to pay for accommodation during those two years of saving. They will like as not be renters. In the private rental market how can a minimum wage earner pay the rent and also save for a deposit?
Live with their parents.
As about 90% of those saving for a deposit do.
Why keep cracking on about minimum wage earners?
If you want to own your own house, then you will make whatever sacrifice you need to own it. No cars, no holidays, no kids, no nights out. It all depends on your priorities. And living in a Capitalist Society allows people to have those independent choices.
"You can have your Children or a roof over your head, your choice"
If you want both you can, just don't expect me to pay for it.
Don't get me wrong, I'd quite like to be in a position where I am both living in a home without depending on state handouts (as I already am) and start having kids but I know I'm not in a position to guarantee my family's financial stability currently. I call that being a responsible adult. I already hand over an eye watering amount of money to the state who still can't seem to manage to balance the books, no matter how much they rob off my wife and I. Why should I have to make a responsible decision to avoid having kids just because others lack the maturity to make that responsible decision. I understand that not all parents currently find themselves in a stable situation due to factors outside their control, I'm talking purely about those who decide to have kids without having the means to support themselves, let alone a family.
I think the point was people could have both if we had a sensible social housing policy.
This isn't about someone who's never worked a day in their life having six kids they can't afford. The point being made used a couple who were nurses as an example, a skilled, necessary profession. Don't you think something's gone wrong if that couple have to between pro-creation and homelessness ?
Looking at the coalition options, it seems we have:
1) Tory and UKIP
2) Extension of current coalition (Clegg has already said he would work with Dave again).
3) Labour and SNP.
I honestly think the only way Labour get into power is with the SNP in tow.
Why the bloody hell would you vote to have a party helping to hold up the government of your country who don't even want to be part of it? It is utter madness. SNP would be catastrophic for our country.
This has to be the most biased question (not to mention factually incorrect) question ever written on Charlton Life !
For what its worth, I dont like the idea of UKIP in bed with the Tories either. Bit of an over-exagerration calling it one of the most biased posts ever written.
I could have added that the fairest coalition would be Tories and Labour - but where would your head be with that?
Also (outside of the Lib Dem option) how else would Labour get in power?
1) Minority government that would last about 6 months 2) Off the back of the SNP
I'll say it again - would you be happy with the SNP having such a hand in a UK government that they actively dont want to be part of?
I think I read somewhere that buy to let landlording has been massively profitable (exploitative?) in recent years. It would appeal to some free marketeers in that business to prevent the creation of social housing because the competition would threaten profits. I have tried to use reasonable examples earlier in this thread, and I agree people need to make sacrifices in order to buy a property, but it is not indulgence and a wastrel attitude that prevents people buying,but the economics and the numbers. If society wants nurses to live in communities alongside entrepreneurs, or cleaners near bankers, or mini cab drivers near barristers then how can it happen without social housing where clearly property ownership is out of reach? On this issue (which I see as significant in London) the recent policy announcement by the Conservative party lacks real credibility, and it will strengthen private landlordism and possible exploitation.
Extract: Ms Lagarde (IMF) added that the UK authorities had managed to provide the right balance of spending cuts and revenue raising. "It's clearly also delivering results, because when we look at the comparative growth rates delivered by various countries in Europe, it's obvious that what's happening in the UK has actually worked," she said.
Can't understand how Ed Miliband is taken so seriously. He comes across as like an actor in a film playing a politician with the cliche phrases and his body language. Just seems like a complete caricature.
Because the alternative is Cameron perhaps?
Cameron is a respected statesman and leader. Miliband's only achievement is having some of the lowest approval ratings amongst modern party leaders.
Respected by who?
Cameron has far higher approval ratings than Miliband so it can be said that a far higher proportion of the electorate respect him more than Miliband. He is also generally respected amongst notable world leaders and figures. He doesn't have to resort to ambushing G20 leaders in kitchens in order to get a word in unlike his predecessor.
...except that now, Miliband's approval rating is higher than Cameron's, according to the most recent Survation poll.
Can't understand how Ed Miliband is taken so seriously. He comes across as like an actor in a film playing a politician with the cliche phrases and his body language. Just seems like a complete caricature.
Because the alternative is Cameron perhaps?
Cameron is a respected statesman and leader. Miliband's only achievement is having some of the lowest approval ratings amongst modern party leaders.
Respected by who?
Cameron has far higher approval ratings than Miliband so it can be said that a far higher proportion of the electorate respect him more than Miliband. He is also generally respected amongst notable world leaders and figures. He doesn't have to resort to ambushing G20 leaders in kitchens in order to get a word in unlike his predecessor.
Actually, rather than being "far higher" Miliband has just overtaken Cameron in a recent approval ratings poll
It's worth pointing out this is based on a snap poll after a debate from which the broadcasters excluded Cameron and Clegg and is the one poll out of tens of thousands that have been taken since Ed became leader that give him a better approval than th PM.
...except that it was a poll taken on 9 April, a week before the debate.
Surely a Tory UKIP is a very low risk at the moment
Presumably, in theory, could a coalition be formed of more than 2 parties?
a coalition can consist of any number of parties .. trouble with that is all too often, the metaphorical tail ands up wagging the metaphorical dog .. anyway, multi party coalitions are common in Europe and elsewhere especially where first past the post is not the chosen method for general elections
Surely a Tory UKIP is a very low risk at the moment
Presumably, in theory, could a coalition be formed of more than 2 parties?
a coalition can consist of any number of parties .. trouble with that is all too often, the metaphorical tail ands up wagging the metaphorical dog .. anyway, multi party coalitions are common in Europe and elsewhere especially where first past the post is not the chosen method for general elections
Do you think it is safe to assume that the more parties that participate in a coalition, the less powerful any one party's demands will be?
For example, the LibDems were able to squeeze 5 Cabinet positions out of Cameron last time. This time, the SNP could, in theory, give Miliband a massive list of demands; but if the coalition is made up of Labour, SNP *and* the LibDems, *and* Plaid Cymru (and so on...), the SNP demands would be watered down? Does that make sense?
Surely a Tory UKIP is a very low risk at the moment
Presumably, in theory, could a coalition be formed of more than 2 parties?
a coalition can consist of any number of parties .. trouble with that is all too often, the metaphorical tail ands up wagging the metaphorical dog .. anyway, multi party coalitions are common in Europe and elsewhere especially where first past the post is not the chosen method for general elections
Do you think it is safe to assume that the more parties that participate in a coalition, the less powerful any one party's demands will be?
For example, the LibDems were able to squeeze 5 Cabinet positions out of Cameron last time. This time, the SNP could, in theory, give Miliband a massive list of demands; but if the coalition is made up of Labour, SNP *and* the LibDems, *and* Plaid Cymru (and so on...), the SNP demands would be watered down? Does that make sense?
good question .. in Germany for example where coalitions are common, the parties concerned are usually quite similar in their philosophy, Christian Democrats, Social Democrats etc. .. your example, nationalist, socialists, liberals (whatever that means) are very different in aims and policies .. I reckon that a coalition of SNP and Labour, all be it never acknowledged, a secret marriage, will be the outcome this time around .. and the heckling shrew from Scotland will sure enough be wagging young Ed .. I hope that he mans up when he's actually got the top job .. also, to me, Scottish independence would be no bad thing .. if they wanna go, let them go with our blessing but not with our (i.e. English) cash
Surely a Tory UKIP is a very low risk at the moment
Presumably, in theory, could a coalition be formed of more than 2 parties?
a coalition can consist of any number of parties .. trouble with that is all too often, the metaphorical tail ands up wagging the metaphorical dog .. anyway, multi party coalitions are common in Europe and elsewhere especially where first past the post is not the chosen method for general elections
Do you think it is safe to assume that the more parties that participate in a coalition, the less powerful any one party's demands will be?
For example, the LibDems were able to squeeze 5 Cabinet positions out of Cameron last time. This time, the SNP could, in theory, give Miliband a massive list of demands; but if the coalition is made up of Labour, SNP *and* the LibDems, *and* Plaid Cymru (and so on...), the SNP demands would be watered down? Does that make sense?
good question .. in Germany for example where coalitions are common, the parties concerned are usually quite similar in their philosophy, Christian Democrats, Social Democrats etc. .. your example, nationalist, socialists, liberals (whatever that means) are very different in aims and policies .. I reckon that a coalition of SNP and Labour, all be it never acknowledged, a secret marriage, will be the outcome this time around .. and the heckling shrew from Scotland will sure enough be wagging young Ed .. I hope that he mans up when he's actually got the top job .. also, to me, Scottish independence would be no bad thing .. if they wanna go, let them go with our blessing but not with our (i.e. English) cash
What I think is interesting is that there is potentially a coalition being lined-up which could comprise Labour, SNP, Greens and Plaid Cymru, where only *one* of those parties has a leader sitting in the House of Commons as an MP.
Surely a Tory UKIP is a very low risk at the moment
Presumably, in theory, could a coalition be formed of more than 2 parties?
a coalition can consist of any number of parties .. trouble with that is all too often, the metaphorical tail ands up wagging the metaphorical dog .. anyway, multi party coalitions are common in Europe and elsewhere especially where first past the post is not the chosen method for general elections
Do you think it is safe to assume that the more parties that participate in a coalition, the less powerful any one party's demands will be?
For example, the LibDems were able to squeeze 5 Cabinet positions out of Cameron last time. This time, the SNP could, in theory, give Miliband a massive list of demands; but if the coalition is made up of Labour, SNP *and* the LibDems, *and* Plaid Cymru (and so on...), the SNP demands would be watered down? Does that make sense?
good question .. in Germany for example where coalitions are common, the parties concerned are usually quite similar in their philosophy, Christian Democrats, Social Democrats etc. .. your example, nationalist, socialists, liberals (whatever that means) are very different in aims and policies .. I reckon that a coalition of SNP and Labour, all be it never acknowledged, a secret marriage, will be the outcome this time around .. and the heckling shrew from Scotland will sure enough be wagging young Ed .. I hope that he mans up when he's actually got the top job .. also, to me, Scottish independence would be no bad thing .. if they wanna go, let them go with our blessing but not with our (i.e. English) cash
What I think is interesting is that there is potentially a coalition being lined-up which could comprise Labour, SNP, Greens and Plaid Cymru, where only *one* of those parties has a leader sitting in the House of Commons as an MP.
agreed .. but bear in mind that we never know how much 'policy' is dictated by big donors, industries, trade unions, foreign governments .. MPs of all shades, especially those higher up in the party food chain, are all too often subject to pressures and instructions from non elected people and organisations .. he who pays the piper .... &&&
The post election period could end up being more interesting than the election campaign, where nothing much has really changed. And don't forget the Northern Irish Parties, the DUP has as many MPs (I think) as Plaid, Greens and UKIP put together at the moment
Looking at the coalition options, it seems we have:
1) Tory and UKIP
2) Extension of current coalition (Clegg has already said he would work with Dave again).
3) Labour and SNP.
I honestly think the only way Labour get into power is with the SNP in tow.
Why the bloody hell would you vote to have a party helping to hold up the government of your country who don't even want to be part of it? It is utter madness. SNP would be catastrophic for our country.
So, are you discounting a coalition between Labour and the LibDems?
Clegg has already ruled it out and said he will go with Dave again has he not?
Looking at the coalition options, it seems we have:
1) Tory and UKIP
2) Extension of current coalition (Clegg has already said he would work with Dave again).
3) Labour and SNP.
I honestly think the only way Labour get into power is with the SNP in tow.
Why the bloody hell would you vote to have a party helping to hold up the government of your country who don't even want to be part of it? It is utter madness. SNP would be catastrophic for our country.
So, are you discounting a coalition between Labour and the LibDems?
Clegg has already ruled it out and said he will go with Dave again has he not?
I don't think this is the case is it?
Actually you may be right.
He has basically suggested he would work with either.
Looking at the coalition options, it seems we have:
1) Tory and UKIP
2) Extension of current coalition (Clegg has already said he would work with Dave again).
3) Labour and SNP.
I honestly think the only way Labour get into power is with the SNP in tow.
Why the bloody hell would you vote to have a party helping to hold up the government of your country who don't even want to be part of it? It is utter madness. SNP would be catastrophic for our country.
So, are you discounting a coalition between Labour and the LibDems?
Clegg has already ruled it out and said he will go with Dave again has he not?
I don't think this is the case is it?
The average student can tell you how much Clegg's word is worth....
Labour don't need to form a coalition with SNP. Any motion in the house that is socialist based, the SNP will support and go through. Any that is not like Trident will go through regardless because the Tories will support it. There might be some issues that are not quite so clear but I doubt that Stugeon would want to bring down a Labour government only to be replaced by the Conservatives. Yes Miliband needs SNP but not in a coalition.
Looking at the coalition options, it seems we have:
1) Tory and UKIP
2) Extension of current coalition (Clegg has already said he would work with Dave again).
3) Labour and SNP.
I honestly think the only way Labour get into power is with the SNP in tow.
Why the bloody hell would you vote to have a party helping to hold up the government of your country who don't even want to be part of it? It is utter madness. SNP would be catastrophic for our country.
So, are you discounting a coalition between Labour and the LibDems?
Clegg has already ruled it out and said he will go with Dave again has he not?
I don't think this is the case is it?
Actually you may be right.
He has basically suggested he would work with either.
He's selling the Lib Dems as the ideal coalition partner for either Labour or Conservative, and compared with the other options, he has a point...
Whether they'll have enough seats to still be useful coalition partners may be an issue though
I don't Think it would be a bad idea of labour with plaid Cymru and SNP with Miliband as priminister and the other two leaders of Wales and Scotland, labour would still have the overall say but they can have a massive influence and input to the government of their countries.
I think we would have to promise them X amount of spending power but would ultimately still be a labour government so I doubt anything too stupid would be approved, they are all agreed on more houses, more NHS funding, living wages, no zero hour contracts and lower tuition fees so that is a start, to be honest I don't think miliband will have to bargain with them too much because they all want the Tories out together they can make it happen.
If Labour and Conservatives come out of the election on parity or very near parity in terms of seats, the only option for the Lib Dems would be to try to form a coalition with Labour. If they tried to form one with the Tories, SNP and Labour together could scupper any legislation they didn't like. Yes there is the Unionists but they would be largely cancelled out by the Greens and Plaid Cymru. If Labour needed the Lib Dem's 27 -30 seats, it could potentially marginalise the SNP in this scenario. Nobody is talking this up much, but this is what will happen as the polls stand now! The SNP woud never side with the Tories so Milliband has to be favourite to be th enext PM. The Tories need a surge in the polls desperately. For that reason alone, incredible they have been ducking the debates and that they haven't accepted Milliband's offer of a debate with Cameron. Behind closed doors, a lot of Conservatives will be very unhappy with Cameron. A poor election result and I think we will see Boris Johnson as Tory leader very quickly. He is the sort of choice you would make after a defeat.
I think a great bet would be, Milliband PM and Johnson leader of opposition within 6 months.
But no zero hr contracts won't make your cost of living go down will cost jobs or make more people have to go self employed and potentially close businesses down that need that option, we need less youngsters with degrees not more as there are so many poor kids who have. Spent all their time in uni and considerable amount of debt working doing jobs that the degree is unneeded and feel more frustrated that the time and effort is meaningless, also if you reduce the fee, who pays for the deficit,
All of those things won't grow the economy they will cause the same issues we had in the past seems madness to me
Sustainable growth in the UK can not and will not happen if we add more cost into the tax payers money increase the manufacturer /distribution costs of the goods you purchase or need as a service,
If they removed zero hr for me to use as a business then 4 guys immediately are going to lose their jobs and be replaced with agency labour
Is doubt I am alone as a small business owner who woutd find themselves in the same position
But no zero hr contracts won't make your cost of living go down will cost jobs or make more people have to go self employed and potentially close businesses down that need that option, we need less youngsters with degrees not more as there are so many poor kids who have. Spent all their time in uni and considerable amount of debt working doing jobs that the degree is unneeded and feel more frustrated that the time and effort is meaningless, also if you reduce the fee, who pays for the deficit,
All of those things won't grow the economy they will cause the same issues we had in the past seems madness to me
Sustainable growth in the UK can not and will not happen if we add more cost into the tax payers money increase the manufacturer /distribution costs of the goods you purchase or need as a service,
If they removed zero hr for me to use as a business then 4 guys immediately are going to lose their jobs and be replaced with agency labour
Is doubt I am alone as a small business owner who woutd find themselves in the same position
The government's own figures suggest around 45% of students won't be able to pay off their student loans, so making them a third smaller probably won't make that much difference. Possibly having more managable loans will mean more is paid back.
But no zero hr contracts won't make your cost of living go down will cost jobs or make more people have to go self employed and potentially close businesses down that need that option, we need less youngsters with degrees not more as there are so many poor kids who have. Spent all their time in uni and considerable amount of debt working doing jobs that the degree is unneeded and feel more frustrated that the time and effort is meaningless, also if you reduce the fee, who pays for the deficit,
All of those things won't grow the economy they will cause the same issues we had in the past seems madness to me
Sustainable growth in the UK can not and will not happen if we add more cost into the tax payers money increase the manufacturer /distribution costs of the goods you purchase or need as a service,
If they removed zero hr for me to use as a business then 4 guys immediately are going to lose their jobs and be replaced with agency labour
Is doubt I am alone as a small business owner who woutd find themselves in the same position
But you're looking at it as an employer, zero hours are inhumane and unfair, you can't support a family if you don't know how many hours you're going to be working, the better way to do things is to employ people on part-time contracts with overtime when available at least then they have a guaranteed amount of hours paid to them every week to budget their bills.
You seriously have to question why it is a good idea (as some people have commented) to have two leaders of nationalist parties of their respective country's in government with a guy who cant speak properly representing our interests on a day to day basis. This will spell nothing but bad news for the UK, but more importantly England, the biggest and most productive nation in the UK in which I am sure 99% of people on this board work and live.
Why is it when Farage pipes up about the UK's interest in leaving Europe and speaks about protecting the UK from migrants he is branded a racist, yet Wood and Sturgeon can bleat about Wales and Scotland's interests all day long and be hailed heroes?? Yes Farage isn't the most articulate or intelligent person, but he is unfairly portrayed by the media and the leaders of other parties.
I am not a UKIP voter, I am right now undecided having been a cons voter my entire life.
Comments
Plus not all Parent could fit another two adults in, nor might they want to.
I still agree with your point about sacrafices but its not always as easy as it seems for all cases.
This isn't about someone who's never worked a day in their life having six kids they can't afford. The point being made used a couple who were nurses as an example, a skilled, necessary profession. Don't you think something's gone wrong if that couple have to between pro-creation and homelessness ?
I could have added that the fairest coalition would be Tories and Labour - but where would your head be with that?
Also (outside of the Lib Dem option) how else would Labour get in power?
1) Minority government that would last about 6 months
2) Off the back of the SNP
I'll say it again - would you be happy with the SNP having such a hand in a UK government that they actively dont want to be part of?
I have tried to use reasonable examples earlier in this thread, and I agree people need to make sacrifices in order to buy a property, but it is not indulgence and a wastrel attitude that prevents people buying,but the economics and the numbers.
If society wants nurses to live in communities alongside entrepreneurs, or cleaners near bankers, or mini cab drivers near barristers then how can it happen without social housing where clearly property ownership is out of reach?
On this issue (which I see as significant in London) the recent policy announcement by the Conservative party lacks real credibility, and it will strengthen private landlordism and possible exploitation.
Presumably, in theory, could a coalition be formed of more than 2 parties?
Extract: Ms Lagarde (IMF) added that the UK authorities had managed to provide the right balance of spending cuts and revenue raising. "It's clearly also delivering results, because when we look at the comparative growth rates delivered by various countries in Europe, it's obvious that what's happening in the UK has actually worked," she said.
bbc.co.uk/news/business-32348353
For example, the LibDems were able to squeeze 5 Cabinet positions out of Cameron last time. This time, the SNP could, in theory, give Miliband a massive list of demands; but if the coalition is made up of Labour, SNP *and* the LibDems, *and* Plaid Cymru (and so on...), the SNP demands would be watered down? Does that make sense?
.. I reckon that a coalition of SNP and Labour, all be it never acknowledged, a secret marriage, will be the outcome this time around .. and the heckling shrew from Scotland will sure enough be wagging young Ed .. I hope that he mans up when he's actually got the top job .. also, to me, Scottish independence would be no bad thing .. if they wanna go, let them go with our blessing but not with our (i.e. English) cash
And don't forget the Northern Irish Parties, the DUP has as many MPs (I think) as Plaid, Greens and UKIP put together at the moment
He has basically suggested he would work with either.
Whether they'll have enough seats to still be useful coalition partners may be an issue though
I think a great bet would be, Milliband PM and Johnson leader of opposition within 6 months.
All of those things won't grow the economy they will cause the same issues we had in the past seems madness to me
Sustainable growth in the UK can not and will not happen if we add more cost into the tax payers money increase the manufacturer /distribution costs of the goods you purchase or need as a service,
If they removed zero hr for me to use as a business then 4 guys immediately are going to lose their jobs and be replaced with agency labour
Is doubt I am alone as a small business owner who woutd find themselves in the same position
Why is it when Farage pipes up about the UK's interest in leaving Europe and speaks about protecting the UK from migrants he is branded a racist, yet Wood and Sturgeon can bleat about Wales and Scotland's interests all day long and be hailed heroes?? Yes Farage isn't the most articulate or intelligent person, but he is unfairly portrayed by the media and the leaders of other parties.
I am not a UKIP voter, I am right now undecided having been a cons voter my entire life.