Ed Miliband

Author
Discussion

davepoth

29,395 posts

198 months

Sunday 19th April 2015
quotequote all
BlackLabel said:
Will the replacement of stock really happen?

In 2011 the government increased the discounts available to council tenants and at the time Housing Minister Grant Shapps said:

"But we are also determined to maintain the number of affordable homes for rent - so for the first time, every additional home that is sold will be replaced by a new affordable home on a one-for-one basis. The new homes for affordable rent will help get the nation building again, and help councils meet housing need"

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/revitalised-rig...

Yet according to Shelter (yes I know they have a dog in this fight but facts are facts):

"But since the commitment was made 26,184 social rented homes have been sold through Right to Buy across England and only 2,712 replacement homes either started or bought. The ratio of replacement has been ten homes sold for every one replaced, nowhere near one-to-one.

Of course it can take a bit of time to build a home, so we should expect a bit of lag in the statistics; but it’s important to remember here that we’re talking about housing starts, when work begins onsite, rather than housing completions – when the home is finished."

http://blog.shelter.org.uk/2015/03/right-to-buy-on...

The replenishment strategy did not work before so why will it work now?
Presumably they think that making the housing associations do it will make the difference. I guess that local councils have other things to spend the money on when they get it - emergency accommodation, for example.

Walford

2,259 posts

165 months

Monday 20th April 2015
quotequote all
Balls will bust the UK in 1 year, not like brown who took 8 years

Asterix

24,438 posts

227 months

Monday 20th April 2015
quotequote all
Walford said:
Balls will bust the UK in 1 year, not like brown who took 8 years
That's because Brown had the teensyist bit of intelligence at the beginning and stuck to the previous mob's plan for a bit.

Balls is so full of himself that he'd instantly change everything - at least they'd only get one term whereas Brown's tactics lulled everyone into two more.

Pan Pan Pan

9,777 posts

110 months

Monday 20th April 2015
quotequote all
andygo said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
Spot on. Labour have proved EVERY time they get into No 10, that they are totally incompetent at running the UK`s finances. Even the last time they were in, Gormless Clowns first act as chancellor was to raid the private pensions of millions of ordinary working people.
Then when they had splashed the cash from that around, to create the ILLUSION that labour was working (anyone can make it `look' like they are doing OK if the money they are splashing around, is someone else's which they have stolen) Gormless sold of the UK gold reserves at an all time low price, so that he could continue the ILLUSION that labour was working for as long as possible. Labour know only how to take money, not how to make money. Consequently labour left the uk in a dire position to weather the financial hardships that followed the 2008 global recession.
History has shown us time and again, that labour cannot be trusted with the UK`s economy
Without a strong economy, we can have nothing else, No NHS, No decent schools, No armed forces. No Police, No public services, no decent infrastructure etc. A vote for labour is a vote to ultimately destroy all the things, and the UK as a whole.
Don't forget when that Willie Winkie did the great Gold sell off. Mark of a genius. Thanks for that!
I wish I could forget, gold has just reached an all time record peak price, unlike when Gormless Clown sold off the UK`s gold reserves (at an all time low price) One can only wonder where the UK might be, if it still had what Gormless sold off, so he could splash that money around trying to create the illusion that a labour government works.
As for Tony Bliar giving away the UK`s hard fought for EU rebate (in the hope of getting a shoo in to the EU presidents job - which thankfully he did not get) it seems financially that the UK would probably not survive another labour government.

wc98

10,334 posts

139 months

Monday 20th April 2015
quotequote all
Pan Pan Pan said:
I too don't think that the `appearance' of an individual politician should influence how a person votes. (if that was the case, it is likely that very few would be voted for.
But please let me ask you a few questions.
Who pays for the NHS, schools, the benefits system, The armed forces, The police, roads
everything in fact, that allows a country / society to operate.
It is not the government, they are only the collectors of the finance needed to run the county. It is not the public services, they make nothing. It is not benefits claimants, they only take from the system, and put little or nothing into it.
So all the elements that allow a society to operate are paid for by those who work, at making things, or provide services that others (particularly other countries, are willing to pay for) Collectively this is known as the UK economy.
Labour have a track record of trashing the UK economy EVERY single time they get into power. Without a strong economy there can be no viable NHS, schools, armed forces, police, etc.
The Tories have a track record of repairing the damage done to the economy by labour
(sometimes not too efficiently) and of course they will have to spend more to do this.
As stated elsewhere if you moved into a new house, you would generally just have normal every day living expenses to pay out, But if you moved into a house that had been completely trashed by the previous occupants, as labour repeatedly trashed the UK economy (remember they left a note saying all the money was gone when they were turfed out in 2010), you would not only have your normal living expenses to pay, but would have to find extra cash, to make that house liveable again on top.
Without a strong economy, we cannot have all the sub benefits it provides such as the NHS, our schools, the armed forces, good infrastructure etc.
So if you want a government that will ultimately destroy the NHS, schools, and the country as a whole, you must vote for the government that has a track record of destroying the economy....Labour.
If you want a government that will try to avoid destroying the economy you must vote Tory
because it is on the economy that EVERYTHING else (The NHS, schools, armed forces and the countries infrastructure depends)
that was a good attempt to promote the conservatives . if they had done a bit better on the manifesto front it might have helped you out. i sent the ukip manifesto to a labour voting friend of mine that once had strong ties to trade unions . he reckons he will be voting ukip come election day .

Zod

35,295 posts

257 months

Monday 20th April 2015
quotequote all
Asterix said:
That's because Brown had the teensyist bit of intelligence at the beginning and stuck to the previous mob's plan for a bit.

Balls is so full of himself that he'd instantly change everything - at least they'd only get one term whereas Brown's tactics lulled everyone into two more.
I shiver at the thought of how much damage Balls and Miliband (with encouragement and more from the Fish people) could inflict on this country over five years.

Funk

26,254 posts

208 months

Monday 20th April 2015
quotequote all
Zod said:
Asterix said:
That's because Brown had the teensyist bit of intelligence at the beginning and stuck to the previous mob's plan for a bit.

Balls is so full of himself that he'd instantly change everything - at least they'd only get one term whereas Brown's tactics lulled everyone into two more.
I shiver at the thought of how much damage Balls and Miliband (with encouragement and more from the Fish people) could inflict on this country over five years.
The fact that we're even in a position where such a thing could potentially happen is worrying.

Asterix

24,438 posts

227 months

Monday 20th April 2015
quotequote all
Funk said:
Zod said:
Asterix said:
That's because Brown had the teensyist bit of intelligence at the beginning and stuck to the previous mob's plan for a bit.

Balls is so full of himself that he'd instantly change everything - at least they'd only get one term whereas Brown's tactics lulled everyone into two more.
I shiver at the thought of how much damage Balls and Miliband (with encouragement and more from the Fish people) could inflict on this country over five years.
The fact that we're even in a position where such a thing could potentially happen is worrying.
I think it's sadly hilarious.

I simply can't understand that every economic pointer going is in the coalition/Conservative's favour and yet Labour are still in with a significant shout.

Why can't people understand that to have a sound welfare system, one must have a sound economy first. It simply doesn't work the other way around.

anonymous-user

Original Poster:

53 months

Monday 20th April 2015
quotequote all
Asterix said:
Why can't people understand that to have a sound welfare system, one must have a sound economy first. It simply doesn't work the other way around.
This was posted in the Election thread but but it goes much deeper than this. It's the case that those who do not want to help themselves, those who would prefer a life of state support, the type of people that Labour would prefer to 'look after' rather than giving opportunity to break free of their depressed economic situation, just don't care about the big picture. If you don't care about something, you never try to understand.

It's a very sad reflection on the thinking of too many people.


Du1point8

21,604 posts

191 months

Monday 20th April 2015
quotequote all
Have we had this yet?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2935787/...

Miliband costs £63,000 a month in travel alone.

FourWheelDrift

88,381 posts

283 months

Monday 20th April 2015
quotequote all
Du1point8 said:
Have we had this yet?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2935787/...

Miliband costs £63,000 a month in travel alone.
£3000 in fuel, £60,000 in carers.

IvanSTi

635 posts

118 months

Monday 20th April 2015
quotequote all
wc98 said:
IvanSTi said:
Not sure if anyone has seen this video of the clown, but it's interesting listening. Yes sorry it's on the lad bible site. smile

http://www.theladbible.com/articles/video-of-ed-mi...
excellent find. i wonder if any of the rest are the same ?
It's still there and yes, they're all the same spineless bunch of useless wkers.

But what's the choices? This joke of a man or DC?? Jesus H Christ.

Pan Pan Pan

9,777 posts

110 months

Monday 20th April 2015
quotequote all
wc98 said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
I too don't think that the `appearance' of an individual politician should influence how a person votes. (if that was the case, it is likely that very few would be voted for.
But please let me ask you a few questions.
Who pays for the NHS, schools, the benefits system, The armed forces, The police, roads
everything in fact, that allows a country / society to operate.
It is not the government, they are only the collectors of the finance needed to run the county. It is not the public services, they make nothing. It is not benefits claimants, they only take from the system, and put little or nothing into it.
So all the elements that allow a society to operate are paid for by those who work, at making things, or provide services that others (particularly other countries, are willing to pay for) Collectively this is known as the UK economy.
Labour have a track record of trashing the UK economy EVERY single time they get into power. Without a strong economy there can be no viable NHS, schools, armed forces, police, etc.
The Tories have a track record of repairing the damage done to the economy by labour
(sometimes not too efficiently) and of course they will have to spend more to do this.
As stated elsewhere if you moved into a new house, you would generally just have normal every day living expenses to pay out, But if you moved into a house that had been completely trashed by the previous occupants, as labour repeatedly trashed the UK economy (remember they left a note saying all the money was gone when they were turfed out in 2010), you would not only have your normal living expenses to pay, but would have to find extra cash, to make that house liveable again on top.
Without a strong economy, we cannot have all the sub benefits it provides such as the NHS, our schools, the armed forces, good infrastructure etc.
So if you want a government that will ultimately destroy the NHS, schools, and the country as a whole, you must vote for the government that has a track record of destroying the economy....Labour.
If you want a government that will try to avoid destroying the economy you must vote Tory
because it is on the economy that EVERYTHING else (The NHS, schools, armed forces and the countries infrastructure depends)
that was a good attempt to promote the conservatives . if they had done a bit better on the manifesto front it might have helped you out. i sent the ukip manifesto to a labour voting friend of mine that once had strong ties to trade unions . he reckons he will be voting ukip come election day .
Unfortunately UKIP don't even get onto the radar where I live, because on the basis of what I have heard from them, (Not just Farage, but their area candidates too) I would consider voting for them too. But I have therefore to vote, in a way that might reduces the possibility of labour sneaking in a win.

FourWheelDrift

88,381 posts

283 months

Monday 20th April 2015
quotequote all
IvanSTi said:
But what's the choices? This joke of a man or DC?? Jesus H Christ.
What party is J H Christ standing for? I might vote for him.


The alternative is a direct democracy where the people vote on all political issues. Switzerland is a direct democracy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_Switzerland

IvanSTi

635 posts

118 months

Monday 20th April 2015
quotequote all
FourWheelDrift said:
IvanSTi said:
But what's the choices? This joke of a man or DC?? Jesus H Christ.
What party is J H Christ standing for? I might vote for him.


The alternative is a direct democracy where the people vote on all political issues. Switzerland is a direct democracy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_Switzerland
But we don't and won't get that choice.

Chimune

3,163 posts

222 months

Monday 20th April 2015
quotequote all
Just watched him on newsnight.
Didn't answer a single question put to him.

Funk

26,254 posts

208 months

Tuesday 21st April 2015
quotequote all
Chimune said:
Just watched him on newsnight.
Didn't answer a single question put to him.
It angers me that they never give an answer.

They're paid to represent us and should be forced, courtroom-style, to give a yes or no response.

Guybrush

4,330 posts

205 months

Tuesday 21st April 2015
quotequote all
Funk said:
Chimune said:
Just watched him on newsnight.
Didn't answer a single question put to him.
It angers me that they never give an answer.

They're paid to represent us and should be forced, courtroom-style, to give a yes or no response.
It was really funny, he got caught right out for the BS he represents. Who would vote for Labour silly

Worth a read:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3047871/Wr...

MarshPhantom

9,658 posts

136 months

Tuesday 21st April 2015
quotequote all
Funk said:
Chimune said:
Just watched him on newsnight.
Didn't answer a single question put to him.
It angers me that they never give an answer.

They're paid to represent us and should be forced, courtroom-style, to give a yes or no response.
The Tories are the masters of obfuscation - did you hear Hague on Radio 4 just?

turbobloke

103,742 posts

259 months

Tuesday 21st April 2015
quotequote all
MarshPhantom said:
Funk said:
Chimune said:
Just watched him on newsnight.
Didn't answer a single question put to him.
It angers me that they never give an answer.

They're paid to represent us and should be forced, courtroom-style, to give a yes or no response.
The Tories are the masters of obfuscation - did you hear Hague on Radio 4 just?
No - did he repeat the same scripted mantra multiple times?