UK General Election 2015

[4v6]

I dont know why all the nashing of teeth....all you need to remember before ya puts yer little "x" in the box of cons/labs/libs is that youre voting for a bunch of total rackoffs who will do precisely dick for you and plenty for themselves.
If youre happy to continue with that relationship, then fill yer boots.

[Zod]

Guam said:

Zod said:

here seems to be a fantasy in some quarters that a catastrophic five year term under Labour (with or without he SNP) will lead to a right wing revolution in the Tory Party and a new government that will take us out of Europe, pay off all our debt and usher Una. New golden age.

Well considering their latest Neo Marxist strategy with the right to buy stupidity, some of those folk might just have a point!

For an ex-LibDen, you do have some odd ideas of what neo-Marxism might be:

[Einion Yrth]

Guam said:

Zod said:

For an ex-LibDen, you do have some odd ideas of what neo-Marxism might be:

Using taxpayers money to finance the sale of "others property" would be described exactly how in Zod land then?

Conservative party policy, I think.

[McWigglebum4th]

4v6 said:

I dont know why all the nashing of teeth....all you need to remember before ya puts yer little "x" in the box of cons/labs/libs/SNP is that youre voting for a bunch of total rackoffs who will do precisely dick for you and plenty for themselves.
If youre happy to continue with that relationship, then fill yer boots.

EFA

[Bluebarge]

Boydie88 said:

On the back of this, I am really curious as to how they plan to implement this mansion tax so I downloaded their manifesto and searched the word 'mansion'...

3 occurrences.

"We will build up our NHS so that it has time to care, funding 8,000 more GPs,
20,000 more nurses and 3,000 more midwives, paid for by a Mansion Tax
on properties worth over £2 million"

"Labour will invest in 20,000 more nurses, 8,000 more GPs, and 3,000 more
midwives, paid for by a Mansion Tax on properties worth over £2 million, a levy
on tobacco firms, and by tackling tax avoidance. The threshold for the Mansion
Tax will rise in line with house prices for these high-value properties, and those
on lower incomes will be protected with a right to defer the charge until the
property changes hands."

So one of their biggest agendas, or at least what I seem to have most of and not even a hint of what they're actually proposing but it's ok, it's all been INDEPENDENTLY verified as confirmed by that tt above.

I hate them. How can people vote for this?

And if you search the Conservative manifesto for info on where £12bn of spending cuts will fall, how they will fund the £8bn NHS bonnaza or the great HA housing giveaway, you will find a similar lack of clarity. That sort of detail doesn't win votes.

As to implementing a mansion tax - plenty of house valuation information around - how much it would be would fluctuate like any other tax, according to how much the Exchequer s short and how hard they can squeeze without unpleasant consequences.

[Zod]

Guam said:

Zod said:

For an ex-LibDen, you do have some odd ideas of what neo-Marxism might be:

Using taxpayers money to finance the sale of "others property" would be described exactly how in Zod land then?

Private ownership of property is anathema to Marxists.

[Ecosseven]

Assuming that no party wins a majority (which looks inevitable if you believe the polls) and Labour have ruled out a formal coalition with the SNP then what is the most likely outcome in your opinion?

1. A minority Labour led Government
2. A minority Tory led Government.
3. A formal coalition of more than 2 parties

If 3. is an option what are the likely outcomes?

CON / UKIP / Libdems / DUP?

Labour / greens / Libdems / Plaid?

Edited by Ecosseven on Thursday 23 April 14:20

[Esseesse]

Ecosseven said:

Assuming that no party wins a majority (which looks inevitable if you believe the polls) and Labour have ruled out a formal coalition with the SNP then what is the most likely outcome in your opinion?

1. A minority Labour led Government
2. A minority Tory led Government.
3. A formal coalition of more than 2 parties

If 3. is an option what are the likely outcomes?

CON / UKIP / Libdems / DUP?

Labour / greens / Libdems / Plaid?

I've read several predictions saying that Con/UKIP/Lib/DUP wouldn't have enough seats.

What about Lab/Con?

[pingu393]

Ecosseven said:

Assuming that no party wins a majority (which looks inevitable if you believe the polls) and Labour have ruled out a formal coalition with the SNP then what is the most likely outcome in your opinion?

1. A minority labour led Government
2. A Minority Tory led Government.
3. A formal coalition of more than 2 parties

If 3. is an option what are the likely outcomes?

CON / UKIP / Libdems / DUP?

Labour / greens / Libdems?

I'd bet on 1 (although I think the Tories will get more seats), but I hope for 3 (Con/LibDem + Others). More of the same, please.

[anonymous-user]

Esseesse said:

What about Lab/Con?

Zero chance, barring a world war breaking out on 8 May.

[anonymous-user]

Ecosseven said:

Assuming that no party wins a majority (which looks inevitable if you believe the polls) and Labour have ruled out a formal coalition with the SNP then what is the most likely outcome in your opinion?

1. A minority Labour led Government
2. A minority Tory led Government.
3. A formal coalition of more than 2 parties

If 3. is an option what are the likely outcomes?

CON / UKIP / Libdems / DUP?

Labour / greens / Libdems / Plaid?

Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 23 April 14:20

Con/LD coalition running a minority Govt, and being shoved from pillar to post by Lab and the SNP acting together. Also the most likely route (because it is inherently unstable) to a second GE later this year.

[Zod]

Look, it's a bit of a rubbish policy, but the HAs will be compensated, so it's hardly confiscation. It's also a minor thing, unlike the Labour and SNP plans to borrow their way to another big bust.

[IainT]

Greg66 said:

Con/LD coalition running a minority Govt, and being shoved from pillar to post by Lab and the SNP acting together. Also the most likely route (because it is inherently unstable) to a second GE later this year.

If it were clear tot eh general public that the issues were Labour's inability to function as opposition without SNP would that play to a swing to Tory majority?

Personally I quite like the balance with the current coalition - maybe not as direct on spending as the Tories would like though.

[Zod]

IainT said:

Greg66 said:

Con/LD coalition running a minority Govt, and being shoved from pillar to post by Lab and the SNP acting together. Also the most likely route (because it is inherently unstable) to a second GE later this year.

If it were clear tot eh general public that the issues were Labour's inability to function as opposition without SNP would that play to a swing to Tory majority?

I think so and hope so.

[Esseesse]

Greg66 said:

Esseesse said:

What about Lab/Con?

Zero chance, barring a world war breaking out on 8 May.

How about another round of financial instability?

[Scuffers]

Zod said:

Look, it's a bit of a rubbish policy, but the HAs will be compensated, so it's hardly confiscation. It's also a minor thing, unlike the Labour and SNP plans to borrow their way to another big bust.

it's a stupid policy that will cost us money and do nothing to increase the housing stock.

[Zod]

Guam said:

Zod said:

Look, it's a bit of a rubbish policy, but the HAs will be compensated, so it's hardly confiscation. It's also a minor thing, unlike the Labour and SNP plans to borrow their way to another big bust.

Its no different to land grabs by countries like zimbabwe where the owners are paid "compensation"

Its redistribution of wealth is it not?

Are you really going to keep deluding yourself that there are no Marxist principles in this policy?

You are being silly. The compensation will not be Zimbabwe style. You know that. It is not remotely Marxist to offer social housing tenants the right to buy the properties in which they live at a subsidised price.

[Einion Yrth]

Zod said:

Guam said:

Zod said:

Look, it's a bit of a rubbish policy, but the HAs will be compensated, so it's hardly confiscation. It's also a minor thing, unlike the Labour and SNP plans to borrow their way to another big bust.

Its no different to land grabs by countries like zimbabwe where the owners are paid "compensation"

Its redistribution of wealth is it not?

Are you really going to keep deluding yourself that there are no Marxist principles in this policy?

You are being silly. The compensation will not be Zimbabwe style. You know that. It is not remotely Marxist to offer social housing tenants the right to buy the properties in which they live at a subsidised price.

It is when you don't own the property in the first place.

[Zod]

Einion Yrth said:

Zod said:

Guam said:

Zod said:

Look, it's a bit of a rubbish policy, but the HAs will be compensated, so it's hardly confiscation. It's also a minor thing, unlike the Labour and SNP plans to borrow their way to another big bust.

Its no different to land grabs by countries like zimbabwe where the owners are paid "compensation"

Its redistribution of wealth is it not?

Are you really going to keep deluding yourself that there are no Marxist principles in this policy?

You are being silly. The compensation will not be Zimbabwe style. You know that. It is not remotely Marxist to offer social housing tenants the right to buy the properties in which they live at a subsidised price.

It is when you don't own the property in the first place.

Remind me who funds the housing associations.

[Garvin]

Zod said:

Guam said:

Zod said:

Look, it's a bit of a rubbish policy, but the HAs will be compensated, so it's hardly confiscation. It's also a minor thing, unlike the Labour and SNP plans to borrow their way to another big bust.

Its no different to land grabs by countries like zimbabwe where the owners are paid "compensation"

Its redistribution of wealth is it not?

Are you really going to keep deluding yourself that there are no Marxist principles in this policy?

You are being silly. The compensation will not be Zimbabwe style. You know that. It is not remotely Marxist to offer social housing tenants the right to buy the properties in which they live at a subsidised price.

I don't get all this Marxist blather. HA sells home to long term tenant at discount. HA is compensated using taxpayers' money. HA builds more housing to rent using the money because that is their business. On a one for one basis the stock of social housing is maintained in equilibrium but the overall number of homes increases.

Now some may not like taxpayers money being used in this way but why is it so different from the government or local authority using taxpayers' money to build social housing? Indeed the new house uses less taxpayers' money than previously as the buying tenant has provided the balance.