|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Apr 27, 2015 9:46:52 GMT
Largely agree with that although I'd expect the LD vote to break a bit more to the Tories in the outlying areas of the New Mills CC ward like Hayfield (at least relative to 2013) and also in Whaley Bridge and Furness Vale. You can read what I put on ukpr although I still think the seat is on a 50/50 knife-edge. I known 4 people who, in the last couple of years, have moved from Manchester area to the northern part of High Peak PC. Not a huge commute, cheaper housing and nice scenery. Would think of it myself if I didnt hate commuting with a passion!! You're seeing exactly the same as me then, I can think of at least 3 myself. Bit too far out for me, not on the list for my imminent return to God's Own City.
|
|
Harry Baker
Conservative
Supporting Theresa May's Strong & Stable Leadership on June the 8th.
Posts: 33
|
Post by Harry Baker on Apr 27, 2015 9:50:21 GMT
It think it was the Independent last week that published a survey saying the Lib Dems have delivered more of their manifesto than all but two governments in my lifetime. But we've been woeful about telling people about it. The flaw in that logic is the assumption that people voted Lib Dem in 2010 for the purpose of getting the Lib Dem manifesto enacted. Yes, but every party has a manifesto, and that is that they would achieve if they were in government. Yes Liberal Democrat were in government, but not alone. The biggest voice in that government was the Conservatives, and therefore it is hard to complete your whole manifesto when a party which shares completely different views to your party is in government with you. Obviously the Lib Dems did challenge the Conservatives about the tuition fees, but obviously it was not possible to complete that part of their manifesto, because they were challenged by the Conservatives, which is a much bigger party than Liberal Democrat. Even though the party were said to have failed on this, they still managed to complete 75% of their manifesto over the past 5 years, and you must admit that is pretty positive for Liberal Democrat. They have done something right to get this economy back on track, things may not be perfect, but measures had to be taken to ensure a stronger economy and a fairer society, and that is what we have now. So vote Liberal Democrat on May the 7th to ensure the UK continues on the right path.
|
|
Harry Baker
Conservative
Supporting Theresa May's Strong & Stable Leadership on June the 8th.
Posts: 33
|
Post by Harry Baker on Apr 27, 2015 9:53:39 GMT
It think it was the Independent last week that published a survey saying the Lib Dems have delivered more of their manifesto than all but two governments in my lifetime. But we've been woeful about telling people about it. With respect it's not simply a question of how much of the LibDem manifesto has been implemented, it's also a matter of how much human wickedness and misery they share responsibility for by facilitating implementation of the Tory manifesto - parts of which were pure evil. Probably a bit like Franz Von Papen and Alfred Hugenberg in 1938 expecting plaudits for having been able to restrict the opening of concentration camps as a result of having agreed to enter Coalition in January 1933. You are totally wrong. Our country is back on track. Our country is stronger and fairer than ever with the Liberal Democrats in coalition. Where there is opportunity for all, by introducing 2 million new apprenticeships for young people, giving young people a promising start. Vote Liberal Democrat!
|
|
iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 10,783
|
Post by iain on Apr 27, 2015 9:56:12 GMT
If you have no option but to live in a council house due to the cost of housing and work 50 hours a week in the NHS, as my mother did at the time, why should she be any more grateful for having a home than somebody whose work is valued differently (in monetary terms) so can afford their own house. It is the idea that I didn't grow up in a home to which I had the right to be emotionally attached that I find strange. Grateful sure, but not the gratitude of a beggar at the end of the table. She should be more grateful because she is living off the generosity of the state. I'm not expecting anyone to be like 'a beggar at the end of the table'. Of course you have the right to be emotionally attached to where you grew up, my point as to council housing is that they should only be for those who really need them, so if you can afford to you should move out, and you should live in one that is a suitable size.
|
|
|
Post by tonygreaves on Apr 27, 2015 10:26:14 GMT
No, public sector rented housing should be the norm. Private landlordism is the curse.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2015 10:35:29 GMT
With respect it's not simply a question of how much of the LibDem manifesto has been implemented, it's also a matter of how much human wickedness and misery they share responsibility for by facilitating implementation of the Tory manifesto - parts of which were pure evil. Probably a bit like Franz Von Papen and Alfred Hugenberg in 1938 expecting plaudits for having been able to restrict the opening of concentration camps as a result of having agreed to enter Coalition in January 1933. You are totally wrong. Our country is back on track. Our country is stronger and fairer than ever with the Liberal Democrats in coalition. Where there is opportunity for all, by introducing 2 million new apprenticeships for young people, giving young people a promising start. Vote Liberal Democrat! You'll go far here, young man.
|
|
|
Post by justin124 on Apr 27, 2015 11:12:35 GMT
You are totally wrong. Our country is back on track. Our country is stronger and fairer than ever with the Liberal Democrats in coalition. Where there is opportunity for all, by introducing 2 million new apprenticeships for young people, giving young people a promising start. Vote Liberal Democrat! You'll go far here, young man. Back on track indeed! An economy running a huge Balance of Payments deficit , relying on record zero hours contracts , Full Time Equivalent unemployment of well over 2 million, and appalling productivity trends. Re- Debt. When Harold Macmillan informed the nation that 'it had never had it so good' the Debt/GDP ratio was 105%. He did not pursue Austerity - a policy abandoned five years earlier when the ratio was well over 200%. Why must we have it today when the Debt/GDP ratio is of the order of 80%?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2015 11:58:31 GMT
No, public sector rented housing should be the norm. Private landlordism is the curse. If I could like this ten times, I would. Before Right to Buy, about 60% of people in Scotland lived in council housing. It was a perfectly ordinary scenario even for relatively middle-class people. I won't pretend that there weren't serious problems with the slum clearances and the transfer of people to peripheral schemes, overspill estates and new towns, as well as with the buildings themselves, because there were. But it was not a last resort for the desperate -- it was the way people lived. Since then, large numbers of council houses and flats have been sold off, and many of these are now within the private rented sector. There has also been a considerable expansion of the private rented sector amongst former owner occupied housing. Many people are now living in private renting housing who in a previous era would have been living in council housing. I could bang on about how private tenants are subjected to out-of-control rents, the constant possibility of eviction at short notice, and inconsistent (to put it mildly) behaviour from landlords and letting agents, but little of that will wash with those who adhere to economic liberalism. I will however point out two further issues: One is that the management and maintenance of common property within tenement buildings has all-too-often collapsed. Where at one time, an entire building would have been either council-owned or owner-occupied, we now have a situation where stairwells frequently include a mixture of owner-occupied, council, housing association and private-rented flats, with a bias towards the latter in many places. Private tenants move in and out, often because they have to. It is exceptionally difficult to get all interested parties to take responsibility for maintenance. Just last week, I interviewed a woman who is one of only two owner occupiers on her stair; the others are all private tenants. The problem is not the tenants: she has ended up the de facto building manager trying to persuade uncooperative landlords and letting agents to chip in, with little success. The other owner occupier, who owns the basement, has recently knocked down a wall without permission, potentially endangering the structure of the building. This morning, I leafleted some tenement blocks owned entirely by the Port of Leith Housing Association, and, looking at the stairwells, the contrast was staggering. The other is that the state is now effectively paying large numbers of private landlords and letting agents to house people who in a previous era would have lived in council housing. I've spent time working with a letting agency in Edinburgh that specialises in tenants who claim housing benefit, and frankly, the tenants that find somewhere through this letting agency are the lucky ones. They also hold the Private Sector Leasing contract for Midlothian and East Lothian councils, who use them for providing temporary accommodation for homeless people on the council housing waiting list. Almost every property I've seen through this letting agency, be it regular or PSL, has been ex-council. It is now necessary to obtain the permission of private landlords to carry out repairs to properties funded in practice by the state. As far as I can tell, this whole process has simply added further layers of expenditure and bureaucracy to housing provision, while reducing the rights of tenants and obstructing smooth maintenance.
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Apr 27, 2015 15:05:31 GMT
Four more polls from Lord Ashcroft. Voting intention on preferred measure ('thinking about this constituency'):
Cannock Chase: Lab 38, C 32, UKIP 21, L Dem 5, GP 3, Others 1 Castle Point: C 41, UKIP 36, Lab 12, GP 3, L Dem 2, Others 5 Great Yarmouth: C 36, Lab 34, UKIP 24, GP 4, L Dem 2, Others 1 Great Grimsby: Lab 42, UKIP 25, C 24, L Dem 5, GP 2, Others 2
|
|
|
Post by independentukip on Apr 27, 2015 15:24:35 GMT
There's a slight problem with the Castle Point poll as there are only 5 candidates so 'others' will be 0 rather than the 5%.
|
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 15,318
|
Post by Sibboleth on Apr 27, 2015 16:05:24 GMT
The usual caveats about constituency polling apply of course, but if accurate it would appear that UKIP are doing much better in Essex than the rest of the country.
|
|
|
Post by Zardoz on Apr 27, 2015 18:20:36 GMT
You make a fair point, though I would point out that I was really talking about council houses, which I would maintain should not be 'homes' in the way that some here want. As to whether or not one is grateful - would you not be grateful to e.g. A bus driver, even though you have paid? Even the despised Maggie Thatcher recognised that council houses are cherished family homes when she introduced 'right to buy'. She used it to justify selling off council houses pointing out that many purchasers would not have been moving anyway - and so the houses would not have been available to others. She also pointed out that many (most?) long-term tenants carry out substantial improvements at their own expense to their homes over the years increasing their sense of 'ownership'. She introduced legislation to encourage this. Of course, I despised Maggie Thatcher and disagreed with 'right to buy'. She did, however, understand how council tenants often feel about their homes. This was also recognised by the Liberal Party at the time - which wanted to increase tenants' rights over their homes and improve their security of tenure. Your own approach is arrogant, shows no understanding of the feelings of council tenants and suggests that they should be grateful they aren't sleeping in a shop doorway. Is this how Lib Dem thinking has developed these days? If so, I'm glad I'm out of it!
|
|
|
Post by manchesterman on Apr 27, 2015 18:42:01 GMT
Four more polls from Lord Ashcroft. Voting intention on preferred measure ('thinking about this constituency'): Cannock Chase: Lab 38, C 32, UKIP 21, L Dem 5, GP 3, Others 1 Castle Point: C 41, UKIP 36, Lab 12, GP 3, L Dem 2, Others 5 Great Yarmouth: C 36, Lab 34, UKIP 24, GP 4, L Dem 2, Others 1 Great Grimsby: Lab 42, UKIP 25, C 24, L Dem 5, GP 2, Others 2 THanks David and @trident for getting this thread back on track! Those 4 polls tie in with my predictions for these seats. 2 narrow Labour wins and 2 narrow Conservative wins (although I did expect UKIP to be polling much closer in Grimsby). Nothing really startling here but interesting nonetheless.
|
|
iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 10,783
|
Post by iain on Apr 27, 2015 19:07:53 GMT
You make a fair point, though I would point out that I was really talking about council houses, which I would maintain should not be 'homes' in the way that some here want. As to whether or not one is grateful - would you not be grateful to e.g. A bus driver, even though you have paid? Even the despised Maggie Thatcher recognised that council houses are cherished family homes when she introduced 'right to buy'. She used it to justify selling off council houses pointing out that many purchasers would not have been moving anyway - and so the houses would not have been available to others. She also pointed out that many (most?) long-term tenants carry out substantial improvements at their own expense to their homes over the years increasing their sense of 'ownership'. She introduced legislation to encourage this. Of course, I despised Maggie Thatcher and disagreed with 'right to buy'. She did, however, understand how council tenants often feel about their homes. This was also recognised by the Liberal Party at the time - which wanted to increase tenants' rights over their homes and improve their security of tenure. Your own approach is arrogant, shows no understanding of the feelings of council tenants and suggests that they should be grateful they aren't sleeping in a shop doorway. Is this how Lib Dem thinking has developed these days? If so, I'm glad I'm out of it! I have nothing against people buying a council house if they do so at full market value, but it is my opinion that council houses should be for those desperately in need. If we had more I might think differently, but we must deal with the world as it is, not as we would like it to be.
|
|
Tony Otim
Green
Suffering from Brexistential Despair
Posts: 11,337
|
Post by Tony Otim on Apr 27, 2015 19:27:23 GMT
The usual caveats about constituency polling apply of course, but if accurate it would appear that UKIP are doing much better in Essex than the rest of the country. Essex and possibly Kent. I doubt there will be any UKIP seats outside those two this election. They could get two in each though, I reckon.
|
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 11,541
|
Post by Khunanup on Apr 28, 2015 1:54:56 GMT
You make a fair point, though I would point out that I was really talking about council houses, which I would maintain should not be 'homes' in the way that some here want. As to whether or not one is grateful - would you not be grateful to e.g. A bus driver, even though you have paid? Even the despised Maggie Thatcher recognised that council houses are cherished family homes when she introduced 'right to buy'. She used it to justify selling off council houses pointing out that many purchasers would not have been moving anyway - and so the houses would not have been available to others. She also pointed out that many (most?) long-term tenants carry out substantial improvements at their own expense to their homes over the years increasing their sense of 'ownership'. She introduced legislation to encourage this. Of course, I despised Maggie Thatcher and disagreed with 'right to buy'. She did, however, understand how council tenants often feel about their homes. This was also recognised by the Liberal Party at the time - which wanted to increase tenants' rights over their homes and improve their security of tenure. Your own approach is arrogant, shows no understanding of the feelings of council tenants and suggests that they should be grateful they aren't sleeping in a shop doorway. Is this how Lib Dem thinking has developed these days? If so, I'm glad I'm out of it! Come on Zardoz, I thought you were better than this. Taking one Lib Dem poster's opinion on here and pretending that it's now somehow 'Lib Dem thinking'? For goodness sake there were people in the Liberal Party when you first joined who had far more extreme views than this but, like Iain's individual opinion on council house tenancy, they didn't exactly reflect thinking of the party. I'm no 'not paying more housing benefit than the government decides it's going to pay for a accommodation depending on your formulaic circumstance' fan either but Iain is right to point out that there is a real problem with housing waiting lists and a lack of social housing for people to move into. So voluntary schemes are a good way forward (including tenancy swap) but the bottom line is we need more social housing full stop. The Lib Dem policy brings means tested housing benefit into line with every other benefit though I would like it abolished completely. It must be said that more should be done to promote the advantages of living in a home which is more appropriate for your circumstances, not least because there is a fear factor for many people when it comes to moving.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,636
|
Post by The Bishop on Apr 28, 2015 8:17:21 GMT
There's a slight problem with the Castle Point poll as there are only 5 candidates so 'others' will be 0 rather than the 5%. I presume that 5% are the Canvey Island Indies? Quite a lot of that might vote UKIP on the day I would have thought.....
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Apr 28, 2015 10:17:49 GMT
I presume that 5% are the Canvey Island Indies? Quite a lot of that might vote UKIP on the day I would have thought..... Well, they are in a formal pact with UKIP. Which might deliver a decent chunk of their voters to UKIP but there will always be a reasonable number that don't cross over.
|
|
|
Post by Zardoz on Apr 28, 2015 16:10:42 GMT
Even the despised Maggie Thatcher recognised that council houses are cherished family homes when she introduced 'right to buy'. She used it to justify selling off council houses pointing out that many purchasers would not have been moving anyway - and so the houses would not have been available to others. She also pointed out that many (most?) long-term tenants carry out substantial improvements at their own expense to their homes over the years increasing their sense of 'ownership'. She introduced legislation to encourage this. Of course, I despised Maggie Thatcher and disagreed with 'right to buy'. She did, however, understand how council tenants often feel about their homes. This was also recognised by the Liberal Party at the time - which wanted to increase tenants' rights over their homes and improve their security of tenure. Your own approach is arrogant, shows no understanding of the feelings of council tenants and suggests that they should be grateful they aren't sleeping in a shop doorway. Is this how Lib Dem thinking has developed these days? If so, I'm glad I'm out of it! Come on Zardoz, I thought you were better than this. Taking one Lib Dem poster's opinion on here and pretending that it's now somehow 'Lib Dem thinking'? For goodness sake there were people in the Liberal Party when you first joined who had far more extreme views than this but, like Iain's individual opinion on council house tenancy, they didn't exactly reflect thinking of the party. I'm no 'not paying more housing benefit than the government decides it's going to pay for a accommodation depending on your formulaic circumstance' fan either but Iain is right to point out that there is a real problem with housing waiting lists and a lack of social housing for people to move into. So voluntary schemes are a good way forward (including tenancy swap) but the bottom line is we need more social housing full stop. The Lib Dem policy brings means tested housing benefit into line with every other benefit though I would like it abolished completely. It must be said that more should be done to promote the advantages of living in a home which is more appropriate for your circumstances, not least because there is a fear factor for many people when it comes to moving. I think this off-topic debate has gone on long enough, khunanup. I will make this my final comment. I do not think that Iain's view is representative of Lib Dems as a whole. However, I do think that similar views are quite widespread in the party and it is a symptom of the party's rightward shift. By the way, I have returned my postal vote and, in spite of everything I have previously said, I surprised myself by voting Lib Dem. I suppose old habits die hard!
|
|
peterl
Green
Monarchic Technocratic Localist
Posts: 8,233
|
Post by peterl on Apr 28, 2015 18:25:13 GMT
|
|