General Election 2015 - Thoughts/Predictions/Results

[St Rollox]

When are Cameron, Mlliband etc going to start mixing with Joe Public instead of making stage managed speeches to audiences of supporters.

Would be great if they came to say somewhere like Glasgow, together.
George Square would be a good venue for a public meeting.
I'm sure Scottish voters would appreciate having the Tory and Labour leaders explaining why their parties are in meltdown in Scotland.

 

[Butts]

Would be great if they came to say somewhere like Glasgow, together.
George Square would be a good venue for a public meeting.
I'm sure Scottish voters would appreciate having the Tory and Labour leaders explaining why their parties are in meltdown in Scotland.

Perhaps a Boxing Ring would be appropriate - they could really connect with each other then
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Politicians making stage managed speeches to audiences of supporters in the run up to an election ? ............... whatever next

As for mixing with Joe Public, ask Gordon Brown about the benefits of that

Bring back John Major

 

[DynamicSpirit]

What on earth does the BBC report mean though ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32476194

"Locals would also get "first call" on half of new homes in their area while foreign buyers would face more tax"

If this is a correct reporting of words from the mouth of Ed Miliband then where is the Labour policy on fair treatment for all heading ?, I'm sure if that sentence came from Nigel Farage we'd have the combined ranks of the anti racist brigade storming this forum

I think you've slightly misunderstood it. 'Locals' doesn't mean 'UK citizens' it means, people who live in the local area. In other words, if a new home is built in - say - Okehampton, it should be advertised and offered first to people who live in Okehampton, not to - for example - people from London looking for a holiday home in the country or for a buy-to-let investment.

I also think the bit about foreign buyers paying more tax is in order to target the problem of wealthy foreign investors who live abroad and have no intention of coming to the UK buying houses purely as investments. It's a particular problem in London, where often these houses are left completely empty, because the new owner is hoping to make a profit from house price increases.

So neither policy is about immigration - both policies are about trying to make it that more houses are sold to those people who actually want to live in them. (That seems quite a worthy aim to me).

 

[DarloRich]

What on earth does the BBC report mean though ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32476194

"Locals would also get "first call" on half of new homes in their area while foreign buyers would face more tax"

If this is a correct reporting of words from the mouth of Ed Miliband then where is the Labour policy on fair treatment for all heading ?, I'm sure if that sentence came from Nigel Farage we'd have the combined ranks of the anti racist brigade storming this forum

I am assuming the foreign buyers part is an attempt to restrain the purchase, at least in London, of property by foreign investors looking for a place to "park" their funds for a while. They buy up property with no intention of living there ( or of renting it out) and simply use it as an investment vehicle. The perception is that this drives up prices and limits housing supply.

The locals part is slightly confusing and i am unsure how, practically, this could work although in principle it is somersetting i support being a first time buyer trying to find somewhere to live!

 

[ExRes]

I think you've slightly misunderstood it. 'Locals' doesn't mean 'UK citizens' it means, people who live in the local area. In other words, if a new home is built in - say - Okehampton, it should be advertised and offered first to people who live in Okehampton, not to - for example - people from London looking for a holiday home in the country or for a buy-to-let investment.

I also think the bit about foreign buyers paying more tax is in order to target the problem of wealthy foreign investors who live abroad and have no intention of coming to the UK buying houses purely as investments. It's a particular problem in London, where often these houses are left completely empty, because the new owner is hoping to make a profit from house price increases.

So neither policy is about immigration - both policies are about trying to make it that more houses are sold to those people who actually want to live in them. (That seems quite a worthy aim to me).

I haven't misunderstood anything about 'locals', I'm commenting solely on the use of 'foreign buyers' which, I'm sure you'll agree, would be jumped on as a totally racist comment if it came from a different mouth

 

[northwichcat]

The last five people I met resident in Britain who were born abroad are originally from Canada, Germany, Libya, Portugal and South Africa.

One of them is doing a job for Royal Mail and one of them is working in retail, which I wouldn't have thought there would be a shortage of suitable British workers.

One of them is doing a skilled job which there would be a limited number of suitable candidates, but not necessarily a shortage of British candidates.

Another is a business owner who could actually be creating jobs for British people.

And the other is here because of political conflict back home.

Can anyone work out (without guessing) which description relates to which person? If not how can you say immigration from one particular country is bad and from one particular country is good?

 

[Oswyntail]

....
"Locals would also get "first call" on half of new homes in their area while foreign buyers would face more tax".... I'm sure if that sentence came from Nigel Farage we'd have the combined ranks of the anti racist brigade storming this forum

Not at all - you do seem to have a slight problem understanding racism. The sentence describes a distinction between British and the rest, in terms of legal entitlements, a peferctly reasonable distinction for someone dreaming about governing Britain to make. If, on the other hand, he had not referred to "foreign buyers", but instead said "Bolivians", that would have been racist. Similarly, saying, as, in effect, Farage and others have, "Germans are OK, but Eastern Europeans are not" is racist.

 

[radamfi]

I don't really agree with incentives to help people buy a house. All that does it push up prices.

 

[DarloRich]

I don't really agree with incentives to help people buy a house. All that does it push up prices.

wait till you are trying to buy one!

 

[radamfi]

wait till you are trying to buy one!

If prices are expensive, don't buy. The 'buy at all costs' attitude in this country makes people's lives a misery through people over-stretching themselves. Better to make private renting fairer, which Labour are also promising.

 

[Y961 XBU]

Theres a good Opinion Poll online where you Anonymously Vote for the Party you plan on voting for in your local area, it tells you whos ahead in every Seat in the UK

https://gritdigital.co.uk/infographics/uk-general-election/#2015-opinion-poll

 

[CC 72100]

Theres a good Opinion Poll online where you Anonymously Vote for the Party you plan on voting for in your local area, it tells you whos ahead in every Seat in the UK

https://gritdigital.co.uk/infographics/uk-general-election/#2015-opinion-poll

I would take it with a bucket-load of salt though. Seems to be suggesting that the Green party have almost 30% of the overall votes with it claiming that UKIP will win several constituencies too.

I wonder if this is because supporters of the more 'extreme' (on both political axis) are more likely to be 'active' when it comes to this sort of thing?

 

[WelshBluebird]

If prices are expensive, don't buy. The 'buy at all costs' attitude in this country makes people's lives a misery through people over-stretching themselves. Better to make private renting fairer, which Labour are also promising.

The main problems I see atm are:

1 - The fact that quite often rents can be more expensive than a mortgage (partly down to buy to let landlords who use the rental income to pay the mortgage).

2 - The fact that rents can be increased arbitrarily and will often be affected by general house price increases in the area (whereas the the increases in your mortgage repayments will only be affected by interest rates usually). Over time this will lead to people being forced out of areas as rents increase.

3 - The fact that renting a place is so unstable. With a mortgage you pretty much know that as long as you keep up with repayments then you can stay (of course there are exceptions). With renting, you could be asked to leave for any arbitrary reason (even asking the landlord to sort out serious issues).

4 - The state of some rental properties (note not all, and to be fair sometime that is because of the tenants themselves, but still).

5 - Do you really want to have to pay rent while you are 60/70/80 years old? If you have to, where exactly will it come from? Are we going to see a generation of OAP's having to claim housing benefit for their studio flat / bedsit in an area no where near their children and grandchildren because that is all they can afford?

Labours proposals will attempt to tackle some of that, but only slightly and no where near all of it.

 

[Oswyntail]

.. Better to make private renting fairer, which Labour are also promising.

No - they are promising to restrict what a landlord can charge. "Fair" has to be fair to all parties. Imagine a period when cheap food and oil keep inflation low (as now), but the cost of materials for housing upkeep rockets. Only allowing inflation-based rent increases would not be fair on the landlord. So the landlord sets high rents to take this into account. Which is not fair on the renter. Or takes his property off the market, which is equally unfair on the renter.
Like fare and utilities caps, this is the typical Labour solution - poorly thought out state control that will never work

 

[radamfi]

No - they are promising to restrict what a landlord can charge. "Fair" has to be fair to all parties. Imagine a period when cheap food and oil keep inflation low (as now), but the cost of materials for housing upkeep rockets. Only allowing inflation-based rent increases would not be fair on the landlord. So the landlord sets high rents to take this into account. Which is not fair on the renter. Or takes his property off the market, which is equally unfair on the renter.
Like fare and utilities caps, this is the typical Labour solution - poorly thought out state control that will never work

But in Germany renting is far more regulated than that but it seems to work. Tenants know what they are going to pay for many years in advance and can't be thrown out, so they are willing to decorate and renovate properties themselves. House prices in Germany are much more affordable than in the UK as well.

 

[Johnuk123]

Theres a good Opinion Poll online where you Anonymously Vote for the Party you plan on voting for in your local area, it tells you whos ahead in every Seat in the UK

https://gritdigital.co.uk/infographics/uk-general-election/#2015-opinion-poll

That site can be instantly discounted because it's complete rubbish.

 

[Y961 XBU]

Its only as good/bad as the people who cast their vote hence why i shared it on here so it becomes more actuate

 

[Aldaniti]

Not at all - you do seem to have a slight problem understanding racism. The sentence describes a distinction between British and the rest, in terms of legal entitlements, a peferctly reasonable distinction for someone dreaming about governing Britain to make. If, on the other hand, he had not referred to "foreign buyers", but instead said "Bolivians", that would have been racist. Similarly, saying, as, in effect, Farage and others have, "Germans are OK, but Eastern Europeans are not" is racist.

And that sums up nicely just how misunderstood the word racist is! :roll:

 

[St Rollox]

Any word on how the postal votes are breaking for each party.

 

[Johnuk123]

Any word on how the postal votes are breaking for each party.

I doubt it as it's illegal.

 

[TheKnightWho]

And that sums up nicely just how misunderstood the word racist is! :roll:

Or perhaps that some people have a considerably more nuanced understanding of it than others.

I don't say racist for no reason - I say it when someone says something that results in discrimination against a certain group. Regardless of intention of whether they think it's justified. That's because racism is an effect of something as part of a larger framework, rather than being as simple as a single, intentional act.

This is something I deal with every day in certain areas, and so not something I'm completely ignorant of. Just because people find it difficult to accept that racism is still widespread and, indeed, something they might do themselves doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I haven't misunderstood anything about 'locals', I'm commenting solely on the use of 'foreign buyers' which, I'm sure you'll agree, would be jumped on as a totally racist comment if it came from a different mouth

It is coming out of his mouth as well. Labour does not get a free pass on the left, especially with all the recent talk of immigration controls and "tough talking".

DynamicSpirit I haven't replied directly to you as Oswyntail summed it up nicely.

 

[northwichcat]

Any word on how the postal votes are breaking for each party.

I doubt it as it's illegal.

If you're involved in counting the votes, yes it's illegal.

UKIP MP Mr Reckless was claiming people who shared their filled in ballot paper on Twitter were breaking the law. However, it's not actually illegal to show your completed postal vote to someone else, but it is if you vote at the polling station.

 

[Johnuk123]

If you're involved in counting the votes, yes it's illegal.

UKIP MP Mr Reckless was claiming people who shared their filled in ballot paper on Twitter were breaking the law. However, it's not actually illegal to show your completed postal vote to someone else, but it is if you vote at the polling station.

That's what I mean't, no organisation exists as far as I know that is giving out postal voting results.

 

[St Rollox]

I remember 48 hours before the Scottish referendum the Scottish Tory leader mentioning the postal votes.
She's still the leader so i take it's not that illegal.

 

[northwichcat]

I remember 48 hours before the Scottish referendum the Scottish Tory leader mentioning the postal votes.
She's still the leader so i take it's not that illegal.

The referendum had some special rules. For instance, people under the age of the 18 were allowed to vote.

 

[ExRes]

Not at all - you do seem to have a slight problem understanding racism. The sentence describes a distinction between British and the rest, in terms of legal entitlements, a peferctly reasonable distinction for someone dreaming about governing Britain to make. If, on the other hand, he had not referred to "foreign buyers", but instead said "Bolivians", that would have been racist. Similarly, saying, as, in effect, Farage and others have, "Germans are OK, but Eastern Europeans are not" is racist.

The only problem I have with the definitions of racist and racism on this forum is dependent on which person makes the 'racist/racism' remark

Let's assume Farage makes the comment "I don't want any more foreigners coming into this country", are you trying to tell me that his comment would be accepted without a racist/racism complaint ?, I'm to believe it would only cause a stir if he said "I don't want any more Sri Lankans coming into this country" ?

Perhaps you would also explain why anyone expressing a thought towards voting UKIP is immediately called a racist whilst, of course, there's not a single racist who would vote Conservative/Labour/Lib Dem/Green/SNP etc etc

 

[TheKnightWho]

The only problem I have with the definitions of racist and racism on this forum is dependent on which person makes the 'racist/racism' remark

Let's assume Farage makes the comment "I don't want any more foreigners coming into this country", are you trying to tell me that his comment would be accepted without a racist/racism complaint ?, I'm to believe it would only cause a stir if he said "I don't want any more Sri Lankans coming into this country" ?

Perhaps you would also explain why anyone expressing a thought towards voting UKIP is immediately called a racist whilst, of course, there's not a single racist who would vote Conservative/Labour/Lib Dem/Green/SNP etc etc

But that isn't the case - it's just that UKIP are much more blatant about their racism.

You don't hear Miliband going "Well, come on..." when someone asks him the problem with Romanians. On the other hand, Labour's recent immigration problem also has some racial issues, yes.

 

[Oswyntail]

But in Germany renting is far more regulated than that but it seems to work. Tenants know what they are going to pay for many years in advance and can't be thrown out, so they are willing to decorate and renovate properties themselves. House prices in Germany are much more affordable than in the UK as well.

I do not know, but I would guess the regulation in Germany covers the relationship on both sides, and is designed for that market. The Labour suggestions seem to be their traditional knee-jerk populist response.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

No - they are promising to restrict what a landlord can charge. "Fair" has to be fair to all parties. Imagine a period when cheap food and oil keep inflation low (as now), but the cost of materials for housing upkeep rockets. Only allowing inflation-based rent increases would not be fair on the landlord.

The present system is not fair on the tenants. Many of them don't want to rent, they want to own their own home. But they are forced to rent precisely because buy-to-let landlords have bought up so much of the available housing stock in order to make a profit by letting it out. I don't blame any landlord for seeking to maximize return on their savings, but the aggregate effect of this is that many landlords are able to make large profits by - in effect - denying others the security of being able to own their own homes. This doesn't look to me like the way free markets are supposed to work.

The landlord-tenant relationship is also intrinsically unfair because, if the landlord chooses to end the tenancy, the tenant is left without a home (unless he can find another one at short notice) - which causes a strong dependency.

So the landlord sets high rents to take this into account. Which is not fair on the renter. Or takes his property off the market, which is equally unfair on the renter.

I'm fairly sure (based on experience as both a tenant and a landlord) that in much of the country, rents are already not determined by the landlords' genuine costs, but by the fact that housing is in such short supply that many tenants are in effect forced to pay whatever the landlord demands, irrespective of whether it is reasonable.

It seems to me that these issues justify the Government intervening and regulating the market in a way that would not be justified in a more traditional 'free market' (although clearly, any intervention needs to be clearly thought out to make sure it won't do more harm than good).

 

[telstarbox]

Exactly, and in some cases agents are encouraging this:

A Bristol-based letting agent has come under fire from angry locals after it sent out letters encouraging landlords in the area to put up rents.

The Southville branch of CJ Hole, which has 19 offices in Bristol, Gloucestershire and Somerset, encouraged landlords to hike them because of the 'buoyant' market in the area.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/...rent-11-000-locals-sign-petition-protest.html