The 2015 Popularity Contest (aka UK General Election )

[Donald Twain]

Like the angry little pasty you are.

Not angry at all! Quite passionate ( My missus would disagree) but I'm no 'Pasty' more of a 'sausage roll' I think.

 

[The Esk]

I've no doubt the council probably did sell the land for less than it was worth, and there quite possibly was some under the table dealings involved. That's politics though isn't it? I'm not sure how we can advocate more government when what we do have doesn't appear to be all that highly recommended (and we're talking Labour and Lib Dem councils here so it can't be a bash the Tories thing, especially as the deal was done under the Labour government).

Surely the point is that the land should never have been sold for private development in the first place? The only reason it was was because of the requirement to "balance" the books - i.e. local authorities selling capital assets to meet accumulated current account deficits. This decision is then compounded by (i) selling below market value and (ii) the lack of provision for alternative low cost/social housing which conveniently exports the problem to another borough.

It can simply be addressed - no sale of local authority assets without a commitment to building an equal number of low cost/social housing developments by the private developer. In the absence of a private sale, national Government should have a pre-emption obligation to do the same, or at least refurbish to an acceptable standard.

It's not difficult - really!

 

[EFCNIK]

Not angry at all! Quite passionate ( My missus would disagree) but I'm no 'Pasty' more of a 'sausage roll' I think.

You are a hybrid of both of them and should be very proud.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Surely the point is that the land should never have been sold for private development in the first place? The only reason it was was because of the requirement to "balance" the books - i.e. local authorities selling capital assets to meet accumulated current account deficits. This decision is then compounded by (i) selling below market value and (ii) the lack of provision for alternative low cost/social housing which conveniently exports the problem to another borough.

It can simply be addressed - no sale of local authority assets without a commitment to building an equal number of low cost/social housing developments by the private developer. In the absence of a private sale, national Government should have a pre-emption obligation to do the same, or at least refurbish to an acceptable standard.

It's not difficult - really!

I can see your point but I would imagine it's not as simple as that though (albeit I have little experience in this field so am speculating). For instance, if the homes previously had a market rate of £600 a month, and the new ones have a market rate of £1000 a month, then what you're advocating is that the council increases their payments for social housing quite significantly or the developer has to find another plot of land to build houses worth £600 a month. Have I understood that correctly?

 

[The Esk]

I can see your point but I would imagine it's not as simple as that though (albeit I have little experience in this field so am speculating). For instance, if the homes previously had a market rate of £600 a month, and the new ones have a market rate of £1000 a month, then what you're advocating is that the council increases their payments for social housing quite significantly or the developer has to find another plot of land to build houses worth £600 a month. Have I understood that correctly?

What I am saying is that there is a huge cost to the public purse in allowing local authorities to sell assets to private developers. There are financial costs but more significant is the social cost and impact of such policies.

A condition of the sale should be equal provision of low cost housing, and yes ideally, at no higher cost to the tenant or the State (given a high proportion of rents will be paid by the State in one form or other of benefit) than if the site be redeveloped or refurbished by the public sector and retained in public ownership.

Then the tax payer is fully reimbursed and insulated against further costs associated with the sale - something I think you would agree on is a good thing?

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Sure, I get what you're saying, I'm just wondering if those conditions would put off developers from getting involved. Hard to really know what went on in the negotiations I suppose.

 

[The Esk]

Sure, I get what you're saying, I'm just wondering if those conditions would put off developers from getting involved. Hard to really know what went on in the negotiations I suppose.

It would be a good thing if they did put off developers, simply because the land and the housing stock owned by local authorities and housing the vulnerable has a value to taxpayers and society far greater than the value developers are prepared to pay.

Selling such assets to property developers should be the very last option, if at all, not the first as many councils see it (partially because of the arcane LA financing rules admittedly)

 

[rascal]

Nothing to do with research grants ....... No siree.

I agree lid, research grants are the work of the devil, it's a conspiracy against us all.

 

[Reidy's Bottle Of Grecian]

Governments should make decisions that benefit the majority not negatively affect the majority.

That's what they are elected to do, how are folk expected to better themselves with a government that only seems to come up with ideas that prevent them from doing that, whilst having no effect on those that have already 'made it' ?

It's easy to come out with phrases such as take on another job, retrain, go to night school etc etc All things that are a lot easier to say than to put into practice, there are folks with families... yes their choice, but if parents are out working 2 jobs, going to night school, working away etc then it doesn't necessarily have a positive impact on their children.

If someone is working in a low paid job then they are most likely already on the bones of their backside with nothing left to take away.


Folks have families, in fact the majority have families, anyone deciding not to have kids is therefore making a lifestyle choice that is more 'against the norm.'

 

[magicjuan]

This entire general election will see it become more Americanised than ever. Corporations and their ilk have dictated US policy for many decades and have been influencing the EU & UK more recently. The point of no return has been passed since this 'coalition' has been in power.

The public really need to recognise that whoever is voted in will only serve the interests of finance and markets and business, though paint as much as possible as social conscience politics, the patronising attitude that is disappearing only to be replaced with a genuine two fingered salute to the majority of the public.

The advance in the 80's of laissez faire capitalism and it's victory (sic) over social democracy heralded the fracture of recognised society and its fabric, creating scapegoats that has continued to this day. The public fell for the trickle down lie and have now reached a point, where once they had aspirations, they now have fears, fear of being pushed down the social ladder, the bottom rung being highlighted constantly as a pointer to what will happen if you complain, strike or push against these corporate policies.

The parties know this, all of them, they play on it, they know it's an illusion, a pretence of policy making, when all of the policies are set ahead by either the EU, WTO, or whoever, they go ahead because it is just a career, very few politicians have convictions, the dangerous element is those who come across that way tend to be to the extremes, left or right.

Should be a campaign for a mass non participation.

 

[Donald Twain]

You are a hybrid of both of them and should be very proud.

Your a cheese Melt!

 

[L4Everton]

Only the other weekend I was at an event where people from around the world came together to give their weekend to develop solutions to help climate change.

Was cutting out needless travel one of the solutions dreampt up?

 

[L4Everton]

How abut a convicted murderer shouldn't have been let in the country in the first place?

Sir (hahaha) Mark Thatcher got bounced back at the US border because of his involvement in organising a coup in some African tin pot state. By organising a coup I mean being part of the crew that supplied a load of illegal arms in an illegal arms trade. So he lands back in Britain but the phone call has already been made and he jets back straight over, the door is now open for him.

Not what you know, its who you know.

 

[L4Everton]

I don't often agree with you Nick but you're spot on here.

Nobody convicted of murder should ever be allowed into this country.

Oscar Pistorius will cherish that silver he got in London, he wont be back?

 

[Coach]

I think the parents of the girl likely kidnapped and murdered by a convicted Latvian murderer (LOL) will say that unchecked immigration from these countries (with much poorer population and higher crime rates) isn't a good idea.

Out of Europe. NOW. One is too many.

So he has definitely done it has he? Caught and proven guilty and everything?