2015 Election

[Gatt]

Did anyone see the C4 program Benefits Britain 1949?

 

The point it ended up making, was that current systems are impotent in comparison. The actual time and effort that the 1940s benefits staff put into their clients were actually effective in helping people, unlike the current system. I blame privatisation for that... the companies getting paid to assist claimants are doing nothing. It's a political point scoring game where everyone loses out.

 

Though I was at school, I still recall people dreading having to go and "sign on the dole" at the old D[H]SS... It was the last resort that people did..

I was always told that having to "Sign On" was bad juju and how important it was to be working..

[Garacesh]

Though I was at school, I still recall people dreading having to go and "sign on the dole" at the old D[H]SS... It was the last resort that people did..

I was always told that having to "Sign On" was bad juju and how important it was to be working..

 

It is important to be working. But it's also important to not victimise and demonise those that either can't (for whatever multitude of reasons), or are just in a spot of bad luck right now and are between jobs. We all admit there are people who scrounge the dole and don't bother looking for work, we're just denying it's to any extent that it makes a huge difference. Yes it should be fixed, and yes the benefits system can be unfairly relentlessly harsh to some legitimate claimants, but overall to come across that all (or even the majority) of benefit claimants are 'dole dossers' is extremely unfair and quite frankly, wrong.

 

Signing on shouldn't be shameful. The stigma should be carried with signing on and not looking for work if you're able.

[witch]

If the government want you out of your 3 bed house as there are only two of you, then as long as you don't need the bedroom for a disabled person or son or daughter (or whatever other legit reason) then fine, move you out into a 2 bed.

BUT TO MAKE YOU COVER THE DIFFERENCE IN RENT BECAUSE THERE ISN'T A SMALLER PROPERTY TO MOVE YOU INTO IS JUST PLAIN UNFAIR.

 

It is happening a lot around here because of the shortage of council properties

[tmcd35]

BUT TO MAKE YOU COVER THE DIFFERENCE IN RENT BECAUSE THERE ISN'T A SMALLER PROPERTY TO MOVE YOU INTO IS JUST PLAIN UNFAIR.

 

I think we've discussed this before - Thatcher's problem. And I for me the biggest disappoint of Blairs Labour government was they perpetuated it. Right to Buy, great policy. Preventing councils from replenishing lost stock - barking.

 

Both Labour and Tory's are equally bad for this. Both sides talk the talk about 'affordable housing' which really just translates as more unaffordable private rents. Neither want to talk about social housing.

 

We need (a lot) more social housing. And we need to reverse this strange sigma attached to it. Owning your own home really isn't all they make it out to be, it comes with it's own set of pitfalls and problems. Knowing what I know now, I'd soon rent and let someone else worry about maintenance.

[LeMarchand]

I think we've discussed this before - Thatcher's problem. And I for me the biggest disappoint of Blairs Labour government was they perpetuated it. Right to Buy, great policy. Preventing councils from replenishing lost stock - barking.

 

Both Labour and Tory's are equally bad for this. Both sides talk the talk about 'affordable housing' which really just translates as more unaffordable private rents. Neither want to talk about social housing.

 

We need (a lot) more social housing. And we need to reverse this strange sigma attached to it. Owning your own home really isn't all they make it out to be, it comes with it's own set of pitfalls and problems. Knowing what I know now, I'd soon rent and let someone else worry about maintenance.

 

I suspect that both sides are happy with the current dire situation because their mates are the ones raking in money as landlords.

 

I'd be happy to rent if all landlords were like the one some friends who live in "oop north" have were the norm: nice house, reasonable rent, maintenance and repairs carried out. Unfortunately nearly everyone else I know in rented accommodation has it much worse. Alas, I can't see either/any party legislating (or enforcing existing laws) to ensure that rented properties are properly serviced.

[Gatt]

Yeah the social housing stock, or rather the lack of it, is a big problem and one that needs addressing

 

Private rents appear to be similar, if not more to that of a mortgage..

 

Rather than harping on about the EU and of trifles, they should be concentrating on how to restore faith in the Welfare System, and getting more social housing stock..

I won't go into the economy as I believe its already discussed.

 

More of a a pressing issue is that fact that another Hung Parliament is highly likely and that neither Cameron or Milipede are likely to get enough of a majority to form a govt on their own

This means another coalition - but with who

 

Do we really want the SNP involved - I certainly don't like the sound of that prospect...

[sonofsanta]

What I'm uncertain of, since Cameron put 5 year terms into law in 2010, is what will happen if we have a hung parliament with no viable majority to rule - do we have to limp along until 2020 or can we go to the vote again sooner? Would it need a vote of no confidence to trigger it?

[tmcd35]

All the opinion polls and pundits at the moment seem to be favouring Labour winning about 2 seats less than Conservatives, but Milliband is more like to succeed in forming a minority government with SNP/LD/Plaid Cymru/Green/etc support on a vote-by-vote basis rather than entering in to any formal coalition.

 

Tory+LD+UKIP won't have enough seats combined to form a majority coalition government and the others (the 'king makers') just don't want Tory, full stop.

 

Regardless of vote tally, Cameron will have first bite at the cherry in forming a government (even if Labour wins an outright majority I believe) but is unlikely to carry the confidence of the house which is were Ed will come in.

Edited May 1, 2015 by tmcd35

[Seb1780]

What I'm uncertain of, since Cameron put 5 year terms into law in 2010, is what will happen if we have a hung parliament with no viable majority to rule - do we have to limp along until 2020 or can we go to the vote again sooner? Would it need a vote of no confidence to trigger it?

 

Section 2 of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act allows for early dissolution and General Election if there is a vote of no confidence or if 2/3rds of the MP's decide we need one. So we could see a drawn out, lame duck parliament but I suspect we would get a no confidence vote pretty sharpish if that happened.

[Gatt]

Interesting read : The (Not So) Fixed-term Parliaments Act | Blog

[Garacesh]

but I suspect we would get a no confidence vote pretty sharpish if that happened.

Legit question: How? No confidence isn't a valid vote.

[Seb1780]

Legit question: How? No confidence isn't a valid vote.

 

I'm not sure what you mean - motions of confidence / no confidence are tabled and the house votes; a la Maggie & Jim in '79

[Garacesh]

I wasn't even inside my mum's ovaries* for Maggie and Jim Looking at the link that @Gatt posted I'm guessing you mean the MP's have to vote no confidence. I thought you meant civvies. My bad

 

* Technically I was. But the point is hush

Edited May 1, 2015 by Garacesh

[Seb1780]

I wasn't inside my mum's ovaries* for Maggie and Jim Looking at the link that @Gatt posted I'm guessing you mean the MP's have to vote no confidence. I thought you meant civvies. My bad

 

Ah, I see what you did there, you confused parliamentary procedure with democracy - it's a mistake a lot of people make

[Garacesh]

I've said it before and I'll say it again.. Civilians ought to have a vote of no confidence. Fairly certain much more of that 'unheard third' would trek to the polling stations if that were the case. But it'll never happen.

[StevieM]

I've said it before and I'll say it again.. Civilians ought to have a vote of no confidence.

 

We have. It's called 'revolting'.

[sonofsanta]

We have. It's called 'revolting'.

 

Bloody proletariat are revolting to a man! That's why I employ a gentleman with a large stick, that he might keep them out of my path. Just the sight of one is quite enough to ruin my evening.

 

[/Tory]

[sparkeh]

We have. It's called 'revolting'.

Good excuse for:

[sparkeh]

Freudian slip by Cameron:

https://embed.theguardian.com/embed/video/politics/video/2015/may/01/cameron-career-country-defining-mistake-video

[Garacesh]

We have. It's called 'revolting'.

 

Most people won't do that, though*, as a citizen revolt is usually a violent and dangerous one, and a lot of people don't want to either A) break the law and go to jail** or B) put themselves in harms way.

 

* Not yet, anyway. Not all of us. At first they came for the..

** There seems to be a general idea that the government is immutable and attempting to overthrow them will just land you in jail.

[LeMarchand]

I sometimes think that a revolution would be the only way to change things.

 

Unfortunately they rarely seem to, and certainly if one happened today I can't see that a state of utopia would be reached in my lifetime. If anything, my life expectancy might be greatly reduced. I guess that's the trick of governments: keep the populace just happy enough so that they won't revolt.

[MkII]

It seems to be the trick of rich people... keep squeezing until the plebs start to complain too much.

[6Foot2]

Link: 2015 General Election inetractive candidate map

 

http://i.snag.gy/putBW.jpg

 

Zoom in to a ward and click:

 

http://i.snag.gy/16UuK.jpg

[flyinghaggis]

It's quite interesting hearing Nick Clegg talk about coalitions and the party with the most seats automatically having the ' democratic mandate' to form the next government. Given the shortcomings of the first past the post voting system (which effectively means a party can win a Westminster majority with potentially under a third of the people in the UK voting for them) surely it's perfectly reasonable that second and third place parties should be in a position to form a government if between them their seats outnumber the main one and theoretically say represented two thirds of the population?

[rich_tech]

I think I would support a system like Australia's in this country now, where voting is made compulsory or a fine issued to the person, turnouts below 50% are a waste of time imo, thats not a majority for anything regarding the country and we shouldn't let people hide behind apathy as an excuse. Voting hardly takes massive amounts of time and isn't painful.

 

I think parties would work harder too because of it to keep promises.