Off Topic Why you MUST vote Tory!

You're such a drama queen

 

Nope just a realist, and don't call me a 'queen'

 

I hope you're doing a match thread, we need to win!!!!!!

 

Nope, sorry see other thread

 

KIO, I have been a Labour supporter all my life, would never ever consider voting Tory but I have friends, workmates and drinking friends who are Tory through and through. The only Tories that I "hate" are the MP's and particularly the present bunch of bare-faced liars who steal from the poor and disabled to pass on the perks to their billionaire Tory donation-giving "chums!"

Don't be offended by others not sharing your views, we all have a point of view no matter how right or wrong it may be. Now, give us a kiss and do the bloody match thread!

 

For someone who is politically astute, I find that comment baffling. Dave is going anyay, but once we are out of Europe we have had it, there is no second chance saloon.

 

CT, are you on something today? You are talking sh*te (again!) - sorry mate

 

That was yesterday

 

I'd rather we remain a serious part of the EU set-up than, say, cosy up to China whilst telling them "yes sir, no sir, three bags full sir", for example.

Oh wait...

 

China is going to go pop, big style. And when it happens we will all ride the tubes. Smart move Gideon lad!

 

I'd rather we were neither, but we already say yes sir, no sir to the Germans, Americans and now the Chinese. Out of Europe we could be much more dynamic as a nation. Europe is a bureaucratic knightmare that strangles nations and wastes money at a horrifying rate. Much better to freely trade with the world than get further bogged down with European in fighting and red tape. As CT says China may pop in the not too distant future, but I think Europe will too. The different nations are far too unequal for this European utopia to ever work and something will give in the end, preventing the Grexit was an elasterplast to keep the whole desperate project limping along. European political union is a shambles, free trade though needs to be kept.

Bah!

 

I think that the "Pop" scenario is a realistic one. Latest figures show that £100 billion was spent on London property by foreign buyers largely Russian.Chinese and Arab. Most of these properties are not being used but are a hedge against turbulent times in their home countries and also to make capital gains on their house. The obvious thing is to put a tax on foreign owned properties when resold at a profit, but this doesn't square with their free market philosophy. The latest hotspot is Oxford where property prices are the highest in Britain relative to incomes and this is making it difficult to recruit bus drivers who simply cannot afford to live there on the wages.

 

And that sorry trend will continue. When it comes to house building, the incentive (i.e.profit) is in the massive Director style homes, there is only a few bob in starter homes with 1 bedroom. It is as they say, a no brainer and the problems theefore will continue.

 

I think it's purely a planning issue. Those who already own houses in nice places don't want the Hoi Polloi muscling in on their own little Shangrilas. Official government policy may well be to provide more houses but their supporters at grass roots level hold sway. Parish councils are stacked out with NIMBY'S.

 

That is certainly true CT. Having been a Parish Council chair for 7 years (the most thankless position you can have, all the hassle and no compensation) some of the council members were more than happy to have bus shelters built tec. but not within 100 yards of their homes. Government is largely the same but on a bigger scale. That said, the Tories were flirting with danger with HS2 and the nwxt airport runway decisions as both would have massive impacts on their own.

 

My little village has a population of about 300 permanent residents and probably another 500 weekenders whose immaculate houses are empty for maybe 300 days a year. It could easily support a small estate of say fifty new houses. The problem is of course they would all be snapped up by weekenders (Known as DFL's- Down From London) A couple of friends who are builders in the village offered to build six low cost houses for rent on a piece of land they own but got turned down. They did however approve a £750,000 luxury house on land next door.

 

I may be wrong but aren't there an absolute raft of developments on the A11 corridor running up to Round House by the hospital and then the big development near Longwater plus the old Norwich Golf Club and no doubt we will soon see considerable development of the north of the city once the NDR has been completed? My personal view is that in Norfolk we probably have supply if anything outstripping demand which I know is unusual.

I think that the problem lies in the village where local kids cannot get onto the property ladder due to the prices being inflated by weekenders buying up property as holiday cottages. The issue is not so much an absolute lack of housing than the lack of appropriate housing in a place where some individuals wish to live. As long as you are happy being on a big estate in Norwich you'll probably be OK but if you want a place around Chelsea-on-Sea then you may well struggle.

We definitely need more houses developed at the bottom end of the market and designed specifically for the needs of singletons and single parent families.

Within the state and social housing stock we also need to have more movement so that the house matches the needs of the occupants. Whilst the so-called bedroom tax has dreadful publicity its core aim is, in my opinion, sound. I honestly don't see the problem of an elderly couple moving into a 2-bed property from a 3 or 4 bedroom once their kids have left home to let another young family have the same opportunity that they were given when their kids were young.

For me the argument that "this is their home" is absolutely spurious as in the private rented sector they would be paying a market rent for a large house and the odds are they would be forced to look for a smaller place one they no longer needed the space if they struggled with the rent. The whole point of social housing is for the good of ALL members of the community who cannot afford to either buy or rent privately, it is not just to support the existing tenants to keep houses which are more than sufficient for their needs. If you want security of tenure then bluntly either buy a house or pay sufficient rent to get the house you want in the private sector. I cannot see why it is an issue to swap a couple with a big house with a larger family with a small house creating the greatest good for the greatest number a bit Benthamite for the modern world maybe but it makes sense to me..

 

On a similar vein I also think that the Government's policy on reducing tax credits is another example of a policy which is a logical and sensible solution being cocked up by an over-zealous introduction. I would bring in the living wage immediately for all companies with 250+ employees which would up the tax take in one fell swoop and raise the wage and lower the need for state support for a vast number of workers. It would also mean that the companies who avoid paying UK Corporation Tax by basing themselves offshore are paying a bit more of their fair share. I accept that in the short term it may cost some low paid jobs but I would argue that the overall position would be a net gain for the country.

I also completely agreed with the Government that basing an economy on low paid job being subsidised by state aid via the tax credit system is not sustainable. Effectively it means that the taxpayer is subsidising corporations paying their staff less than it costs the staff to live. That just cannot be right.

I am sure that had the Chancellor pushed the wage rates up in 15/16 with a view to clawing back tax credits in 16/17 he would have been applauded from both sides of the house as he would have increased the tax take, reduced the welfare bill, put a hit on some of the most blatant corporate tax dodgers and not made those at the bottom end of the scale any worse off.

 

So how does Right to Buy square with your views on the bedroom tax? It seems to me very much a roulette wheel. If you happen to live in a property where you qualify to buy at a discounted price it's all tickety boo. If you don't the luck of others has f***ed you royally. And I suppose to follow your logic we should double Council Tax on under occupied larger private houses to encourage the owners to move to somewhere smaller.

.On your point about Norfolk it's virtually impossible for supply to outstrip demand. I am currently selling my house to a couple from Romford. They are getting nearly an acre with a four bedroom house plus a separate two bed that I use as a profitable holiday let. ( I tried to sell it as an affordably priced home but the planners said No!) In addition there is a massive four car garage which she wants for her decorative glass business. This is costing them just over £100k more than they are selling their semi in Romford for. While things stay like that they will keep on coming up the A11 and A12.

 

Nothing will ever be perfect and I guess the main problem with our democracy is that one vote, one solitary cross on a ballot paper covers everything and of course no party can have a manifesto that you can condone 100 %. So we end up with situations like this week where had the policy on tax creedits been introduced much as Norfolkbhoy outlined then Gideon would have met with reasonable approval because the burden would have shifted from the taxpayer to the employer where I thinkm most of the population believe it should be. However his hand fisted introduction caused a revolt in the Lords and huge discontent by worried Tory MP's in marginals. Nothing like some self-interest to get the backbenchers interested!