Off Topic Great Britain General Election May 7th 2015.

I had to really look to see your reply

This is the kind of theft from the tax payer that is right throughout government spending, NHS spending and so on. Contracts to friends and "friendly contributors"

Reminds me of the old gag, £30k for a toilet seat.

As I typed this post the gov put £220.000 debt on the heads of your children and children's children and children's children's children ect.


With so much debt accumulation, is it not obvious that whomever's owed the money owns the country(in ways that matter).

As for the military spending lark and "threats". Here's a perfect example of this lie. The Swedes totally fabricated a Russian sub in their waters story, scared the public, got billions signed off in defence spending, now it turns out it was only a work boat. Will the Swedish tax payer get his billions back from defence contractors tho.. nope. Same **** happens all of the time.

FFS you have a BAE exec working for the BBC No conflict of interest there at all eh BBC Vice Chairman Roger Carr is chairman for BAE Europe.
Explains why Panorama will make totally fabricated stories about Syria, and why the head of MI5 came on to the BBC saying she had PROOF Assad used chemical weapons when in fact all the proof shows it was turkey and the Syrian rebels. Pretty clear the weapons manufacturers and banks are dictating UK foreign policy and war decisions, using the BBC to scare the voting population. It's truly scary how many people still trust the BBC

The arms makers have a 60m + slush fund they use to grease the wheels, plus they have Prince Charles running point on selling **** to the despots in the middle east like the Saudi Monarchy.

BBC 2004, maybe they should have deleted this old article, but you can see, no more reports like this will appear with Carr in charge.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3712770.stm


BAE and the Saudis, Prince Charles, BBC, all linked nicely together. War War War. Great business.

 

please log in to view this image

 

Labour manifesto: Make zero hour contract illegal

 

It's crazy cos it's true.

I don't think you a stupid person at all Tobes. So I am surprised you think these people have nothing to do with decisions about war.

To back it up, the BBC have made fake documentaries, for the purpose of generating support for "intervention", ie bombing the **** out of syria and the resulting civilian casualties by the shedload.

It may all seem far fetched but I am not pulling this out of my arse, what would be the point like, just making **** up, nor is it the stuff of an article I read somewhere. It's from putting pieces together and people like award winning journlists like Seymour Herch, James Risen rotting in a federal prison as well as others who are currently locked up for things like telling the public the CIA torture people, proving it like. Noam Chomsky too, couldn't find a more credible source

You have think tanks that have some pretty intelligent people who come up with strategies for marketing war to the British public. There are institutes that specialise in this, corporations too like the Rand corp who upon regime change in Ukraine wrote a document planning out the shutting down and purging of Eastern Ukraine of anyone even remotely not into the current regime. RAND also wrote the guidliens for selling war in the US and in Europe.

In the UK you have NATO think tanks, government think tanks who are all staffed by clever people who's job it is to model your opinions and gain support or at least approval for what they want to do in advance.

I suggest you either have some attempt at proving me wrong, I have endless backup on this but I know you ain't got the time or interest, so that makes it doubly lame when you just select a sentence out and throw a google image at it, or just ignore my post

You do think the media has not in part shaped the way you think and the way you see the rest of the world don't you. You couldn't be more wrong.

 

Follow the trail and you'll see that I believe that MOD money should be spent on putting back regiments and building aircraft carriers, and fighter planes, and so forth. Also think a lot of that money should go on rehabilitating the many mentally and emotionally damaged service persons ****ed over by the Blair-Bush insanity.

 

I have no idea who I will vote for....for the first time in my life, I am considering not voting at all. The current bunch of career politicians have totally lost touch with society and i'm already fed up with the unsubstantiated fluff that every party is spouting.

 

Veterans always get screwed, unless they are officers of course. There are some exceptions but mainly this is true. There is just nowhere near enough support for troops that suffer mental trauma, that injury is with them for the rest of their lives but the support for it is not. Many take their own lives.

In the US, they have been are allowed to die while languishing on waiting lists.

Young men are expendable to the elite class and always have been.

Britain's military leadership are positions of priviledged birth not capability, always have been. It's why every military campaign since Wellington has been a complete fiasco, every single ****ing one, even the Falklands where again, the Elite witch killed British servicemen because she refused to try resolve the issue diplomatically as her advisors were telling her, before resorting to force.

 

Conservative manifesto to offer 1.3m families right to buy housing association homes
David Cameron will say the dream of the property-owning democracy is alive and Conservatives ‘are the party of working people’

please log in to view this image

The prime minister, David Cameron, who will launch the Conservative election manifesto with a right-to-buy scheme on housing association homes. Photograph: Ian Forsyth/AFP/Getty
Patrick Wintour Political editor

Tuesday 14 April 2015 00.01 BSTLast modified on Tuesday 14 April 201507.56 BS

An unabashed extension of the Thatcherite right to buy for 1.3m families in housing association properties will be at the centre of an aspirational Tory manifesto due to be launched on Tuesday in the West Country.

The pledge is expected to see tens of thousands of housing association tenants a year take up a discount on buying a housing association property that will be capped at just over £102,700 in London and £77,000 for the rest of England.

Cameron will make his pitch to the nation saying the dream of the property owning democracy is alive, and that the Conservatives “are the party of working people, offering you security at every stage of your life”.

It will also be accompanied by a requirement that councils sell their most valuable 210,000 properties from their remaining housing stock. Critics will claim councils are being forced to sell their best property, and reducing council property in England into residual housing for the poor as a result.

The Conservative manifesto will be published a day after a surprise Guardian ICM poll found the Tories surging into a six-point lead, taking David Cameron’s party to 39% with Labour on 33%.

Most recent polls show Labour with a slight lead or tied with the Conservatives, including a Lord Ashcroft survey also published on Monday that put both parties on 33%.

However, the ICM telephone poll conducted between Friday and Sunday reports that the Conservatives have gained three points while Labour is down by two points in the last month.

The poll will steady nerves among Tories worried that the relentless focus on the twin issues of leadership and the economy was not cutting through.

The offer on the right to buy, coupled with the proposal to cut inheritance tax trailed over the weekend, will also help counter the claim that Cameron, by focusing so much on Labour, has not set out a positive vision of a second term.

The proposed discount will be worth 35% for a house after a housing association tenant has been in the house for three years with the value of the discount rising 1% for every extra year the tenant has rented in the public sector. In the case of a flat, the discount will be worth 50% after the first three years, rising by 2% each year afterwards.

Councils will also be required to sell about 5% of their remaining council stock. These most-valuable properties will only be sold once they became vacant, and once sold, councils will be required to build a more affordable, cheaper property on a one-for-one basis.

The government expects around 15,000 of these high value council properties will become vacant annually, and proceeds from these sales will release £4.5bn a year – cash that will not only build new affordable property, but also fund the proposed discounts to tenants, creating a £1bn brownfield regeneration fund that will produce 400,000 new houses over five years.

Housing associations have opposed previous versions of these proposals and the requirement that councils sell their most-expensive properties will also be resisted by some local authorities angry that mixed-tenancy council housing is being turned into estates for the poor.

The Conservatives deny the policy undermines housing associations since they will receive the full market value of the sold property, with the government paying the discount to the housing association tenant through the income provided by the sale of expensive council house properties.

The Conservatives have been urging councils to sell their most expensive property ever since a report by the Policy Exchange thinktank argued nearly a fifth of the 4m houses and flats let to social tenants in England are worth more than comparable houses in the same area — a total of 818,000 properties throughout the country.


But the Conservatives claimed the proposal has the support of the Labour MP Frank Field, and Alan Milburn, the government’s social mobility tsar.

David Orr, chief executive of the National Housing Federation, has previously warned that the idea of selling off social housing in “high value” areas to build more in cheaper areas is fundamentally flawed.

“It could effectively cleanse many towns of hard-working people who simply can’t afford the high prices of buying or renting privately.”

A total of 800,000 housing association tenants that have transferred from council property already have a limited right to a discount, but the new offer will extend the right to buy to 500,000 tenants that have no right to buy at all.

The proposals were also slammed by Ruth Davison, policy director at the National Housing Federation. She said: “It won’t help the millions of people in private rented homes who are desperate to buy but have no hope of doing so, nor the 3 million adult children living with their parents because they can’t afford to rent or buy.

“To use their taxes to gift as much as £100,000 to someone already living in a good quality home is deeply unfair. Little wonder then that 60% of the public believe that it would be unfair for social housing tenants to get a discount to buy their home while private renters do not.”

Liberal Democrat spokesman Lord Paddick said the right-to-buy proposal would result in “longer waiting lists for homes and fewer social houses”.

He said: “It does nothing to tackle the country’s affordable housing needs and will only benefit the lucky few. Independent estimates suggest this could cost at least £5.8bn, nowhere near covered by forcing councils to sell off yet more housing stock, as the Conservatives suggest. That means it will have to be paid for by even more cuts hitting the most vulnerable in society.”

 

How many have lost their homes since 2008 when Cameron's chums shafted the economy I wonder

 

I'm glad I live in Wales as the assembly has already said there will be no "right to buy" here.There is already a housing shortage and especially a lack of affordable housing so the tories response is to try and get rid of social housing

 

The shortage of housing is because of immigrants
#ukipreasoning

 

.. Almost BNPesque

Always find it funny, boom creates more jobs than job seekers, allow immigrants in to take jobs, economy collapses, lets blame immigrants for everything

 

There's absolutely no problem with people having the right to buy imo, as it is proven to have a benefit in terms of how estates are kept and it generally improves an area.

However, there's one massive caveat and one that the Tories never bothered to even consider when Thatcher originally started the process, and that's for everyone sold the local authority needs to be building another one ffs!

 

There would have been no problem if councils had been allowed to build new homes with the receipts of council house sales but tory logic refused this

 

Campaigners have said the focus should be on increasing the supply of affordable housing
Critics have said the plan could cost close to £6bn and The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) said housing associations would have to be "recompensed for selling their assets at below market value".
Paul Johnson, the director of the IFS, said this and other spending commitments had implications for the Conservatives' plans to eliminate the £90bn deficit in day-to-day spending by 2017-18, which would require "tens and tens of billions of pounds" in spending cuts or tax rises.
"Yesterday we did not get much detail from Labour about how much they want to cut," he said.
"Today we got a very clear sense that the Conservatives are going to have to do an enormous amount over the next three or four years but no sense at all about how they are going to do it."

 

Unfortunately if that money wasn't spent on trident it certainly wouldn't be spent on any other area of defence. As we no longer have an enduring commitment in Afghanistan I think the Army especially is looking very vulnerable at the moment. Agree with the sentiment about rehab for those damaged by the conflict though.

 

I thought our military campaign went quite well in World War 2!

As for using diplomacy on the Falklands issue, there was me thinking that Argentina invaded them.

 

World War 2 was started by immigrants
#ukipreasoning

 

The argentines invaded the Falklands and there was no diplomacy to be had. There were British people who needed defending and the correct thing was to use military intervention. The argentines can **** right off with there ridiculous claim to the Falklands and if they choose to participate In acts of war against British people they should expect a proper response.