Looks like a continuing move back to the two main parties from UKIP and Green.
I disagree, it's the usual reallocation among the opposition parties. As I said, for a very long time now, the voters have made up their mind about wanting to get rid of this government but they are shopping around for the best opposition party.
...but, but, but, the SNPers were telling us only yesterday that Alex had a low profile, didn't get involved, was content for Nicola to have all the limelight.
You adding inability to read to your long list of downsides. What people said was he was taking the flak whilst she got on with being the most liked leader in UK. The others are taking pelters as Salmond pokes them.
No, they're not handing it a single penny - simply freeing up money that is already in the Scottish budget.
So, it's being given twice.
The £45m isn't being given twice. It isn't being given once. The £45m is already in teh Scottish budget. It's just being freed up for other spending or tax cuts.
Benefits are not devolved. So there are no further Barnett Consequentials.
Interesting talk over here in PB about scotland taking over the country, well I say that if Labour surrender to the SNP then at least they should make Salmond PM just to reverse his blackmail on him. At that point the SNP will die a painful political death as it has to keep scotland in the UK in order to keep Salmond as PM.
There will be no doubt who is in charge when Miliband is summoned to Edinburgh in order to give his capitulation to Nicola in person.
No problem, as long as Labour can screw an SNP PM the same way as the SNP is planning to screw a Labour PM. Just wonder what terms would Labour demand to keep Salmond as PM (an end to devolution perhaps?)
@tnewtondunn: 'As we settle down at a table, Salmond orders a bottle of pink champagne – “to toast my book”'; @NewStatesman. Man of the people.
Salmond is playing his role in this so damn well. It's working perfectly.
Right now the Westminster media should be 100% focused on how well Sturgeon is playing with average English votes (highest rated leader UK wide) and how intelligent yet still popular she comes across.
But they're completely taken in by the McGuffin.
They won't even see Nicola coming.
What has Sturgeon to do with English voters.
Why do you think the Dutch Conquest of England in 1688 was a success? Tiny little Holland taking over England, a country with 8 times it's population (at the time). Little tiny Holland only a few decades from establishing itself and becoming independent from Spain.
It's all about the spin.
Of course when the Scottish Stuart dynasty took over the English crown, they avoided the old country as far as possible!
Indeed did James I ever go back? Or Charles I?
Of course they didn't.
There were a great many ready and waiting to lynch them.
Did Charles II or James II? After all this was a Union of the Crowns and preceeded the 1707 Union of Parliaments by a very long time.
And to ask the obvious question. If the Scots were so against the Stuarts then why were they so keen to reinstate them in 1715 and 1745? After all the Scottish Covernantors fought on the side of the English Parliament in the Civil war. Though as I recall Halifax and Cromwell did visit Scotland with a few of their mates...
@tnewtondunn: 'As we settle down at a table, Salmond orders a bottle of pink champagne – “to toast my book”'; @NewStatesman. Man of the people.
Salmond is playing his role in this so damn well. It's working perfectly.
Right now the Westminster media should be 100% focused on how well Sturgeon is playing with average English votes (highest rated leader UK wide) and how intelligent yet still popular she comes across.
But they're completely taken in by the McGuffin.
They won't even see Nicola coming.
What has Sturgeon to do with English voters.
Why do you think the Dutch Conquest of England in 1688 was a success? Tiny little Holland taking over England, a country with 8 times it's population (at the time). Little tiny Holland only a few decades from establishing itself and becoming independent from Spain.
It's all about the spin.
Of course when the Scottish Stuart dynasty took over the English crown, they avoided the old country as far as possible!
Indeed did James I ever go back? Or Charles I?
Of course they didn't.
There were a great many ready and waiting to lynch them.
Did Charles II or James II? After all this was a Union of the Crowns and preceeded the 1707 Union of Parliaments by a very long time.
And to ask the obvious question. If the Scots were so against the Stuarts then why were they so keen to reinstate them in 1715 and 1745? After all the Scottish Covernantors fought on the side of the English Parliament in the Civil war. Though as I recall Halifax and Cromwell did visit Scotland with a few of their mates...
They weren't.
The Stuarts were beaten by an army predominantly made up of Scottish volunteers are Culloden. David Hume fought for the Hanoverians at the Battle of Prestonpans.
In any case my post was a joke, the actual complexity of the lead up to the War of the Three Kingdoms** is far too complicated to go into any detail here.
**You may call it the English Civil War, not arrogant at all in the Westminster Bubble.
@tnewtondunn: 'As we settle down at a table, Salmond orders a bottle of pink champagne – “to toast my book”'; @NewStatesman. Man of the people.
Salmond is playing his role in this so damn well. It's working perfectly.
Right now the Westminster media should be 100% focused on how well Sturgeon is playing with average English votes (highest rated leader UK wide) and how intelligent yet still popular she comes across.
But they're completely taken in by the McGuffin.
They won't even see Nicola coming.
What has Sturgeon to do with English voters.
Why do you think the Dutch Conquest of England in 1688 was a success? Tiny little Holland taking over England, a country with 8 times it's population (at the time). Little tiny Holland only a few decades from establishing itself and becoming independent from Spain.
It's all about the spin.
Of course when the Scottish Stuart dynasty took over the English crown, they avoided the old country as far as possible!
Indeed did James I ever go back? Or Charles I?
Of course they didn't.
There were a great many ready and waiting to lynch them.
Did Charles II or James II? After all this was a Union of the Crowns and preceeded the 1707 Union of Parliaments by a very long time.
And to ask the obvious question. If the Scots were so against the Stuarts then why were they so keen to reinstate them in 1715 and 1745? After all the Scottish Covernantors fought on the side of the English Parliament in the Civil war. Though as I recall Halifax and Cromwell did visit Scotland with a few of their mates...
Not according to that great Scots' historian, Mel Gibson. For some reason the new documentary will not be funded (unlike "Braveheart").
No, they're not handing it a single penny - simply freeing up money that is already in the Scottish budget.
So, it's being given twice.
The £45m isn't being given twice. It isn't being given once. The £45m is already in teh Scottish budget. It's just being freed up for other spending or tax cuts.
Benefits are not devolved. So there are no further Barnett Consequentials.
Right so when if we get EICIPM and he decides to give extra UK taxpayers money to people on housing benefit in Scotland with spare rooms in their houses, he will be giving such Scottish beneficiaries of his largesse the money direct rather than via the scottish government and the Scottish government will cease giving qan equivalent sum to such benefit claimants and spend the money on something else.
So, £45m won't be freed up, because they'll still be paying it?
Not sure how simple to make it if you're still saying you don't get it.
The Scottish Government has a budget. It decides how it is spent.
The UK Treasury spends money on Scotland in non-Devolved matters.
Benefits are not currently a Devolved matter.
If the UK Government abolishes the Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy, then the UK Treasury will pay an additional £45m to social tenants in Scotland.
The Scottish Government will no longer have to use £45m of its budget to make up the withdrawl of benefits. It will either spend it on something else or cut taxes.
It's breaking into the first two horse race since 1979.
Yes - I've been saying for some time that outside Scotland we're going to see a real focus on the big 2. For those who see LD/Green as potential Lab in marginals and UKIP as potential Con, the 15-10 margin is the largest I've seen for a while. It's more complicated than that in relaity, but I'd rather have a Labour lead bet on those figures.
It may be particularly true in the Midlands, always a weaker area for the LDs.
Though still no posters or literature in sleepy old Leicestershire. I have never known such electoral apathy, and despite the apparent closeness.
I think it that while there is no love for the coalition, there is a grudging acknowledgement that the Coalition has mostly managed things really quite well. It will be a couple of years before it is realised what a golden period of government that we are leaving.
It's breaking into the first two horse race since 1979.
Yes - I've been saying for some time that outside Scotland we're going to see a real focus on the big 2. For those who see LD/Green as potential Lab in marginals and UKIP as potential Con, the 15-10 margin is the largest I've seen for a while. It's more complicated than that in relaity, but I'd rather have a Labour lead bet on those figures.
It may be particularly true in the Midlands, always a weaker area for the LDs.
Though still no posters or literature in sleepy old Leicestershire. I have never known such electoral apathy, and despite the apparent closeness.
I think it that while there is no love for the coalition, there is a grudging acknowledgement that the Coalition has mostly managed things really quite well. It will be a couple of years before it is realised what a golden period of government that we are leaving.
I've got you down as a "Will vote Conservative at the ballot box, but will fill in online polls as Lib Dem" at the moment - is that right ?
It's breaking into the first two horse race since 1979.
Yes - I've been saying for some time that outside Scotland we're going to see a real focus on the big 2. For those who see LD/Green as potential Lab in marginals and UKIP as potential Con, the 15-10 margin is the largest I've seen for a while. It's more complicated than that in relaity, but I'd rather have a Labour lead bet on those figures.
It may be particularly true in the Midlands, always a weaker area for the LDs.
Though still no posters or literature in sleepy old Leicestershire. I have never known such electoral apathy, and despite the apparent closeness.
I think it that while there is no love for the coalition, there is a grudging acknowledgement that the Coalition has mostly managed things really quite well. It will be a couple of years before it is realised what a golden period of government that we are leaving.
Don't agree that people think the Coalition have managed things well, but certainly agree that this complete apathy is something I've never known before. In my office (generally people who follow the news an average amount), there's only a handful who are interested in the election at all.
The £45m isn't being given twice. The £45m is already in teh Scottish budget. It's just being freed up for other spending or tax cuts.
Benefits are not devolved. So there are no further Barnett Consequentials.
So, who is paying the £45 million rent, if the Scottish government aren't?
The Scottish government are paying it.
Yep, out of funds nominally for something else.
No, they are paying it from the Scottish Government budget. Westminster does not allocate spending for the Scottish Government. At all.
I meant from the Scottish budget! I'm assuming it would have been spent on something else otherwise.
Edit: to make it clear, I was agreeing with you
Not always. They will sometimes use free cash to cut taxes. For example the Barnett Consequentials of Osborne copying John Sinney's excellent Stamp Duty replacement were spent to reduce taxes - slashing the Land and Building Transaction Tax.
No, they're not handing it a single penny - simply freeing up money that is already in the Scottish budget.
So, it's being given twice.
The £45m isn't being given twice. It isn't being given once. The £45m is already in teh Scottish budget. It's just being freed up for other spending or tax cuts.
Benefits are not devolved. So there are no further Barnett Consequentials.
Right so when if we get EICIPM and he decides to give extra UK taxpayers money to people on housing benefit in Scotland with spare rooms in their houses, he will be giving such Scottish beneficiaries of his largesse the money direct rather than via the scottish government and the Scottish government will cease giving qan equivalent sum to such benefit claimants and spend the money on something else.
No, they're not handing it a single penny - simply freeing up money that is already in the Scottish budget.
So, it's being given twice.
The £45m isn't being given twice. It isn't being given once. The £45m is already in teh Scottish budget. It's just being freed up for other spending or tax cuts.
Benefits are not devolved. So there are no further Barnett Consequentials.
Right so when if we get EICIPM and he decides to give extra UK taxpayers money to people on housing benefit in Scotland with spare rooms in their houses, he will be giving such Scottish beneficiaries of his largesse the money direct rather than via the scottish government and the Scottish government will cease giving qan equivalent sum to such benefit claimants and spend the money on something else.
Either way its more gold going north up the M6
Call it repatriation.
lol
"Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order 1999.
Just a taster of the the sort of thing Scotland would have to sign up for in independence treaty negotiations.
David Cameron heckled by pensioners at Age UK rally Watch the Prime Minister get heckled as he tries to answer questions on the NHS at Age UK's General Election rally.
It's breaking into the first two horse race since 1979.
Yes - I've been saying for some time that outside Scotland we're going to see a real focus on the big 2. For those who see LD/Green as potential Lab in marginals and UKIP as potential Con, the 15-10 margin is the largest I've seen for a while. It's more complicated than that in relaity, but I'd rather have a Labour lead bet on those figures.
It may be particularly true in the Midlands, always a weaker area for the LDs.
Though still no posters or literature in sleepy old Leicestershire. I have never known such electoral apathy, and despite the apparent closeness.
I think it that while there is no love for the coalition, there is a grudging acknowledgement that the Coalition has mostly managed things really quite well. It will be a couple of years before it is realised what a golden period of government that we are leaving.
I've got you down as a "Will vote Conservative at the ballot box, but will fill in online polls as Lib Dem" at the moment - is that right ?
I live in a safe seat so can vote as I please! but we do have some LDs on the council. I shall be voting LD, ad I am a pro-coalition LD. They are likely to hold their council seats, but will not make a dent in the safe majorities locally for either side.
David Cameron heckled by pensioners at Age UK rally Watch the Prime Minister get heckled as he tries to answer questions on the NHS at Age UK's General Election rally.
Cameron dead in the water? What these pensioners are saying is that the polls are so wrong it's unbelievable.
The old dear at the end was quite right - it's not the press' meeting it's the pensioners. He should be answering their questions. His refusal to go along with her should cost him this election.
TSE retweeted Stig Abell @StigAbell 5m5 minutes ago Interesting Sun poll due tonight: do the public care about Cameron's "third term" gaffe?
No course not unless they surveyed Lynton Crosby
I have to admit to not fully understanding why it's considered a gaffe at all. But from what I do understand, the problems it will supposedly cause him aren't about it directly making him less popular with the public. I'd be stunned if the poll showed a lot of people cared.
Can someone from the Labour side who thinks ending the spare-room subsidy is so iniquitous please tell my friend why he has to wait years for a house to come available to allow his kids not to be all bunked up in one room? Just because people who don't have a need of the room will still be allowed to keep it - and have the cost for that room paid for out of my friend's small contribution to Income Tax? Because he is spitting mad about it....
I notice that the Tories have sent out Grant Shapps to the BBC3 "meet the yuff" program, where as obviously Ed did for Labour. Maybe the Tories hope the yuff confuse Mr Green with Professor Green?
TSE retweeted Stig Abell @StigAbell 5m5 minutes ago Interesting Sun poll due tonight: do the public care about Cameron's "third term" gaffe?
No course not unless they surveyed Lynton Crosby
I have to admit to not fully understanding why it's considered a gaffe at all. But from what I do understand, the problems it will supposedly cause him aren't about it directly making him less popular with the public. I'd be stunned if the poll showed a lot of people cared.
My thoughts were it wasn't a gaffe per se, where Dave went wrong was to mention names.
Can someone from the Labour side who thinks ending the spare-room subsidy is so iniquitous please tell my friend why he has to wait years for a house to come available to allow his kids not to be all bunked up in one room? Just because people who don't have a need of the room will still be allowed to keep it - and have the cost for that room paid for out of my friend's small contribution to Income Tax? Because he is spitting mad about it....
Because your lot flogged all the council houses.
And because after 1979 both parties said 'the market would provide'. (Not a view shared by those who are homeless or living in sheds.)
TSE retweeted Stig Abell @StigAbell 5m5 minutes ago Interesting Sun poll due tonight: do the public care about Cameron's "third term" gaffe?
No course not unless they surveyed Lynton Crosby
I have to admit to not fully understanding why it's considered a gaffe at all. But from what I do understand, the problems it will supposedly cause him aren't about it directly making him less popular with the public. I'd be stunned if the poll showed a lot of people cared.
My thoughts were it wasn't a gaffe per se, where Dave went wrong was to mention names.
I don't know, he did give a fairly presumptive answer (or at least an answer which could easily be interpreted that way). There was no "If I'm lucky enough to be re-elected" or similar qualifier. More to the point, why get drawn on it at all? He could have just said "I'm focused on a second term at the moment".
The harm to the public is minor though, almost no-one cares. The harm is if he does win, because his cabinet ministers etc will be fighting for the job even more so than if he'd kept schtum. They'll be pressuring him to step down earlier, and have no excuse not to openly scheme for who the next leader will be. Naming names was particularly unfortunate, because it means that any other contenders will need to make a splash now that the top tier has been officially announced. So in two ways Cameron has given licence to MPs to campaign for his job, which will make them bolder than before.
Can someone from the Labour side who thinks ending the spare-room subsidy is so iniquitous please tell my friend why he has to wait years for a house to come available to allow his kids not to be all bunked up in one room? Just because people who don't have a need of the room will still be allowed to keep it - and have the cost for that room paid for out of my friend's small contribution to Income Tax? Because he is spitting mad about it....
Because your lot flogged all the council houses.
So why didn't Labour build any between 1997 and 2010 ?
' Labour should “apologise” for its poor record of building social housing, the party’s own London housing spokesman has said.
Tom Copley said it galled him that Margaret Thatcher’s government built more council flats and houses in a single year than Tony Blair and Gordon Brown managed over 13 years in power. '
Can someone from the Labour side who thinks ending the spare-room subsidy is so iniquitous please tell my friend why he has to wait years for a house to come available to allow his kids not to be all bunked up in one room? Just because people who don't have a need of the room will still be allowed to keep it - and have the cost for that room paid for out of my friend's small contribution to Income Tax? Because he is spitting mad about it....
Because your lot flogged all the council houses.
And because after 1979 both parties said 'the market would provide'. (Not a view shared by those who are homeless or living in sheds.)
statutory homeless:
1979 - 55,530 2013 - 56,930
UK population 1979 56.25 mil 2013 64.1 mil
Seems to me the market is providing pretty darn well.
Can someone from the Labour side who thinks ending the spare-room subsidy is so iniquitous please tell my friend why he has to wait years for a house to come available to allow his kids not to be all bunked up in one room? Just because people who don't have a need of the room will still be allowed to keep it - and have the cost for that room paid for out of my friend's small contribution to Income Tax? Because he is spitting mad about it....
Because your lot flogged all the council houses.
A third of all council house sales happened under Labour, and 2/3 of transfers from councils to housing associations happened under Labour.
The problem we have is not so much not enough council houses, but not enough houses. The population has grown by eight million, and households are more fragmented.
If not a single council house was sold we would still have a shortage.
Amazingly, Cameron's 'no third term' pronouncement has provoked the first time in a very long time that someone I know initiated a conversation about politics with me at work, and very first thing in the morning too. Of all the political events these past years, that statement was apparently the one that engaged at least one person I know enough to bring it up in casual conversation the next morning. Remarkable really.
TSE retweeted Stig Abell @StigAbell 5m5 minutes ago Interesting Sun poll due tonight: do the public care about Cameron's "third term" gaffe?
No course not unless they surveyed Lynton Crosby
I have to admit to not fully understanding why it's considered a gaffe at all. But from what I do understand, the problems it will supposedly cause him aren't about it directly making him less popular with the public. I'd be stunned if the poll showed a lot of people cared.
My thoughts were it wasn't a gaffe per se, where Dave went wrong was to mention names.
The fact he intends to run a full second term is in many ways more relevant than what he'd do the term after, since that's for another election anyway - this way you know what you get for who you're voting for (nominally the constituency MP, I know, but in practice the identity of the potential PM matters too).
I think it's more reassuring than voting Blair and not knowing whether or not you're allegedly going to get Brown later on.
The fact it rules out voting for Cameron and getting Osborne - at least this term - might be a plus for the Tories.
@tnewtondunn: 'As we settle down at a table, Salmond orders a bottle of pink champagne – “to toast my book”'; @NewStatesman. Man of the people.
Salmond is playing his role in this so damn well. It's working perfectly.
Right now the Westminster media should be 100% focused on how well Sturgeon is playing with average English votes (highest rated leader UK wide) and how intelligent yet still popular she comes across.
But they're completely taken in by the McGuffin.
They won't even see Nicola coming.
What has Sturgeon to do with English voters.
Why do you think the Dutch Conquest of England in 1688 was a success? Tiny little Holland taking over England, a country with 8 times it's population (at the time). Little tiny Holland only a few decades from establishing itself and becoming independent from Spain.
It's all about the spin.
Of course when the Scottish Stuart dynasty took over the English crown, they avoided the old country as far as possible!
Indeed did James I ever go back? Or Charles I?
Of course they didn't.
There were a great many ready and waiting to lynch them.
Did Charles II or James II? After all this was a Union of the Crowns and preceeded the 1707 Union of Parliaments by a very long time.
And to ask the obvious question. If the Scots were so against the Stuarts then why were they so keen to reinstate them in 1715 and 1745? After all the Scottish Covernantors fought on the side of the English Parliament in the Civil war. Though as I recall Halifax and Cromwell did visit Scotland with a few of their mates...
The Wars of the Covenant against the Stuarts lasted arguably from 1638-ish to 1746, on and off. They were very much a Scottish civil war as well as everything else - and in fact a great many Scots were on the opposite side to the Stuarts in 1715 and 1745. And for that matter the Covenanters fought on the Royal side for the later part of the nastiness of the 1640s and 1650s. Vide Dunbar and Worcester. Just some of the reasons it's such a fascinating period of history, and one which has left a mark from the islands of the Channel to Shetland.
Comments
And the Green to Conservative one??
As I said, for a very long time now, the voters have made up their mind about wanting to get rid of this government but they are shopping around for the best opposition party.
https://twitter.com/May2015NS/status/580458674507878400
The others are taking pelters as Salmond pokes them.
Benefits are not devolved. So there are no further Barnett Consequentials.
Just wonder what terms would Labour demand to keep Salmond as PM (an end to devolution perhaps?)
Natalie Bennett/Ukip crossover may be too much to take
And to ask the obvious question. If the Scots were so against the Stuarts then why were they so keen to reinstate them in 1715 and 1745? After all the Scottish Covernantors fought on the side of the English Parliament in the Civil war. Though as I recall Halifax and Cromwell did visit Scotland with a few of their mates...
Yesterday might have been Peak Tory on the most seats betting market.
The Stuarts were beaten by an army predominantly made up of Scottish volunteers are Culloden. David Hume fought for the Hanoverians at the Battle of Prestonpans.
In any case my post was a joke, the actual complexity of the lead up to the War of the Three Kingdoms** is far too complicated to go into any detail here.
**You may call it the English Civil War, not arrogant at all in the Westminster Bubble.
1) Never getting any future embargoed polls
2) Getting locked in a room with a load of Scot Nats
3) Having to listen to discussions about whether AV is superior to at FPTP
Edit: to make it clear, I was agreeing with you
:troupe-of-jockanese-clowns:
Either way its more gold going north up the M6
The Scottish Government has a budget. It decides how it is spent.
The UK Treasury spends money on Scotland in non-Devolved matters.
Benefits are not currently a Devolved matter.
If the UK Government abolishes the Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy, then the UK Treasury will pay an additional £45m to social tenants in Scotland.
The Scottish Government will no longer have to use £45m of its budget to make up the withdrawl of benefits. It will either spend it on something else or cut taxes.
The only way they can free up the money is to stop plugging the gap, meaning tenants will drift into arrears etc.
Unless, there is a second handout of £45m on top of the existing budget that plus the gap instead.
Though still no posters or literature in sleepy old Leicestershire. I have never known such electoral apathy, and despite the apparent closeness.
I think it that while there is no love for the coalition, there is a grudging acknowledgement that the Coalition has mostly managed things really quite well. It will be a couple of years before it is realised what a golden period of government that we are leaving.
There is UNCROSSOVER
"Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order 1999.
Just a taster of the the sort of thing Scotland would have to sign up for in independence treaty negotiations.
How will that change the parties, or will it be a nil score draw?
And we consider ourselves lucky to have survived austerity with some public services still in existence no thanks to the LDs
Stig Abell @StigAbell 5m5 minutes ago
Interesting Sun poll due tonight: do the public care about Cameron's "third term" gaffe?
No course not unless they surveyed Lynton Crosby
Watch the Prime Minister get heckled as he tries to answer questions on the NHS at Age UK's General Election rally.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11492100/David-Cameron-heckled-by-pensioners-at-Age-UK-rally.html?WT.mc_id=e_DM7411&WT.tsrc=email&etype=Edi_FPM_New&utm_source=email&utm_medium=Edi_FPM_New_2015_03_24&utm_campaign=DM7411
Cameron dead in the water? What these pensioners are saying is that the polls are so wrong it's unbelievable.
It's a shame it won't.
I feel sorry for the chaps who accidentally published it early.
I'm very surprised the Mail still has the story up on its website.
Oh, 2010.
The harm to the public is minor though, almost no-one cares. The harm is if he does win, because his cabinet ministers etc will be fighting for the job even more so than if he'd kept schtum. They'll be pressuring him to step down earlier, and have no excuse not to openly scheme for who the next leader will be. Naming names was particularly unfortunate, because it means that any other contenders will need to make a splash now that the top tier has been officially announced. So in two ways Cameron has given licence to MPs to campaign for his job, which will make them bolder than before.
YouGov/Sun: CON 39%(+2), LAB 32%(nc), LDEM 18%(-1)
' Labour should “apologise” for its poor record of building social housing, the party’s own London housing spokesman has said.
Tom Copley said it galled him that Margaret Thatcher’s government built more council flats and houses in a single year than Tony Blair and Gordon Brown managed over 13 years in power. '
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/labour-should-apologise-for-social-housing-failure-8932797.html
statutory homeless:
1979 - 55,530
2013 - 56,930
UK population
1979 56.25 mil
2013 64.1 mil
Seems to me the market is providing pretty darn well.
'Wibbly wobbly Tory bottoms.'
'Osborne has to go.'
'Promise an EU referendum. NOW.'
'That Michael Crick really is a ...'
That 9% Ukip bets with me isn't it ? £100@evs
Happy to double up if you are, or more
The problem we have is not so much not enough council houses, but not enough houses. The population has grown by eight million, and households are more fragmented.
If not a single council house was sold we would still have a shortage.
Camo's coming home!
Removal Van from Downing St. with GO
They are all in it together.
I think it's more reassuring than voting Blair and not knowing whether or not you're allegedly going to get Brown later on.
The fact it rules out voting for Cameron and getting Osborne - at least this term - might be a plus for the Tories.