People on here are making the UKIP being just disaffected Tories mistake again..
No - if we assume only 30% of UKIP voters are Tories then that swings 4 out of the 5 labour leads. Some red kippers may even vote tory (now they are not labour voters) as their policies seem more socially beneficial than usual = dole out money to the masses! Hard to see many red kippers going back to labour as labour are much more europhiliac.
Given that those who are very against hunting are likely to never vote Tory ever - I think it's moot. It's a tiny % of voters who give a damn - it costs the Tories nothing to roll it into the mix.
Did they really need to do this fox-hunting thing? I bet it nabs a lot of media attention from other pledges which are far more important. For those voters who really are keen on a return to hunting with hounds (and it is a lot more popular in rural constituencies than squeamish urbanites realise) it's not even a pledge to bring it back, just to have a free vote on it which may very well not pass anyway. It's not as if that kind of voter is likely to itching to vote Miliband but the return of fox-hunting will lure them back to Team Blue. The rural constituencies don't even tend to be marginal, though admittedly there are a lot of very tight seats where rural and urban areas blend. Are the Tories worried about a UKIP surge in the countryside? Or just offering some (rather lame) red meat to get up core voter turnout, possibly in seats where they don't need it?
What's the strategy here? I'm not seeing it.
Vengeance is rarely sensible political strategy if you're trying to build an electoral coalition. Works better on the steppes, particularly if we replace the game of "who's got the thicker manifesto" with "who's got the best de-braining sword?"
I get what kind of voter they're pitching it to. But I can't see why now is a good time to be doing said pitching, when you're trying to reach out to other segments, many of whom are likely to be turned off by the policy, and even those neutral-to-apathetic about it are going to be distracted from the more substantial and wider-ranging pledges by the inevitable urban-centric media fixation about cute furry things.
I think there is more to it than that, as I understand it the CA are helpful to the Conservative Party and represent a lot of members, as the quid pro quo for that is a free vote on hunting. They were promised one in 2010, it was in the Coalition Agreement, and they got quietly dropped, this one might well go the same way, but there is a limit to how many times the Tories will be able to square the CA before they get fed up and take their ball home.
Given that those who are very against hunting are likely to never vote Tory ever - I think it's moot. It's a tiny % of voters who give a damn - it costs the Tories nothing to roll it into the mix.
I don't think it's cost-free. Every minute your policies are in the news, or every column inch they grab, is incredibly valuable publicity. You don't have much control over how it's going to be spun or where the focus will be, but you know that the foxes are going to suck attention disproportionately. If you run with it, you've got to really want to own the issue, be prepared to be associated with it, and not mind sacrificing airtime for your core messages for it. In fact, even if hunting is only a peripheral issue for the party, it's going to get the same kind of attention that a core message would because that's how the media and the "animal-loving Great British public" roll.
Plenty of Tory MPs find fox-hunting grotesque, outdated, and no longer acceptable on animal welfare grounds. Like Grandiose, I fail to see how it would win out in a free vote and I'm sure most Countryside Alliance voters know this too. There are plenty of sensitive souls, with little exposure to rural reality or traditions, in the millions of young urban professional voters that the Tories need to capture if they harbour serious ambitions of a majority. It is wrong to state that people strongly opposed to fox hunting wouldn't consider voting Tory: about a third of Tory voters support or strongly support a ban according to this YouGov poll, though admittedly that's lower than other parties (even UKIP).
Ref hunting. Clearly it will galvanise some of the country set/Kipper defectors and is easily dropped in the event of coalition negotiations. Cameron obviously wants droppable policy so he can be seen to 'compromise' as he knows 326 is probably out of reach. Cynical and clever.
It's just a free vote though, right?
It's not ever going to pass.
It only passes if the Tories get 326 plus If not it's coalition and the pledge is dropped as a sop to whoever he is cosying (St Nicholas Clegg)
Even in a Coalition the pledge need not be dropped as in a free vote a return to fox hunting would be substantially defeated. Even a Con majority of 50+ might not be enough.
I just said that. Keep up, young man.
It's the quality and length of the vocal ejaculation that counts and not its premature nature.
It is very amusing to see the bizarre logic of those opposing Cameron's right to buy policy. According to Labour supporters:
A lifetime subsidy of the rent is good. Even if the subsidy is to someone who no longer needs such a big property.
A one-off discount on the sale, freeing up capital to be reinvested in more housing for those on the waiting list, is bad.
You can see why we are such a mess when a large chunk of the population think like that!
And the logic for allowing people to buy social housing with extra rooms they do not at significantly reduced prices is what?
Money. To build smaller houses.
The average price of a plot of building land in London in 2012 was £430,000. Let's call that £500,000 now. Throw in building costs and you are probably looking at north of £650,000 at a minimum for a replacement property following a sell-off. With discounts offered to tenants, to begin to think about building one the open market price of the sold property will probably need to be around £800,000 to £900,000. The average price of a property in London is significantly lower than that. This may explain why council house sales have by far outstripped replacement builds over the last few years.
What's the median price for land?
I just don't believe your statistics. The average price of a house in London, is around £400K (IIRC) so a land cost above that just doesn't make sense. I suspect they are distorted by the stupid land prices you see in the super-prime areas (e.g. £230K for an 11x6 garage near me)
The price of bricks and mortar is the same everywhere, it is the location that affects the price. Land prices follow house prices and in London they have risen hugely over recent years. Of course, there will be price variations - but that will also affect how much properties can be sold for.
The simple fact is that although it is already government policy for council house sales to be matched by new builds, the proportion of sales to builds is something like 5 to 1.
So no answer then?
So you are dismissing a policy based on dodgy statistics related to the most expensive single sub-market in the UK?
Ref hunting. Clearly it will galvanise some of the country set/Kipper defectors and is easily dropped in the event of coalition negotiations. Cameron obviously wants droppable policy so he can be seen to 'compromise' as he knows 326 is probably out of reach. Cynical and clever.
It's just a free vote though, right?
It's not ever going to pass.
It only passes if the Tories get 326 plus If not it's coalition and the pledge is dropped as a sop to whoever he is cosying (St Nicholas Clegg)
Even in a Coalition the pledge need not be dropped as in a free vote a return to fox hunting would be substantially defeated. Even a Con majority of 50+ might not be enough.
I just said that. Keep up, young man.
It's the quality and length of the vocal ejaculation that counts and not its premature nature.
The last shall be the first.
Come writers and critics Who prophesize with your pen And keep your eyes wide The chance won't come again And don't speak too soon For the wheel's still in spin And there's no tellin' who That it's namin' For the loser now Will be later to win For the polls they are a-changin'
I'm not denying the UKIP to Con. swing. However I do think there's a shy kipper tendency. And I don't think the shy kippers (if such a phenomenon exists) are red kippers. In my opinion, those people would be more likely to state their voting intention frankly. I think they'd be blue kippers stating their former preference for a quiet life. I still think they might go for UKIP in the ballot box.
If the Blue Kippers come home Ed is toast. The problem will be for them to identify which seats they are doing well in and which ones they should abandon.
Would be amusing to see a flood of returnees burying Carswell in Clacton, not much chance of that, but Reckless is in trouble now.
Hard to say - if the move isn't the voters thinking Con are great and UKIP are shit but just forgetting that UKIP exist and thinking more about Con/Lab, it probably isn't happening to the same degree where there's a UKIP incumbent.
I would expect that to be the line, especially in the last week.
Thought the Tory manifesto was a bit bolder than I'd thought, maybe Cameron is a bit more "arsed" about it all than I had believed last week.
Interesting "reverse" themes over the past two days, with Labour trying to go all Bundesbank on us ("we'll cut the deficit"), and the Tories trying to splash the cash on the social side. Who will the electorate believe least? Clearly the Tories are hoping that they have such a (relative to Labour) reputation for fiscal rectitude that it won't count against them if they promise some goodies. Labour sort of the opposite.
I must say the "no tax on minimum wage" line is a real cracker mind, in a good way.
Game on, but the maths still favours the reds and their Celtic "allies". Can the Tories drag enough Kippers into the fold and not leak too many to the L Dems at the same time? Will Labour's discipline hold (especially in Scotland where the light at the end of the tunnel is looking ever more like the oncoming train)?
Fascinating stuff (except in Wales!)
With postal voting, especially among the old, last week is probably too late to start firing the "think of the horror of Red Ed and Sturgeon" missile.
Did they really need to do this fox-hunting thing? I bet it nabs a lot of media attention from other pledges which are far more important. For those voters who really are keen on a return to hunting with hounds (and it is a lot more popular in rural constituencies than squeamish urbanites realise) it's not even a pledge to bring it back, just to have a free vote on it which may very well not pass anyway. It's not as if that kind of voter is likely to itching to vote Miliband but the return of fox-hunting will lure them back to Team Blue. The rural constituencies don't even tend to be marginal, though admittedly there are a lot of very tight seats where rural and urban areas blend. Are the Tories worried about a UKIP surge in the countryside? Or just offering some (rather lame) red meat to get up core voter turnout, possibly in seats where they don't need it?
What's the strategy here? I'm not seeing it.
The Tories' ear has been hooked by the CA qua pressure group. Few voters in rural constituencies care about fox-hunting and even fewer care and want it made legal. (I expect the Free vote to struggle to get a majority of Tories.)
Under Labour the move was symbolic of what the Eye would call the "Department for the Elimination of Farming and Rural Affairs". But as one voter on Look East put it "we haven't had much change from the government (other than hens' beaks)" - and that's how most rural people like it.
Speak for yourself. I live in rural constituency, care about it and want it made legal.
Maybe CCHQ is also hoping for the groundworker army from CA, though, like last time.
I didn't say people in your position didn't exist, but you must know that wherever you live you are in a minority. Labour's anti-rural narrative was far more encapsulating and foxhunting did form a part of that though.
Ref hunting. Clearly it will galvanise some of the country set/Kipper defectors and is easily dropped in the event of coalition negotiations. Cameron obviously wants droppable policy so he can be seen to 'compromise' as he knows 326 is probably out of reach. Cynical and clever.
It's just a free vote though, right?
It's not ever going to pass.
It only passes if the Tories get 326 plus If not it's coalition and the pledge is dropped as a sop to whoever he is cosying (St Nicholas Clegg)
Even in a Coalition the pledge need not be dropped as in a free vote a return to fox hunting would be substantially defeated. Even a Con majority of 50+ might not be enough.
I think it would. 2-3 LDs would vote for repeal, and around 4-6 Labour MPs. A handful more might absent themselves.
A fair few Tory MPs who weren't convinced would probably absent themselves due to urgent constituency business, to avoid riling allies and colleagues, whilst those wanting repeal would be highly motivated to vote.
The Government could make it appear more reasonable and centrist by not proposing to go back 100% to the antebellum (Labour might just reintroduce it a few years later) but legalise and better regulate it, as Blair wanted.
People on here are making the UKIP being just disaffected Tories mistake again..
I don't think anybody (well other than Cameron) thinks that, but a significant proportion are. If they get 15+ %, the Tories are stuffed. If they can get them down below 10%, it seems with the rise of the Greens and SNP eating into Labour's vote, that would put the Tories in a good position.
Are you seriously arguing that not even 1/3 of current UKIP polling aren't pi$$ed off former right wing Tory voters?
I think the core10% of Kippers cannot be won back, it's more the distrust of contemporary politics rather than contemporary policy and Dave would do well to note this if he continues to lurch to the right. The Tories have been chipping away for a while but there's only a finite number of Kip/Con potential movers, it may be enough to get them to 35% but beyond that I don't really know if Dave can do any more. The potential votes just aren't out there.
I am actually going to be right about this election. Stone the crows. :-D
In my best Count Rugen voice
"Stop saying that!!"
No way - it's the only chance left to prevent a Tory majority.
I knew it, I always thought your calling the Indyref for Yes, was your way of saving the Union.
Ha, ha. Unfortunately not. I lost a fair bit of cash on that. But I was delighted to be wrong. I'll win on that one next time. My betting for this election is very sparse. Isam will be buying me lunch when EdM gets over 50% of the vote in his constituency. Tories most seats is no real value unless you pile on a fortune, which I won't given my record. I might still have a cheeky flutter on a Tory overall majority. You can get 7/1 from BetVictor, which might be worth a few quid. .
By the way for those think ukip might only get one seat.. Thurrock prob value at 4/6
PB Shrewdies said Tim aker wouldn't get much help from ukip hierarchy
Rowena Mason (@rowenamason) April 13 Rapturous reception in Thurrock for Nigel Farage's speech - a packed out darts championships venue pic.twitter.com/lU76uFL17Y
Simon Dedman (@SiDedman) April 13 This is the largest audience for a political rally I've seen since the #SNP in Glasgow here in #thurrock #ukip pic.twitter.com/r9TuRsQq3g
John Stevens (@johnestevens) April 13 Nigel Farage going down a storm. Have genuinely never seen such an enthusiastic response to a political speech pic.twitter.com/H4DhmgFav0
So up to 1,250,000 housing association properties now to become private buy-to-let. I wonder what these people will do with their largesse?
Perhaps a second home in the Cotswolds or on the Devon coast? Or if their housing association property was in Pimlico maybe a modest little pied a terre on the Promenade des Anglais?
I am actually going to be right about this election. Stone the crows. :-D
In my best Count Rugen voice
"Stop saying that!!"
No way - it's the only chance left to prevent a Tory majority.
I knew it, I always thought your calling the Indyref for Yes, was your way of saving the Union.
Ha, ha. Unfortunately not. I lost a fair bit of cash on that. But I was delighted to be wrong. I'll win on that one next time. My betting for this election is very sparse. Isam will be buying me lunch when EdM gets over 50% of the vote in his constituency. Tories most seats is no real value unless you pile on a fortune, which I won't given my record. I might still have a cheeky flutter on a Tory overall majority. You can get 7/1 from BetVictor, which might be worth a few quid. Though probably not.
Ref hunting. Clearly it will galvanise some of the country set/Kipper defectors and is easily dropped in the event of coalition negotiations. Cameron obviously wants droppable policy so he can be seen to 'compromise' as he knows 326 is probably out of reach. Cynical and clever.
It's just a free vote though, right?
It's not ever going to pass.
It only passes if the Tories get 326 plus If not it's coalition and the pledge is dropped as a sop to whoever he is cosying (St Nicholas Clegg)
Even in a Coalition the pledge need not be dropped as in a free vote a return to fox hunting would be substantially defeated. Even a Con majority of 50+ might not be enough.
I think it would. 2-3 LDs would vote for repeal, and around 4-6 Labour MPs. A handful more might absent themselves.
A fair few Tory MPs who weren't convinced would probably absent themselves due to urgent constituency business, to avoid riling allies and colleagues, whilst those wanting repeal would be highly motivated to vote.
The Government could make it appear more reasonable and centrist by not proposing to go back 100% to the antebellum (Labour might just reintroduce it a few years later) but legalise and better regulate it, as Blair wanted.
Although foxhutning repeal (in favour of perhaps greater regulation) might get a majority of Tories, but as the party does better the sort of MPs they might hold/gain will be less likely to support it.
If the Blue Kippers come home Ed is toast. The problem will be for them to identify which seats they are doing well in and which ones they should abandon.
Would be amusing to see a flood of returnees burying Carswell in Clacton, not much chance of that, but Reckless is in trouble now.
Hard to say - if the move isn't the voters thinking Con are great and UKIP are shit but just forgetting that UKIP exist and thinking more about Con/Lab, it probably isn't happening to the same degree where there's a UKIP incumbent.
I agree. Its the "who is going to be PM" factor. Kippers dont want Ed, and the only thing they want less than Ed, is Ed & Nicola. If this were a much less tight election either way, I would expect to see a much higher kipper vote.
I'm not denying the UKIP to Con. swing. However I do think there's a shy kipper tendency. And I don't think the shy kippers (if such a phenomenon exists) are red kippers. In my opinion, those people would be more likely to state their voting intention frankly. I think they'd be blue kippers stating their former preference for a quiet life. I still think they might go for UKIP in the ballot box.
I'm not denying the UKIP to Con. swing. However I do think there's a shy kipper tendency. And I don't think the shy kippers (if such a phenomenon exists) are red kippers. In my opinion, those people would be more likely to state their voting intention frankly. I think they'd be blue kippers stating their former preference for a quiet life. I still think they might go for UKIP in the ballot box.
You will of course disproportionately know less shy ones!
It is very amusing to see the bizarre logic of those opposing Cameron's right to buy policy. According to Labour supporters:
A lifetime subsidy of the rent is good. Even if the subsidy is to someone who no longer needs such a big property.
A one-off discount on the sale, freeing up capital to be reinvested in more housing for those on the waiting list, is bad.
You can see why we are such a mess when a large chunk of the population think like that!
And the logic for allowing people to buy social housing with extra rooms they do not at significantly reduced prices is what?
Money. To build smaller houses.
The average price of a plot of building land in London in 2012 was £430,000. Let's call that £500,000 now. Throw in building costs and you are probably looking at north of £650,000 at a minimum for a replacement property following a sell-off. With discounts offered to tenants, to begin to think about building one the open market price of the sold property will probably need to be around £800,000 to £900,000. The average price of a property in London is significantly lower than that. This may explain why council house sales have by far outstripped replacement builds over the last few years.
What's the median price for land?
I just don't believe your statistics. The average price of a house in London, is around £400K (IIRC) so a land cost above that just doesn't make sense. I suspect they are distorted by the stupid land prices you see in the super-prime areas (e.g. £230K for an 11x6 garage near me)
Land costs could be higher than a house price. The reason flats are built is that you pay for the land once but go upwards which is less cost effective after approx 3 storeys. Hence most domestic property does not go above this but in areas of high land value people build upwards to maximise value.
Of course, perhaps I should have talked about a "unit" rather than a "house".
But those stats mean that SO is even more wrong... let's take his idea of a £650,000 replacement cost - a minimum block of flats would be, say, 8 units - so the total cost per unit is sub £100K, while the market price for a flat is probably (haven't checked) closer to £150-200K even in the most far flung parts of London
I'm not denying the UKIP to Con. swing. However I do think there's a shy kipper tendency. And I don't think the shy kippers (if such a phenomenon exists) are red kippers. In my opinion, those people would be more likely to state their voting intention frankly. I think they'd be blue kippers stating their former preference for a quiet life. I still think they might go for UKIP in the ballot box.
Kippers that work in the media, in public service, or in other occupations where being right-on is part of the uniform, plus those who want to be school governors, or indeed foster children, will all be very very shy.
I'm not denying the UKIP to Con. swing. However I do think there's a shy kipper tendency. And I don't think the shy kippers (if such a phenomenon exists) are red kippers. In my opinion, those people would be more likely to state their voting intention frankly. I think they'd be blue kippers stating their former preference for a quiet life. I still think they might go for UKIP in the ballot box.
As with the last time someone made this point, if they were shy kippers, you wouldn't know them would you? You are getting by definition the non-shy ones.
I'm not denying the UKIP to Con. swing. However I do think there's a shy kipper tendency. And I don't think the shy kippers (if such a phenomenon exists) are red kippers. In my opinion, those people would be more likely to state their voting intention frankly. I think they'd be blue kippers stating their former preference for a quiet life. I still think they might go for UKIP in the ballot box.
There are many people I know who intend to vote UKIP but wouldn't say so publicly.. understandable given the bile thrown at anyone who dares question immigration policy
I am a very vocal UKIP supporter, a member of the party and was a possible candidate but even I am too cowardly to have a UKIP sign outside my house for fear of people thinking bad of me
Was it TNS rather than TRS who tried calling me anonymously on my mobile last night?
Thing is, they asked for me to confirm my name (more than once) before anything else, and the call centre reeked of PPI, so I hang up. But it's got me thinking!
Ref hunting. Clearly it will galvanise some of the country set/Kipper defectors and is easily dropped in the event of coalition negotiations. Cameron obviously wants droppable policy so he can be seen to 'compromise' as he knows 326 is probably out of reach. Cynical and clever.
I think he's serious about the pledge but it wouldn't pass the House anywhere south of a Conservative majority of about 50.
Hunting has joined the list of things that probably should not have been abolished but now they have nobody and nothing is going to bring them back. In my lifetime these issues have included national service, capital punishment, grammar schools, drug-free prisons, effective border controls and thinking the balance of trade is important.
Those that do hunt have come up with a modus operandi that works for them (and the Sabs) and gradually the whole thing will be forgotten.
The whole council house system in our country does not seem thought through on either right or left. It doesn't make sense that one group of people should be effectively given hundreds of thousands of pounds by the taxpayer because they once had a poor relative and happened to have not moved about in recent decades. Nor does it make sense that people earning triple the average income should have a life of rent subsidies. Meanwhile another group of people who are far more deserving need to live their lives out of B&Bs, perpetually being moved on.
The council house system has it's roots in 1940s society.
Society has moved on. The housing system needs to as well.
The only way council housing can be efficiently allocated is if it awarded to people whose circumstances are highly unlikely to change in any significant way.
That would limit it to the severely disabled and to the elderly.
The rest of society's circumstances change so much as families grow and then leave that a rigid housing system will always be an inefficient allocator of housing resources.
People being given housing benefit to live in private rented accommodation do not have an expectation that it is "their home", and so people living in council houses should not get such a mentality either. It needs to be made clear these are people renting from the state. They should get their house for a five year rental, charged a market price rent, and then get benefits to cover part or all of that rent. That benefit should be part of the benefit cap to stop subsidizing people to live in Kensington & Chelsea. If their income goes up, they should get reduced benefits in line with the universal credit formula. If the state needs to re-allocate to more needy people, then that gets assessed at the end of five years.
That would be a sensible system.
I agree in principal. The issue with the 5 year reassessment is to can create perverse incentives (eg quit your job so you are unemployed for the period of the review or face losing your home)
Was it TNS rather than TRS who tried calling me anonymously on my mobile last night?
Thing is, they asked for me to confirm my name (more than once) before anything else, and the call centre reeked of PPI, so I hang up. But it's got me thinking!
Ref hunting. Clearly it will galvanise some of the country set/Kipper defectors and is easily dropped in the event of coalition negotiations. Cameron obviously wants droppable policy so he can be seen to 'compromise' as he knows 326 is probably out of reach. Cynical and clever.
I think he's serious about the pledge but it wouldn't pass the House anywhere south of a Conservative majority of about 50.
Hunting has joined the list of things that probably should not have been abolished but now they have nobody and nothing is going to bring them back. In my lifetime these issues have included national service, capital punishment, grammar schools, drug-free prisons, effective border controls and thinking the balance of trade is important.
Those that do hunt have come up with a modus operandi that works for them (and the Sabs) and gradually the whole thing will be forgotten.
I don't agree with national service. Given that we live in a free and safe society there is simply no requirement for national service anymore.
Far better to spend the defence budget on a professional and voluntary military.
tomorrow is the UKIP manifesto launch in Essex, then of course Farage is on the TV debates on Thursday. That guarantees Farage in the news for consecutive days, maybe lasting into the weekend. After that of course they may struggle a bit to gain publicity, so it's important they get some kind of polling boost this week if they're going to maintain the 13-14% on election day.
So up to 1,250,000 housing association properties now to become private buy-to-let. I wonder what these people will do with their largesse?
Perhaps a second home in the Cotswolds or on the Devon coast? Or if their housing association property was in Pimlico maybe a modest little pied a terre on the Promenade des Anglais?
Oh dear, worried that the 'little people' might lower the tone in your favourite exclusive haunts?
People on here are making the UKIP being just disaffected Tories mistake again..
I don't think anybody (well other than Cameron) thinks that, but a significant proportion are. If they get 15+ %, the Tories are stuffed. If they can get them down below 10%, it seems with the rise of the Greens and SNP eating into Labour's vote, that would put the Tories in a good position.
Are you seriously arguing that not even 1/3 of current UKIP polling aren't pi$$ed off former right wing Tory voters?
I think the core10% of Kippers cannot be won back, it's more the distrust of contemporary politics rather than contemporary policy and Dave would do well to note this if he continues to lurch to the right. The Tories have been chipping away for a while but there's only a finite number of Kip/Con potential movers, it may be enough to get them to 35% but beyond that I don't really know if Dave can do any more. The potential votes just aren't out there.
I think that's right.
For example UKIP were on 13% with Ashcroft yesterday, 69% were certain to vote that way, leaving a total of 4% up for grabs who may change their mind. 100% of these aren't going to be Conservatives.
I'm not denying the UKIP to Con. swing. However I do think there's a shy kipper tendency. And I don't think the shy kippers (if such a phenomenon exists) are red kippers. In my opinion, those people would be more likely to state their voting intention frankly. I think they'd be blue kippers stating their former preference for a quiet life. I still think they might go for UKIP in the ballot box.
There are many people I know who intend to vote UKIP but wouldn't say so publicly.. understandable given the bile thrown at anyone who dares question immigration policy
I am a very vocal UKIP supporter, a member of the party and was a possible candidate but even I am too cowardly to have a UKIP sign outside my house for fear of people thinking bad of me
Most people don't put signs outside their house for that same fear, regardless of party.
I won't put a Tory sign in my window because I don't want to be a target for non-Tory neighbours.
Did they really need to do this fox-hunting thing? I bet it nabs a lot of media attention from other pledges which are far more important. For those voters who really are keen on a return to hunting with hounds (and it is a lot more popular in rural constituencies than squeamish urbanites realise) it's not even a pledge to bring it back, just to have a free vote on it which may very well not pass anyway. It's not as if that kind of voter is likely to itching to vote Miliband but the return of fox-hunting will lure them back to Team Blue. The rural constituencies don't even tend to be marginal, though admittedly there are a lot of very tight seats where rural and urban areas blend. Are the Tories worried about a UKIP surge in the countryside? Or just offering some (rather lame) red meat to get up core voter turnout, possibly in seats where they don't need it?
What's the strategy here? I'm not seeing it.
The Tories' ear has been hooked by the CA qua pressure group. Few voters in rural constituencies care about fox-hunting and even fewer care and want it made legal. (I expect the Free vote to struggle to get a majority of Tories.)
Under Labour the move was symbolic of what the Eye would call the "Department for the Elimination of Farming and Rural Affairs". But as one voter on Look East put it "we haven't had much change from the government (other than hens' beaks)" - and that's how most rural people like it.
Speak for yourself. I live in rural constituency, care about it and want it made legal.
Maybe CCHQ is also hoping for the groundworker army from CA, though, like last time.
Any pro-hunt supporters working for the Tories would be mugs.
A free vote on hunting was in the coalition agreement, but the government chose to not hold the vote.
Do we have any idea what Kipper vote there'll be in R********** ? I assume Labour will still weigh their votes, but the local scandals must surely have an impact?
Tory manifesto now up and available through link on BBC news. I've gone straight to Defence. If they mean all of this, I see it hard to reconcile with any further major cuts in the Defence budget:
"We will continue to keep our Armed Forces strong so they can continue to keep you safe. We will maintain the size of the regular armed services and not reduce the army to below 82,000� We will retain the Trident continuous at sea nuclear deterrent to provide the ultimate guarantee of our safety and build the new fleet of four Successor Ballistic Missile Submarines – securing thousands of highly-skilled engineering jobs in the UK� We will work closely with our allies to continue to strengthen NATO – supporting its new multi-national rapid response force� We will maintain our global presence, strengthening our defence partnerships in the Gulf and Asia� Later this year, we will hold a National Security Strategy and Strategic Defence and Security Review to plan for the future�
We can only have strong, well-funded Armed Forces by continuing to build a stronger economy� We have the second largest defence budget in NATO and the largest in the EU� We are meeting NATO’s two targets: that each country should spend two per cent of its gross national income on defence, and of that spending 20 per cent should go on major equipment� We have made commitments for the equipment plan to be funded at one per cent above inflation for the next Parliament� We plan to invest at least £160 billion in new military equipment over the next decade: as well as our six new Type 45 destroyers, we are building a class of seven Astute submarines and buying the Joint Strike Fighter, Scout armoured vehicles, Type 26 frigates and new Apache attack helicopters� We will bring both of our new Aircraft Carriers – HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales, the largest vessels the Royal Navy has ever possessed – into service, so we have one available for use at all times� We will continue to seek value for money in defence procurement, recognising the important contribution that the UK defence industry makes to our prosperity�"
Do we have any idea what Kipper vote there'll be in R********** ? I assume Labour will still weigh their votes, but the local scandals must surely have an impact?
Did they really need to do this fox-hunting thing? I bet it nabs a lot of media attention from other pledges which are far more important. For those voters who really are keen on a return to hunting with hounds (and it is a lot more popular in rural constituencies than squeamish urbanites realise) it's not even a pledge to bring it back, just to have a free vote on it which may very well not pass anyway. It's not as if that kind of voter is likely to itching to vote Miliband but the return of fox-hunting will lure them back to Team Blue. The rural constituencies don't even tend to be marginal, though admittedly there are a lot of very tight seats where rural and urban areas blend. Are the Tories worried about a UKIP surge in the countryside? Or just offering some (rather lame) red meat to get up core voter turnout, possibly in seats where they don't need it?
What's the strategy here? I'm not seeing it.
The Tories' ear has been hooked by the CA qua pressure group. Few voters in rural constituencies care about fox-hunting and even fewer care and want it made legal. (I expect the Free vote to struggle to get a majority of Tories.)
Under Labour the move was symbolic of what the Eye would call the "Department for the Elimination of Farming and Rural Affairs". But as one voter on Look East put it "we haven't had much change from the government (other than hens' beaks)" - and that's how most rural people like it.
Speak for yourself. I live in rural constituency, care about it and want it made legal.
Maybe CCHQ is also hoping for the groundworker army from CA, though, like last time.
I didn't say people in your position didn't exist, but you must know that wherever you live you are in a minority. Labour's anti-rural narrative was far more encapsulating and foxhunting did form a part of that though.
I wish people would not package anti fox hunting into some wider kind of anti rural narrative - as if there is some kind of exterior motive for wanting it banned. Fox hunting by hounds is vile, cruel, disgusting- a sport where an animal is hunted by a pack of dogs and ripped apart at the end. Even the Italians think its cruel- they use dogs for driving the animal out of it's cover, but they shoot the animal at the end and then eat it. Fox hunting is just killing barbarically for killings sake.
Ref hunting. Clearly it will galvanise some of the country set/Kipper defectors and is easily dropped in the event of coalition negotiations. Cameron obviously wants droppable policy so he can be seen to 'compromise' as he knows 326 is probably out of reach. Cynical and clever.
I think he's serious about the pledge but it wouldn't pass the House anywhere south of a Conservative majority of about 50.
Hunting has joined the list of things that probably should not have been abolished but now they have nobody and nothing is going to bring them back. In my lifetime these issues have included national service, capital punishment, grammar schools, drug-free prisons, effective border controls and thinking the balance of trade is important.
Those that do hunt have come up with a modus operandi that works for them (and the Sabs) and gradually the whole thing will be forgotten.
I don't agree with national service. Given that we live in a free and safe society there is simply no requirement for national service anymore.
Far better to spend the defence budget on a professional and voluntary military.
I disagree, I'd have a Swiss style system with a militia and everyone with their national service gun in a locker at home. Of course, there's a million other things that would have to change with our society to get into the place where that could happen safely, but in the long term it's a vital pillar of national security, as the world teaches us time and again.
Do we have any idea what Kipper vote there'll be in R********** ? I assume Labour will still weigh their votes, but the local scandals must surely have an impact?
I'm not denying the UKIP to Con. swing. However I do think there's a shy kipper tendency. And I don't think the shy kippers (if such a phenomenon exists) are red kippers. In my opinion, those people would be more likely to state their voting intention frankly. I think they'd be blue kippers stating their former preference for a quiet life. I still think they might go for UKIP in the ballot box.
There are many people I know who intend to vote UKIP but wouldn't say so publicly.. understandable given the bile thrown at anyone who dares question immigration policy
I am a very vocal UKIP supporter, a member of the party and was a possible candidate but even I am too cowardly to have a UKIP sign outside my house for fear of people thinking bad of me
Most people don't put signs outside their house for that same fear, regardless of party.
I won't put a Tory sign in my window because I don't want to be a target for non-Tory neighbours.
Quite - I live in a village (80% Tory ward) but I wouldn't put a sign up here. Though out here it's not fear, it's courtesy. (Plus of course it would have bugger all effect as there's basically no passing traffic).
Tory manifesto now up and available through link on BBC news. I've gone straight to Defence. If they mean all of this, I see it hard to reconcile with any further major cuts in the Defence budget:
"We will continue to keep our Armed Forces strong so they can continue to keep you safe. We will maintain the size of the regular armed services and not reduce the army to below 82,000� We will retain the Trident continuous at sea nuclear deterrent to provide the ultimate guarantee of our safety and build the new fleet of four Successor Ballistic Missile Submarines – securing thousands of highly-skilled engineering jobs in the UK� We will work closely with our allies to continue to strengthen NATO – supporting its new multi-national rapid response force� We will maintain our global presence, strengthening our defence partnerships in the Gulf and Asia� Later this year, we will hold a National Security Strategy and Strategic Defence and Security Review to plan for the future�
We can only have strong, well-funded Armed Forces by continuing to build a stronger economy� We have the second largest defence budget in NATO and the largest in the EU� We are meeting NATO’s two targets: that each country should spend two per cent of its gross national income on defence, and of that spending 20 per cent should go on major equipment� We have made commitments for the equipment plan to be funded at one per cent above inflation for the next Parliament� We plan to invest at least £160 billion in new military equipment over the next decade: as well as our six new Type 45 destroyers, we are building a class of seven Astute submarines and buying the Joint Strike Fighter, Scout armoured vehicles, Type 26 frigates and new Apache attack helicopters� We will bring both of our new Aircraft Carriers – HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales, the largest vessels the Royal Navy has ever possessed – into service, so we have one available for use at all times� We will continue to seek value for money in defence procurement, recognising the important contribution that the UK defence industry makes to our prosperity�"
Did they really need to do this fox-hunting thing? I bet it nabs a lot of media attention from other pledges which are far more important. For those voters who really are keen on a return to hunting with hounds (and it is a lot more popular in rural constituencies than squeamish urbanites realise) it's not even a pledge to bring it back, just to have a free vote on it which may very well not pass anyway. It's not as if that kind of voter is likely to itching to vote Miliband but the return of fox-hunting will lure them back to Team Blue. The rural constituencies don't even tend to be marginal, though admittedly there are a lot of very tight seats where rural and urban areas blend. Are the Tories worried about a UKIP surge in the countryside? Or just offering some (rather lame) red meat to get up core voter turnout, possibly in seats where they don't need it?
What's the strategy here? I'm not seeing it.
The Tories' ear has been hooked by the CA qua pressure group. Few voters in rural constituencies care about fox-hunting and even fewer care and want it made legal. (I expect the Free vote to struggle to get a majority of Tories.)
Under Labour the move was symbolic of what the Eye would call the "Department for the Elimination of Farming and Rural Affairs". But as one voter on Look East put it "we haven't had much change from the government (other than hens' beaks)" - and that's how most rural people like it.
Speak for yourself. I live in rural constituency, care about it and want it made legal.
Maybe CCHQ is also hoping for the groundworker army from CA, though, like last time.
I didn't say people in your position didn't exist, but you must know that wherever you live you are in a minority. Labour's anti-rural narrative was far more encapsulating and foxhunting did form a part of that though.
I wish people would not package anti fox hunting into some wider kind of anti rural narrative - as if there is some kind of exterior motive for wanting it banned. Fox hunting by hounds is vile, cruel, disgusting- a sport where an animal is hunted by a pack of dogs and ripped apart at the end. Even the Italians think its cruel- they use dogs for driving the animal out of it's cover, but they shoot the animal at the end and then eat it. Fox hunting is just killing barbarically for killings sake.
I oppose fox hunting, but a narrative draws in things, that's how it works. Small measures about VAT on hot food become representative.
It is very amusing to see the bizarre logic of those opposing Cameron's right to buy policy. According to Labour supporters:
A lifetime subsidy of the rent is good. Even if the subsidy is to someone who no longer needs such a big property.
A one-off discount on the sale, freeing up capital to be reinvested in more housing for those on the waiting list, is bad.
You can see why we are such a mess when a large chunk of the population think like that!
And the logic for allowing people to buy social housing with extra rooms they do not at significantly reduced prices is what?
Money. To build smaller houses.
The average price of a plot of building land in London in 2012 was £430,000. Let's call that £500,000 now. Throw in building costs and you are probably looking at north of £650,000 at a minimum for a replacement property following a sell-off. With discounts offered to tenants, to begin to think about building one the open market price of the sold property will probably need to be around £800,000 to £900,000. The average price of a property in London is significantly lower than that. This may explain why council house sales have by far outstripped replacement builds over the last few years.
What's the median price for land?
I just don't believe your statistics. The average price of a house in London, is around £400K (IIRC) so a land cost above that just doesn't make sense. I suspect they are distorted by the stupid land prices you see in the super-prime areas (e.g. £230K for an 11x6 garage near me)
Land costs could be higher than a house price. The reason flats are built is that you pay for the land once but go upwards which is less cost effective after approx 3 storeys. Hence most domestic property does not go above this but in areas of high land value people build upwards to maximise value.
Of course, perhaps I should have talked about a "unit" rather than a "house".
But those stats mean that SO is even more wrong... let's take his idea of a £650,000 replacement cost - a minimum block of flats would be, say, 8 units - so the total cost per unit is sub £100K, while the market price for a flat is probably (haven't checked) closer to £150-200K even in the most far flung parts of London
You can't build a block of eight flats on one 1/15 hectare plot of land.
Tory manifesto now up and available through link on BBC news. I've gone straight to Defence. If they mean all of this, I see it hard to reconcile with any further major cuts in the Defence budget:
"We will continue to keep our Armed Forces strong so they can continue to keep you safe. We will maintain the size of the regular armed services and not reduce the army to below 82,000� We will retain the Trident continuous at sea nuclear deterrent to provide the ultimate guarantee of our safety and build the new fleet of four Successor Ballistic Missile Submarines – securing thousands of highly-skilled engineering jobs in the UK� We will work closely with our allies to continue to strengthen NATO – supporting its new multi-national rapid response force� We will maintain our global presence, strengthening our defence partnerships in the Gulf and Asia� Later this year, we will hold a National Security Strategy and Strategic Defence and Security Review to plan for the future�
We can only have strong, well-funded Armed Forces by continuing to build a stronger economy� We have the second largest defence budget in NATO and the largest in the EU� We are meeting NATO’s two targets: that each country should spend two per cent of its gross national income on defence, and of that spending 20 per cent should go on major equipment� We have made commitments for the equipment plan to be funded at one per cent above inflation for the next Parliament� We plan to invest at least £160 billion in new military equipment over the next decade: as well as our six new Type 45 destroyers, we are building a class of seven Astute submarines and buying the Joint Strike Fighter, Scout armoured vehicles, Type 26 frigates and new Apache attack helicopters� We will bring both of our new Aircraft Carriers – HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales, the largest vessels the Royal Navy has ever possessed – into service, so we have one available for use at all times� We will continue to seek value for money in defence procurement, recognising the important contribution that the UK defence industry makes to our prosperity�"
The entire Conservative manifesto is free owls.
Owls to chuck out at the first hint of negotiations with... the Lib Dems.
Chris g000 once of this place is doing a cracking job on Twitter picking out key points from the Tory manifesto - well worth following https://twitter.com/chrisg0000
Was it TNS rather than TRS who tried calling me anonymously on my mobile last night?
Thing is, they asked for me to confirm my name (more than once) before anything else, and the call centre reeked of PPI, so I hang up. But it's got me thinking!
I'm not denying the UKIP to Con. swing. However I do think there's a shy kipper tendency. And I don't think the shy kippers (if such a phenomenon exists) are red kippers. In my opinion, those people would be more likely to state their voting intention frankly. I think they'd be blue kippers stating their former preference for a quiet life. I still think they might go for UKIP in the ballot box.
Kippers that work in the media, in public service, or in other occupations where being right-on is part of the uniform, plus those who want to be school governors, or indeed foster children, will all be very very shy.
Why?
our local UKIP candidate is a Physics teacher in a local school.
"Oh dear, worried that the 'little people' might lower the tone in your favourite exclusive haunts?"
Buy-to-lets fuck up every housing market. I just can't get my head round this at all. Instead of someone moving out of a housing association property when they're ready to buy their own home they will now more than likely let it out or sell it and make money on it.
How does that make sense when housing is such a precious resource and there are currently over 9,000,000 living in private rented accommodation?
Mr. Grandiose, "It's deceitful. It's unfunded. I support it."
Doubling 'free' childcare will be popular, but seems crackers to me.
It's an excellent policy which will likely cost very little due to the income tax receipts that result from more parents being able to work.
Tax free minimum wage sounds very expensive though - if the MW rises to £8 an hour by the end of the parliament then that implies a personal allowance of £14,100 by 2020 (8 * 37.5 * 47). And presumably NI thresholds will not rise too.
I don't think it's a 37.5 multiple - I think it's 30. Or is for the moment, I don't know the plans that well.
Edit: Yes, 30. Or £11,280 overall. Not cheap though.
Then it's a sham then. 30 hours a week is not a full time job.
Ref hunting. Clearly it will galvanise some of the country set/Kipper defectors and is easily dropped in the event of coalition negotiations. Cameron obviously wants droppable policy so he can be seen to 'compromise' as he knows 326 is probably out of reach. Cynical and clever.
I think he's serious about the pledge but it wouldn't pass the House anywhere south of a Conservative majority of about 50.
Hunting has joined the list of things that probably should not have been abolished but now they have nobody and nothing is going to bring them back. In my lifetime these issues have included national service, capital punishment, grammar schools, drug-free prisons, effective border controls and thinking the balance of trade is important.
Those that do hunt have come up with a modus operandi that works for them (and the Sabs) and gradually the whole thing will be forgotten.
I don't agree with national service. Given that we live in a free and safe society there is simply no requirement for national service anymore.
Far better to spend the defence budget on a professional and voluntary military.
Mr. Thompson, I do not argue for a return to national service. Its day has passed just as as it has for the other things I mentioned.
"Oh dear, worried that the 'little people' might lower the tone in your favourite exclusive haunts?"
Buy-to-lets fuck up every housing market. I just can't get my head round this at all. Instead of someone moving out of a housing association property when they're ready to buy their own home they will now more than likely let it out or sell it and make money on it.
How does that make sense when housing is such a precious resource and there are currently over 9,000,000 living in private rented accommodation?
Most will Buy-to-live.
BTW, this Housing Association rented = good, Private rented = bad, makes no sense either. Have another glass of fizz, and chill.
"Changes to welfare to cut EU migration will be an absolute requirement in the renegotiation� We have already banned housing benefit for EU jobseekers, and restricted other benefits, including Jobseeker's Allowance. We will insist that EU migrants who want to claim tax credits and child benefit must live here and contribute to our country for a minimum of four years� This will reduce the financial incentive for lower-paid, lower- skilled workers to come to Britain� We will introduce a new residency requirement for social housing, so that EU migrants cannot even be considered for a council house unless they have been living in an area for at least four years� If an EU migrant’s child is living abroad, then they should receive no child benefit or child tax credit, no matter how long they have worked in the UK and no matter how much tax they have paid� To reduce the numbers of EU migrants coming to Britain, we will end the ability of EU jobseekers to claim any job-seeking benefits at all. And if jobseekers have not found a job within six months, they will be required to leave�"
"We want to toughen requirements for non-EU spouses to join EU citizens, including with an income threshold and English language test"
"We will reform the student visa system with new measures to tackle abuse and reduce the numbers of students overstaying once their visas expire"
"And to encourage better integration into our society, we will also require those coming to Britain on a family visa with only basic English to become more fluent over time, with new language tests for those seeking a visa extension"
Mr. Grandiose, "It's deceitful. It's unfunded. I support it."
Doubling 'free' childcare will be popular, but seems crackers to me.
It's an excellent policy which will likely cost very little due to the income tax receipts that result from more parents being able to work.
Tax free minimum wage sounds very expensive though - if the MW rises to £8 an hour by the end of the parliament then that implies a personal allowance of £14,100 by 2020 (8 * 37.5 * 47). And presumably NI thresholds will not rise too.
I don't think it's a 37.5 multiple - I think it's 30. Or is for the moment, I don't know the plans that well.
Edit: Yes, 30. Or £11,280 overall. Not cheap though.
Then it's a sham then. 30 hours a week is not a full time job.
It think it's the Labour Force Survey definition. Not a sham but obviously the policy could go further.
In a way if you said you were full-time I would imagine 35 hours but I can't really argue if you said you were on 30.
'Instead of someone moving out of a housing association property when they're ready to buy their own home they will now more than likely let it out or sell it and make money on it.'
As with many of the older blocks of flats in London a clause can be inserted that property is for owner occupation only.
Tory manifesto now up and available through link on BBC news. I've gone straight to Defence. If they mean all of this, I see it hard to reconcile with any further major cuts in the Defence budget:
"We will continue to keep our Armed Forces strong so they can continue to keep you safe. We will maintain the size of the regular armed services and not reduce the army to below 82,000� We will retain the Trident continuous at sea nuclear deterrent to provide the ultimate guarantee of our safety and build the new fleet of four Successor Ballistic Missile Submarines – securing thousands of highly-skilled engineering jobs in the UK� We will work closely with our allies to continue to strengthen NATO – supporting its new multi-national rapid response force� We will maintain our global presence, strengthening our defence partnerships in the Gulf and Asia� Later this year, we will hold a National Security Strategy and Strategic Defence and Security Review to plan for the future�
We can only have strong, well-funded Armed Forces by continuing to build a stronger economy� We have the second largest defence budget in NATO and the largest in the EU� We are meeting NATO’s two targets: that each country should spend two per cent of its gross national income on defence, and of that spending 20 per cent should go on major equipment� We have made commitments for the equipment plan to be funded at one per cent above inflation for the next Parliament� We plan to invest at least £160 billion in new military equipment over the next decade: as well as our six new Type 45 destroyers, we are building a class of seven Astute submarines and buying the Joint Strike Fighter, Scout armoured vehicles, Type 26 frigates and new Apache attack helicopters� We will bring both of our new Aircraft Carriers – HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales, the largest vessels the Royal Navy has ever possessed – into service, so we have one available for use at all times� We will continue to seek value for money in defence procurement, recognising the important contribution that the UK defence industry makes to our prosperity�"
If they'd committed to meeting the NATO target over the next parliament, and I believed it to be true, yes.
"Changes to welfare to cut EU migration will be an absolute requirement in the renegotiation� We have already banned housing benefit for EU jobseekers, and restricted other benefits, including Jobseeker's Allowance. We will insist that EU migrants who want to claim tax credits and child benefit must live here and contribute to our country for a minimum of four years� This will reduce the financial incentive for lower-paid, lower- skilled workers to come to Britain� We will introduce a new residency requirement for social housing, so that EU migrants cannot even be considered for a council house unless they have been living in an area for at least four years� If an EU migrant’s child is living abroad, then they should receive no child benefit or child tax credit, no matter how long they have worked in the UK and no matter how much tax they have paid� To reduce the numbers of EU migrants coming to Britain, we will end the ability of EU jobseekers to claim any job-seeking benefits at all. And if jobseekers have not found a job within six months, they will be required to leave�"
"We want to toughen requirements for non-EU spouses to join EU citizens, including with an income threshold and English language test"
"We will reform the student visa system with new measures to tackle abuse and reduce the numbers of students overstaying once their visas expire"
"And to encourage better integration into our society, we will also require those coming to Britain on a family visa with only basic English to become more fluent over time, with new language tests for those seeking a visa extension"
UKIP winning here - even with only two mps defending seats.
Interesting looking at these polls looks like Tories could hold many of the Northern marginals. Cameron said something that I'm not sure is true when launching the manifesto that "The north is growing faster than the south" does anyone have figures to back this up? Thanx.
Comments
Con 275 Lab 281 LD 20 UKIP 2 SNP 48
Plenty of Tory MPs find fox-hunting grotesque, outdated, and no longer acceptable on animal welfare grounds. Like Grandiose, I fail to see how it would win out in a free vote and I'm sure most Countryside Alliance voters know this too. There are plenty of sensitive souls, with little exposure to rural reality or traditions, in the millions of young urban professional voters that the Tories need to capture if they harbour serious ambitions of a majority. It is wrong to state that people strongly opposed to fox hunting wouldn't consider voting Tory: about a third of Tory voters support or strongly support a ban according to this YouGov poll, though admittedly that's lower than other parties (even UKIP).
The last shall be the first.
So you are dismissing a policy based on dodgy statistics related to the most expensive single sub-market in the UK?
Just want to understand correctly
Who prophesize with your pen
And keep your eyes wide
The chance won't come again
And don't speak too soon
For the wheel's still in spin
And there's no tellin' who
That it's namin'
For the loser now
Will be later to win
For the polls they are a-changin'
A fair few Tory MPs who weren't convinced would probably absent themselves due to urgent constituency business, to avoid riling allies and colleagues, whilst those wanting repeal would be highly motivated to vote.
The Government could make it appear more reasonable and centrist by not proposing to go back 100% to the antebellum (Labour might just reintroduce it a few years later) but legalise and better regulate it, as Blair wanted.
Perhaps a second home in the Cotswolds or on the Devon coast? Or if their housing association property was in Pimlico maybe a modest little pied a terre on the Promenade des Anglais?
UKIP to win 400 council seats.
twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/587892492877561856
But those stats mean that SO is even more wrong... let's take his idea of a £650,000 replacement cost - a minimum block of flats would be, say, 8 units - so the total cost per unit is sub £100K, while the market price for a flat is probably (haven't checked) closer to £150-200K even in the most far flung parts of London
https://medwaygreenparty.wordpress.com/category/neil-williams/
I am a very vocal UKIP supporter, a member of the party and was a possible candidate but even I am too cowardly to have a UKIP sign outside my house for fear of people thinking bad of me
Thing is, they asked for me to confirm my name (more than once) before anything else, and the call centre reeked of PPI, so I hang up. But it's got me thinking!
Those that do hunt have come up with a modus operandi that works for them (and the Sabs) and gradually the whole thing will be forgotten.
Labour: envy Conservative: aspiration
Far better to spend the defence budget on a professional and voluntary military.
For example UKIP were on 13% with Ashcroft yesterday, 69% were certain to vote that way, leaving a total of 4% up for grabs who may change their mind. 100% of these aren't going to be Conservatives.
Indignant. In the same way I felt when Tony stole the Tories clothes.
I won't put a Tory sign in my window because I don't want to be a target for non-Tory neighbours.
A free vote on hunting was in the coalition agreement, but the government chose to not hold the vote.
"We will continue to keep our Armed Forces strong so they can continue to keep you safe. We will maintain the size of the regular armed services and not reduce the army
to below 82,000� We will retain the Trident continuous at sea nuclear deterrent to provide the ultimate guarantee
of our safety and build the new fleet of four Successor Ballistic Missile Submarines – securing thousands of highly-skilled engineering jobs in the UK� We will work closely with our allies to continue to strengthen NATO
– supporting its new multi-national rapid response force� We will maintain our global presence, strengthening our defence partnerships in the Gulf and Asia� Later this year, we will hold a National Security Strategy and Strategic Defence and Security Review to plan for the future�
We can only have strong, well-funded Armed Forces by continuing to build a stronger economy� We have the second largest defence budget in NATO and the largest in the EU� We are meeting NATO’s two targets: that each country should spend two per cent of its gross national income on defence, and of that spending 20 per cent should go on major equipment� We have made commitments for the equipment plan to be funded at one per cent above inflation for the next Parliament� We plan to invest at least £160 billion in new military equipment over the next decade: as well as our six new Type 45 destroyers, we are building a class of seven Astute submarines and buying the Joint Strike Fighter, Scout armoured vehicles, Type 26 frigates and
new Apache attack helicopters� We will bring both of our new Aircraft Carriers – HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales, the largest vessels the Royal Navy has ever possessed – into service, so we have one available for use at all times� We will continue to seek value for money in defence procurement, recognising the important contribution that the UK defence industry makes to our prosperity�"
Fox hunting by hounds is vile, cruel, disgusting- a sport where an animal is hunted by a pack of dogs and ripped apart at the end. Even the Italians think its cruel- they use dogs for driving the animal out of it's cover, but they shoot the animal at the end and then eat it.
Fox hunting is just killing barbarically for killings sake.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3037813/How-Red-Ken-helped-write-Ed-s-manifesto-ANDREW-PIERCE-stories-spin-doctors-DON-T-want-read.html
Explains why it was so s##t.
Owls to chuck out at the first hint of negotiations with... the Lib Dems.
our local UKIP candidate is a Physics teacher in a local school.
"Oh dear, worried that the 'little people' might lower the tone in your favourite exclusive haunts?"
Buy-to-lets fuck up every housing market. I just can't get my head round this at all. Instead of someone moving out of a housing association property when they're ready to buy their own home they will now more than likely let it out or sell it and make money on it.
How does that make sense when housing is such a precious resource and there are currently over 9,000,000 living in private rented accommodation?
Ed's done it again. World photo exclusive coming up.
Has he progressed to a sausage roll now?
BTW, this Housing Association rented = good, Private rented = bad, makes no sense either. Have another glass of fizz, and chill.
"Changes to welfare to cut EU migration will be an absolute requirement in the renegotiation� We have already banned housing benefit for EU jobseekers, and restricted other benefits, including Jobseeker's Allowance. We will insist that EU migrants who want to claim tax credits and child benefit must live here and contribute
to our country for a minimum of four years� This will reduce the financial incentive for lower-paid, lower- skilled workers to come to Britain� We will introduce a new residency requirement for social housing, so that EU migrants cannot even be considered for a council house unless they have been living in an area for at least four years� If an EU migrant’s child is living abroad, then they should receive no child benefit or child tax credit, no matter how long they have worked in the UK and
no matter how much tax they have paid� To reduce the numbers of EU migrants coming to Britain, we will end the ability of EU jobseekers to claim any job-seeking benefits at all. And if jobseekers have not found a job within six months, they will be required to leave�"
"We want to toughen requirements for non-EU spouses to join EU citizens, including with an income threshold and English language test"
"We will reform the student visa system with new measures to tackle abuse and reduce the numbers of students overstaying once their visas expire"
"And to encourage better integration into our society, we will also require those coming to Britain on a family visa with only basic English to become more fluent over time, with new language tests for those seeking a visa extension"
In a way if you said you were full-time I would imagine 35 hours but I can't really argue if you said you were on 30.
'Instead of someone moving out of a housing association property when they're ready to buy their own home they will now more than likely let it out or sell it and make money on it.'
As with many of the older blocks of flats in London a clause can be inserted that property is for owner occupation only.
Trouble is I don't trust them on Defence.