Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
OnePhilT

General Election 2019

General Election 2019 Poll  

70 members have voted

This poll is closed to new votes
  1. 1. Who will you be voting for in the 2019 General Election?

    • Conservative
      24
    • Labour
      34
    • SNP
      1
    • Liberal Democrat
      6
    • DUP
      0
    • Green Party
      0
    • Independent Group for Change
      0
    • Brexit Party
      2
    • UKIP
      0
    • Plaid Cymru
      2
    • Independent candidate
      0
    • Other
      1


Recommended Posts

Just now, 47er said:

I never really expected Johnson to show up for this.

Don't expect to read Chaddy calling him a coward or chicken either.

So why did Jeremy and Sturgeon agree ? 

Sounds like another Tory party / BBC stitch up.

Neil is a Tory after all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Dreyski said:

Depends how much the press supress it.

Fake news its an old report seized upon by Albert Steptoe and the reds to divert attention away from the fact that their party are sh*t.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, old darwen blue said:

Corbyn is dangerous for this country. Full stop. 

Good. We need the old guard shaking up because what we have now simply is not working for millions of people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I ask why this poll has been closed? I can't see anything in the thread to justify the action. I wanted to vote having just spotted the thread.

@Tom @K-Hod @OnePhilT 

Thanks

Edited by Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Paul said:

Can I ask why this poll has been closed? I can't see anything in the thread to justify the action. I wanted to vote having just spotted the thread.

@Tom @K-Hod @OnePhilT 

Thanks

Chaddy has put in a complaint in the Torry's are behind. 

joke by the way

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, schoey said:

Posted in the Brexit thread by mistake, but surely this should have a huge impact on voting?

Have you read all 451 pages? 

As Matt Hancock and Boris Johnson have said the NHS "IS NOT SALE". 

Corbyn is playing games with this after his appalling interview with Andrew Neil

7 hours ago, 47er said:

I never really expected Johnson to show up for this.

Don't expect to read Chaddy calling him a coward or chicken either.

I would call smart and clever politics. 

7 hours ago, jim mk2 said:

So why did Jeremy and Sturgeon agree ? 

Sounds like another Tory party / BBC stitch up.

Neil is a Tory after all

No one forced these people to go on. Its was their choice. 

Now Corbyn has pulled out of the rest of the debates. 

Neil is fair and honest. He is the best political interviewer going. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then Boris should have no problem going on like Corbyn did, eh Chaddy? 
You had no problem calling him a chicken before, so does Johnson get the same treatment if he elects not to go on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, K-Hod said:

Then Boris should have no problem going on like Corbyn did, eh Chaddy? 
You had no problem calling him a chicken before, so does Johnson get the same treatment if he elects not to go on?

Why would he go on now? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, chaddyrovers said:
7 hours ago, 47er said:

I never really expected Johnson to show up for this.

Don't expect to read Chaddy calling him a coward or chicken either.

I would call smart and clever politics. 

As you say Neil is "fair and honest" unlike Johnson. So when Corbyn wasn't calling an election when you fancied it, he was a "coward" but when Johnson chickens out of a debate that the other leaders have undergone Its "smart and clever politics"? I'd say it was the act of a weasel. And I'd further say you have no concept of morality.

Also remember that when Corbyn agreed to that debate it was on the basis that the Lib-Dem and Tory leaders were also up for it. Johnson has only pulled out after the others have fronted up.What a bastard.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Why would he go on now? 

Because he’s the prime minister and he’s supposed to be setting the example?

Why wouldn’t he? If Neil is as good an interviewer as you say, then surely the PM and the man that wants to continue to be PM has nothing to lose?

If nothing else, it’s double standards from you. I remember you criticising Corbyn heavily for not appearing on tv previously when challenged by Johnson. Which is obviously your right, but it lacks credibility if you don’t apply the same standards across the board.

Edited by K-Hod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand, or respect, this idea to build 100,000 new council houses but then remove the right to buy scheme. In my eyes that is just creating a cycle of poverty and state dependence.

If someone can explain the pros to this policy I'll be interested to hear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the graph that matters.

Shift more of those Tory Remainers out of the Tory camp and Johnson is stopped.

The more it appears Corbyn cannot win a majority, the easier it is to shift them.

image.png.39d051010c51e7101e66baea30300971.png 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dreams of 1995 said:

I don't understand, or respect, this idea to build 100,000 new council houses but then remove the right to buy scheme. In my eyes that is just creating a cycle of poverty and state dependence.

If someone can explain the pros to this policy I'll be interested to hear.

.....because the nation is desperately short of housing and has been for many years, there are homeless people all over our towns and cities,  and the Tories won't build them because they are ideologically opposed to them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, chaddyrovers said:

Even Lord Sugar says this Corbyn NHS story is BS

 

Screenshot_20191128-080051_Twitter.jpg

Sugar is a Tory.....what would you expect him to say?

Johnson should face Neill like the others but he won't because he "chicken, scared" ...... the words you threw at Jeremy before the election

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, K-Hod said:

Because he’s the prime minister and he’s supposed to be setting the example?

Why wouldn’t he? If Neil is as good an interviewer as you say, then surely the PM and the man that wants to continue to be PM has nothing to lose?

If nothing else, it’s double standards from you. I remember you criticising Corbyn heavily for not appearing on tv previously when challenged by Johnson. Which is obviously your right, but it lacks credibility if you don’t apply the same standards across the board.

Self-proclaimed genius and brilliant negotiator Johnson is "not available" for a 30 mins slot in front of a few million British voters ... 

... just as Johnson was ALWAYS "unavailable" for scrutiny and questioning by any Parliamentary Committee, in contrast to ALL former PMs.   Never showed.  

Johnson doesn't DO detail
Johnson doesn't DO Strategy or Planning
Johnson does Bullsh%tting and Piffle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, chaddyrovers said:

Even Lord Sugar says this Corbyn NHS story is BS

 

Screenshot_20191128-080051_Twitter.jpg

He literally has proof in the form of the un-redacted documents?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, jim mk2 said:

.....because the nation is desperately short of housing and has been for many years, there are homeless people all over our towns and cities,  and the Tories won't build them because they are ideologically opposed to them

And removing the right to buy scheme helps who? Whilst the Tories have a lack of appetite for social housing I refuse to believe that removing any right to buy is helpful in removing people out of poverty and state dependence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

I don't understand, or respect, this idea to build 100,000 new council houses but then remove the right to buy scheme. In my eyes that is just creating a cycle of poverty and state dependence.

If someone can explain the pros to this policy I'll be interested to hear.

So you'd build 100,000 new council houses and then sell them off at knock down prices to the new occupants ? I must be missing something here.

Edited by Tyrone Shoelaces

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, philipl said:

This is the graph that matters.

Shift more of those Tory Remainers out of the Tory camp and Johnson is stopped.

The more it appears Corbyn cannot win a majority, the easier it is to shift them.

image.png.39d051010c51e7101e66baea30300971.png 

Philip, I first voted in the summer election of 1970. In the 50 years since then not one polling organisation has asked me how I was going to vote. The polls are miniscule compared with the electorate, that's why they're wrong more often than they are right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

So you'd build 100,000 new council houses and then sell them off at knock down prices to the new occupants ? I must be missing something here.

Hang about, it was you yesterday that was giving me all this about "the greater good" and the need to sacrifice. If we are to build 100,000 new homes why would I then expect the state to a) maintain them; b) employ an entire department to manage them throughout their 100+ year life cycle; c) not allow the occupants, whose benefits / income is used to subsidise their living there, ever have the right to actually own their own home?

If we are sitting here telling people to sacrifice then what is the issue with building the homes and then allowing people the right to buy at some point? I am the one who is missing something..............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

Hang about, it was you yesterday that was giving me all this about "the greater good" and the need to sacrifice. If we are to build 100,000 new homes why would I then expect the state to a) maintain them; b) employ an entire department to manage them throughout their 100+ year life cycle; c) not allow the occupants, whose benefits / income is used to subsidise their living there, ever have the right to actually own their own home?

If we are sitting here telling people to sacrifice then what is the issue with building the homes and then allowing people the right to buy at some point? I am the one who is missing something..............

Yeah and then the people that buy them sell them at a profit to absentee landlords who charge the earth to the new tenants. And around and around we go. Have you got anymore good ideas ?

Edited by Tyrone Shoelaces

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

I don't understand, or respect, this idea to build 100,000 new council houses but then remove the right to buy scheme. In my eyes that is just creating a cycle of poverty and state dependence.

If someone can explain the pros to this policy I'll be interested to hear.

I could wax lyrical for a long time about this (those who know me will also know that as part of my job I successfully campaigned and gave extensive evidence in the Scottish Parliament to end RTB in Scotland) but I will respond with just two comments.

1. RTB has undoubtedly helped a few individuals. And I do mean a few. However, it has been at a loss to the greater public good and millions of homes have been lost to the social rented sector, which leads me onto the second, and crucial point...

2. Many of the properties sold at massive discount have now found their way into the private rented sector. Some of these private rents are more than double what the rent would have been had the property remained under 'social rent'. This is costing the taxpayer an additional £2 billion EVERY YEAR in the 'extra' housing benefit being paid out to private tenants in ex-social rented accommodation. What were you saying about the cycle of poverty and state dependence? And this is without even considering the loss of security of tenure effected by this migration from 'social rent' to 'private rent'.

Even the Tories on this side of the border were left speechless with that stat.

So, having the right to buy isn't the issue here, indeed everyone already does have the right to buy - if they can afford it. It is the right to high discount that was the problem really, and the subsequent and inevitable lack of reinvestment in building replacement social housing.

Playing a large part in helping to abolish RTB in Scotland remains my proudest career achievement.

Edited by oldjamfan1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dreams of 1995 said:

Hang about, it was you yesterday that was giving me all this about "the greater good" and the need to sacrifice. If we are to build 100,000 new homes why would I then expect the state to a) maintain them; b) employ an entire department to manage them throughout their 100+ year life cycle; c) not allow the occupants, whose benefits / income is used to subsidise their living there, ever have the right to actually own their own home?

If we are sitting here telling people to sacrifice then what is the issue with building the homes and then allowing people the right to buy at some point? I am the one who is missing something..............

What they would be given, and should be given, is security of tenure, just as it used to be. And their rents would not blow out beyond their ability to pay.

In other words they would have a home as opposed to an investment.

If they wanted a housing investment those who could afford it, would be able to leave and buy one, thus freeing the Council house for a family who couldn't.

Fair eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.