Politics at Westminster | BREAKING: UKIP

Why has the UK built so few/not enough homes over the past decade or two (longer?) Building homes must surely be lucrative in this high demand market? Too much red tape for investors/developers? Tax too high?

Does it suit governments to keep the status quo of the mainly voting-aged generation just having the value of their houses ever increasing at the expense of everyone else? To many people below 30 it is literally unaffordable to buy a home. Should they just piss off to somewhere cheaper in the country or are they being wronged? What is the real reason not enough houses are being built...

Actually building houses and trying to sell them can be risky. Holding large amounts of empty land has been a very profitable business for the last few years, with no risky actual work involved.

Also, relevant to the story linked, whenever Grant Schnapps says something is going to happen, it is actually physically impossible for that thing to happen. It's the Michael Green Bollocks Paradox.
 
Actually building houses and trying to sell them can be risky. Holding large amounts of empty land has been a very profitable business for the last few years, with no risky actual work involved.

Also, relevant to the story linked, whenever Grant Schnapps says something is going to happen, it is actually physically impossible for that thing to happen. It's the Michael Green Bollocks Paradox.

In what respect? Just letting the value rise then selling? The government should find a way to tax it more effectively so that building homes is the most lucrative option because at this point it has not just become expensive to buy, but practically impossible for young professionals. Building homes should take priority over people making personal gains on vast amounts of land/property.
 
I doubt it, isn't Labour very much pro europe? I haven't heard much dissenting voices, its just when Ed isn't answering questions.
 
I doubt it, isn't Labour very much pro europe? I haven't heard much dissenting voices, its just when Ed isn't answering questions.

The Labour Party is officially pro-Europe, but many of its heartland voters are becoming increasingly anti-EU and probably more significantly, anti-immigration and feeling unprotected by Labour's stance on the issue. It's those kind of supporters that Labour is/will continue to lose to UKIP.
 
The Labour Party is officially pro-Europe, but many of its heartland voters are becoming increasingly anti-EU and probably more significantly, anti-immigration and feeling unprotected by Labour's stance on the issue. It's those kind of supporters that Labour is/will continue to lose to UKIP.
They've always lost them to the tories, I still don't think it would stop them from winning. If people have any sense they will not vote for a party that does feck all in Europe and has no clear plan of what it wants to besides leaving.
 
I wouldn't be too smug about UKIP ravaging the Tories, they are poised to ravage Labour as well.

Speaking as a Labour supporter, incidentally.
Won't be close to the same scale, and Labour are picking up disaffected Lib Dems by way of compensation.
 
They've always lost them to the tories, I still don't think it would stop them from winning. If people have any sense they will not vote for a party that does feck all in Europe and has no clear plan of what it wants to besides leaving.

They haven't actually, it's quite a new and real threat that we saw in the elections in May. Stronghold Labour areas that should have seen massive gains being shaken by UKIP's progress. I know a few anecdotally who have made the switch membership wise. I don't really buy into the whole 'politicians have no idea about the real world' argument but its true that Labour have a big problem trying to maintain all of their support bases given that they are in many ways contradictory to each other e.g. strong support amongst migrant communities vs. white working class voters worried about immigration.

That said, if they don't win I think it will be because the Shadow Cabinet is so weak rather than because of floods to UKIP.
 
Threat level 'severe'. No evidence of an imminent terror attack but an attack in the UK is 'highly likely'.

If this is in response to Foley why wasn't it done sooner? Am I being cynical in pointing out he looks weaker than ever right now at the point when this happens?
 
Its all scaremongering until something happens, then it blame the Govt for not warning us earlier.
 
What exactly do we do with this brand new information? It's just pointless fiddling to make it look like the government is doing something. Because we all know something must be done. Especially when there's a couple of embarrassing stories to get off the front pages.
 
Won't be close to the same scale, and Labour are picking up disaffected Lib Dems by way of compensation.

That's what the chattering classes think, but living and working with a lot of natural Labour supporters I have found many to be anti-europe and anti-immigration, as Agent Red says. We can all read the current opinion polls, I am trying to look further.
 
That's what the chattering classes think, but living and working with a lot of natural Labour supporters I have found many to be anti-europe and anti-immigration, as Agent Red says. We can all read the current opinion polls, I am trying to look further.
I'm sure there are a solid number that think that way given that many previously went over to the BNP, but the point is that the tories have a battle on two fronts with UKIP, given that both their working class voters as well as their right wingers are both amenable to such ideas. Add that to Labour being far the main beneficiaries of the Lib Dem collapse, and I think it's safe to say the tories will be hit much harder next year.
 
What exactly do we do with this brand new information? It's just pointless fiddling to make it look like the government is doing something. Because we all know something must be done. Especially when there's a couple of embarrassing stories to get off the front pages.

It's not really for our benefit as random members of the public, nor that of the media. This is an official grading which will trigger various practices in the security and intelligence services which may not have been commissioned under the previous threat level. As the PM mentioned, there will be very little difference to the random man on the street, except that we might notice more visibly armed security or find ourselves subject to more frequent/thorough security checks.

I'm sure there are a solid number that think that way given that many previously went over to the BNP, but the point is that the tories have a battle on two fronts with UKIP, given that both their working class voters as well as their right wingers are both amenable to such ideas. Add that to Labour being far the main beneficiaries of the Lib Dem collapse, and I think it's safe to say the tories will be hit much harder next year.

Maybe, we didn't see that during the local elections though. People were touting huge Tory losses and Labour victories then, but in reality whilst Labour of course made gains I think they would have been disappointed with their returns, whilst the Tories were likely relieved. And that's with the Lib Dem > Labour losses factored in.

I appreciate that in a General people are much less likely to vote for a Party such as UKIP than they might be in Local/European elections, and that turnout will be higher, but I don't think UKIP are going to decimate the Tories to Labour's gain as much as is being touted.
 
It's not really for our benefit as random members of the public, nor that of the media. This is an official grading which will trigger various practices in the security and intelligence services which may not have been commissioned under the previous threat level. As the PM mentioned, there will be very little difference to the random man on the street, except that we might notice more visibly armed security or find ourselves subject to more frequent/thorough security .

If it's not for us, why the big press conference announcement and associated media appearances? The only reason is because the government suddenly want to be seen to be doing something, to cover up the bad news. It's not like the international situation has suddenly deteriorated in the last day.
 
It's not really for our benefit as random members of the public, nor that of the media. This is an official grading which will trigger various practices in the security and intelligence services which may not have been commissioned under the previous threat level. As the PM mentioned, there will be very little difference to the random man on the street, except that we might notice more visibly armed security or find ourselves subject to more frequent/thorough security checks.



Maybe, we didn't see that during the local elections though. People were touting huge Tory losses and Labour victories then, but in reality whilst Labour of course made gains I think they would have been disappointed with their returns, whilst the Tories were likely relieved. And that's with the Lib Dem > Labour losses factored in.

I appreciate that in a General people are much less likely to vote for a Party such as UKIP than they might be in Local/European elections, and that turnout will be higher, but I don't think UKIP are going to decimate the Tories to Labour's gain as much as is being touted.
Everything's relative, and given that it's currently unlikely that the tories will be the biggest party come June 2015 despite the state of the current opposition and a quickly growing economy, I'd say UKIP are having a pretty big effect on things. Without them, I don't have much doubt there'd be a tory majority on the way.
 
If it's not for us, why the big press conference announcement and associated media appearances? The only reason is because the government suddenly want to be seen to be doing something, to cover up the bad news. It's not like the international situation has suddenly deteriorated in the last day.

Because it's still of national interest and significant news. What 'bad news' are they covering up? The situation in Syria and Iraq is clearly horrific and has been for some time. The increase in security rating could simply be because of the cumulative length of time and numbers of would be terrorists still in play. It doesn't necessarily mean there has been one specific trigger (in which case a move to the top level may have been on the cards) but rather a response to the continuing situation and lack of breakthrough to date.

I just don't get why with this announcement everyone is so keen to jump on the government and imply this is some kind of self service they are doing. What are they supposed to do, ignore the fact the terror threat has changed? How would they defend that in the instance that there is an attack? The situation has changed and there's been a response to it, as there should be.

Everything's relative, and given that it's currently unlikely that the tories will be the biggest party come June 2015 despite the state of the current opposition and a quickly growing economy, I'd say UKIP are having a pretty big effect on things. Without them, I don't have much doubt there'd be a tory majority on the way.

I do agree with you that UKIP will damage the Tories more than Labour, but I don't think it will be as one sided or extreme as some are predicting. It's very hard to call at the moment, I still wouldn't rule out a Tory majority even with UKIP in play. Labour are still nowhere on a lot of the key issues and even amongst Labour membership I think there's doubt as to whether they're ready to govern again. It's a shame they shipped so much of their experience to the back benches, the likes of Alastair Darling could do a great job in Cabinet with his experience and level headedness.
 
The big question is how many of the Labour UKIP voters who have voted UKIP in the EU elections will vote for them again versus how many Conservatives who have voted UKIP on several occasions and then returned to conservative will instead stay with UKIP. I think this will be the key factor in the next election.,
 
So many rumours going around now as a result of this upgrade in terror status. All of which are BS.
 
Last edited:
Miliband makes speech. Mentions conversation with man named Gareth. Newsnight tracks down Gareth, resulting in the following...

6EYUZAu.png
 
Miliband makes speech. Mentions conversation with man named Gareth. Newsnight tracks down Gareth, resulting in the following...
Saw that last night :lol:

It's the quotation marks that make it.
 
Looks a bit like "Gareth". Bet he's been meeting Nigel Farage in some cheap hotel rooms of late.
 
The worst of the austerity measures are yet to come . Who ever gets in power , it's just a matter of how it will be handled.
 
And in the meantime Cameron's pledged to stop 18-21 year olds from getting job seekers or housing benefit. That's going to win them lots of votes isn't it?
Wasn't getting my vote anyway, I don't see why we have to suffer for the crimes of the older generations.
 
A freeze on working age benefits for two years. Tories in full swing. Keep piling it on the not so well off.
 
A freeze on working age benefits for two years. Tories in full swing. Keep piling it on the not so well off.

No surprise.

The Thick Of It
'I've spent ten years detoxifying this party. It's been a bit like renovating an old, old house, yeah? You can take out a sexist beam here, a callous window there, replace the odd homophobic roof tile, but after a while you realise this renovation is doomed because the foundations are built upon what I can only describe as a solid bed of cnuts.'
 
The old tax promise. Never fails. Lib Dems will be pissed , Tories have stolen their clothes. Meanwhile a Tory donor as switched to UKIP giving them a million pounds.
 
Last edited:
And in the meantime Cameron's pledged to stop 18-21 year olds from getting job seekers or housing benefit. That's going to win them lots of votes isn't it?

Yes, it will. There was a thread on the Caf only last week and nearly everyone was arguing that young unemployed people should, after a certain time on benefits, be subject to increased conditionality/compulsory work of benefit to the community, or face losing their benefits.