So Cameron has worked out how to fix the housing market. People cannot afford to buy homes. "I know, let's give them some help at the expense of the Taxpayer". I mean, it's not as if house prices will go barrelling out of reach again with the increased and serviceable demand that will result. Genius. Have these ass-clowns even heard of the word economics? FFS. With the Democrats and Republicans determined to bring rioting to the streets of the USA, I am seriously wondering if democracy serves any useful purpose in the real world. Edit: I wish my keyboard knew how to spell 'schemes'
Agree with the OP. what a way to blow the housing market bubble up only for the taxpayer to pick up the bill when it crashes... I have a mortgage, but will not jump on this bandwagon just to get a bigger house...
It is all about who can make themselves more attractive to the voters, most of whom don't have a clue. So as well as reforming politics with open primaries, the power of recall, removing the whips and making MPs more accountable to the people let's remove the vote from anyone who doesn't pay tax.
Y'day reports of 0% loans for serviceman for up to 50% of their salary, max £25k. If someone gets hurt in the queens colours, we should do all we can to help them rehabilitate and give them a quality of life. Otherwise they should do what the rest of us do. Save and mortgage.
Many service personnel in all ranks are obliged to move about from place to place during their career without option, sometimes overseas, sometimes at short notice. As a result they keep renting homes (quarters) and not getting on the housing ladder. It is tough to start on the housing ladder mid-life, especially if you get little or nothing as a lump sum on leaving the service. I feel some sympathy with service men over this - and by the way I have never been in the armed forces, so have no personal interest.
"Removing the whips"? What could you possibly mean by that? How would that work? And if such a situation could exist, how would it be an improvement?
Whips are used to ensure MP's toe the party line and in doing so MP's are more accountable to the party than the electorate. If you believe the democratic power of the electorate is hijacked by those at the top of the party machines, and I do, then the whips are how that power is controlled.
The House of Commons has 650 MPs. One MP on their own can achieve nothing. They have to aggregate into groups which agree common purposes between them, and agree to support one another's initiatives in voting. That is the only way a majority can be assembled so as to achieve any kind of legislative or executive actions. That is what parties are. In a mature democracy there is a continual stream of political issues coming along, requiring thousands of votes each year. Most MPs want to support their party colleagues most of the time in votes on most issues. But any MP has an absolute right to vote otherwise any time s/he chooses; if they do often vote against their colleagues though, they can hardly expect those colleagues to vote for their initiatives in turn. Whips are the mechanism for keeping MP's informed what votes are coming up, whether they are important, and which way they should vote on each one if they want to support their party colleagues. Some kind of (possibly informal) whipping system naturally arises in every parliamentary democracy, or representative system of any kind. At General Elections in the UK, voters cast their ballots partly for the individual candidates but mainly for the parties and party leaders. If an MP is elected as nominee of a certain party but fails to vote with that party in parliament, the electorate would have a justified grievance.
Some folks vote for "The Party", and the candidate that comes along with it. Some, probably fewer, folks vote for an candidate, and the Party that comes along with it. I would have hoped that voters will be satisfied if the MP they voted in was acting in the interests of his constituents ... but realistically, voters use the party political system as a sort of shorthand, sparing them the hard work of working out what their actual MP really stands for. Easier that way.
my areas PCC portfolio and staff is in the region of 1.4 million this year so far.........not a week goes by that he isnt advertising for more staff at around 40 to 60 k per annum.....
Or, what they could do is put the difference between their rent (heavily subsidised) and a mortgage away until they settle. Oh and lets not forget the big leaving payment they receive and pension from an early age. One section of services we should support more is the police force. The good old tied houses, which meant they were always on call. Lets all live like it is in Doc Martin. I'd vote for that.
Surely anybody applying for the Services knows that they'll be shunted about during their career? Every job has it's downsides,if you know about it when sign up you can't bitch about it afterwards. It always amazes me that this kind of help and sympathy always goes to those in "Public Service",but not to the low-paid in the Private Sector. Like the "Key Worker",housing scheme, it only seems to apply to those who VOLUNTARILY join the NHS/Filth/Fire Service or whatever ,but then they discover they can't afford to live in the Cities .... I don't suppose London refuse collectors or Sewer maintenance men are called "Key Workers",but without them City dwellers would soon be in the sh*t....
Or the whips are bully boys who ensure discipline is kept ? OK, enforce votes on manifesto commitments and allow free votes on everything else with MP's accountable to their voters. If you accept the premise that parliamentary democracy and the cabinet system of government has been hijacked by the Prime Minister and his inner circle and believe that some degree of power needs to be returned to the electorate then how would you do that ? Maybe we should look at the Swiss system for some ideas. Similarly everyone thinks that the government is borrowing and spending too much money but can't think where £125,000,000,000 can be saved if we are to balance the budget. However realistically it would seem that balanced budgets are a thing of the past and a new paradigm of endless QE seems to be emerging.
"Hijacked" is a funny expression. So when do you say this alleged hijacking took place? 50 years ago? 100? 150? 200? 250? The powers of the Prime Minister and his inner circle (such as they are) have been much the same since the 18th century, and long before democracy on a wide franchise was introduced. But a UK Prime Minister can lose office at any moment, as soon as s/he fails to command the support of a majority in the Commons - unlike the Presidents of the USA, France and Russia, for example.
Whips are the less lazy bastards who want to make a name for themselves doing what they did at school - bullying useless more lazy twats. I have no faith in the political system in this country, therefore payment of direct taxes really does stick in my throat. Payment of indirect taxation is also a right royal pain in the arse.
Course no one can afford a house. The market has been propped up by the 'Brinks-MAT Bullion Robbery'.
I am an amateur follower of politics but my understanding is that until say 50 years ago individual Ministers exercised a greater degree of control over their Ministries though an ‘independent’ Civil Service with the Cabinet exercising Collective Responsibility to support the individual Minister. Now it would seem the Prime Minister has centralised power within Cabinet and uses Collective Responsibility to hide behind and ensure dissent is kept to a minimum. The Civil Service has been increasingly politicised through the use of appointed heads, SPADS and spin doctors. The only government at risk of losing a vote of confidence is a minority government, due to the activities of the whips. New MP’s are quickly brought to heel when they realise that their future is entirely dependent upon toeing the party line. It has been described as an elected dictatorship and I for one can see why. I have no doubt you will disagree.
