[Politics] The General Election Thread

[melias shoes]

I have had it with all the tory lies and, when you add in stuff like that above - can't even deal with flammable cladding, FFS - the tories are now Dead To Me.
.

I was under the impression that they already were to you H.

 

[Surrey Phil]

Either way a life is worth more than £30k.

Could there perhaps have been a fund? I'm sure there could have been lots of ways for the the government to step in and help tenants AND leaseholders.

We are employing a “waking watch” team at a cost of £10k p/w to monitor the building 24/7. We also have put a number of other measures in place, to ensure there is no risk to life. Unless you are in this field, it is incredibly complex. I agree funds could be given to private estates to help but I am sure if you asked the general public to give money to other property owners, for issues created by developers / building controls, you would get very mixed views.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

We are employing a “waking watch” team at a cost of £10k p/w to monitor the building 24/7. We also have put a number of other measures in place, to ensure there is no risk to life. Unless you are in this field, it is incredibly complex. I agree funds could be given to private estates to help but I am sure if you asked the general public to give money to other property owners, for issues created by developers / building controls, you would get very mixed views.

Cladding is on the outside of a building so surely it isn't the responsibility of the leaseholders? The owners of the building are responsible as far as I can see. They take money every month for service charges and ground rent, so they will have to raise the capital to make the building safe.

 

[Granny on the wing]

In which case, you sound like exactly the type of voter that Johnson, JRM and Cummings are t̶a̶r̶g̶e̶t̶t̶i̶n̶g̶ putting at the top of their agenda.

(And quite successfully, apparently )

I'm sure he was only joking

I`m guessing that a lot of Tory voters will be self employed or small business these days .It might have been Maggie`s master plan but that is how it is currently .It`s going to need a major upheaval to go back to a lot more employed with worker`s rights etc.

 

[Surrey Phil]

Cladding is on the outside of a building so surely it isn't the responsibility of the leaseholders? The owners of the building are responsible as far as I can see. They take money every month for service charges and ground rent, so they will have to raise the capital to make the building safe.

The leaseholders are the owners of the building in this case - FFS! There are many more buildings privately owned in the uk, than house associations etc

 

[Thunder Bolt]

The leaseholders are the owners of the building in this case - FFS! There are many more buildings privately owned in the uk, than house associations etc

Who mentioned housing associations? You are the manager for the freeholders?

 

[lawros left foot]

I said what I said, and it's true.

The women's vote was vigorously opposed by many women in 1916, that doesn't mean women today should be considered anti-women though does it.

These things are nowhere near as simple as you would like to pretend.

Infact, Millicent Garrett Fawcett believed that party-affiliated women’s organisations (such as the Primrose League) were essential to the fight to enfranchise women: “the organised political work of women has grown since 1884, and has become so valuable that none of the parties can afford to do without it or to alienate it.”

The Conservative Party were the first party to organise large numbers of women for political work through the Primrose League and had the largest body of politicised women in the nation. Leaders of the Conservative Party and many prominent male and female members had spoken in favor of female enfranchisement prior to 1918, and it was a coalition government, to which the Conservatives belonged, that voted the Representation of the People Act of 1918. It was a Conservative majority government in 1928 that enfranchised women on the same terms as men.

There are plenty of people today who simply believe that Conservatives opposed womens participation in politics, and that it was a liberal vs conservative battle which liberals won.

Sorry you are being lied to and manipulated by people you think are "the good guys".

Learn history, don't be a tool of political propaganda.

Thanks.

Oh , the irony.

A Tory telling me , I’ve been lied to.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

Governments can change regulations of course but with private estates the cost of compliance falls on the leaseholders. I manage a high rise building with 100 properties in and the cost to replace the cladding is just under £3m, that’s £30k per flat. Most leaseholders simply cannot raise that amount, so it is unrealistic to expect this to be a quick fix. The issue is with building regulations and in this buildings case it is 17 years old, so built in 2002 when Labour were in power!

Yes, but if its mandated the cost must be borne. I know you're not suggesting that it's better for 70+ people to have died than the building owner to spend 3m making the building safe, so there is no option but to do it. Bolton has brought that into sharp focus. I would have no problem with government subsidising it to some degree, if built under existing regulations government must accept some responsibility. But it has to be done.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Yes, but if its mandated the cost must be borne. I know you're not suggesting that it's better for 70+ people to have died than the building owner to spend 3m making the building safe, so there is no option but to do it. Bolton has brought that into sharp focus. I would have no problem with government subsidising it to some degree, if built under existing regulations government must accept some responsibility. But it has to be done.

I agree. Has the cladding been tested? We have cladding at the Amex, but Barber got it tested within weeks (or whoever is in charge of the fabric maintenance) and it isn't the flammable stuff.

If it has been tested and is flammable, then all insurances are null and void, and the poor flat owners are not going to able to sell up and move out either.

 

[dingodan]

Oh , the irony.

A Tory telling me , I’ve been lied to.

I'm not a tory.

I just happen to like the truth.

 

[deletebeepbeepbeep]

I wonder how Much more poor polls we will see before labour scramble to some arrangement with Lib Dems

Why on earth would Labour get into some arrangement with austerity enabling Lib Dems that voted through Tory policies resulting in 120,000 avoidable deaths.

Why do people still care about polls when after the 2017 exit polls were announced all the gormless pundits spent the next hour with their mouths hanging open.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

I'm not a tory.

I just happen to like the truth.

I really don't think we need to discuss the Tories positions of 1923 to score political points 96 years later.

Suffice to say the original point stands, the tories were against things that are now widely popular before they were for it, and thus their opposition to free broadband will hopefully dissipate in the future too :thumbup:

 

[dingodan]

I really don't think we need to discuss the Tories positions of 1923 to score political points 96 years later.

Suffice to say the original point stands, the tories were against things that are now widely popular before they were for it, and thus their opposition to free broadband will hopefully dissipate in the future too :thumbup:

Haha.

No need to discuss the past, but in the past...

The original point doesn't stand it falls flat on it's face. I didn't bring up the past to score points, someone else brought up the past, and now so are you (while at the same time dismissing the actual things that actually happened in the actual past).

The argument isn't simply about free broadband, I'm sure if broadband were really free nobody would oppose it would they. The issue is about broadband for all, which by the way is the goal of both parties. Some people think that they way you achieve that is by having the state take ownership of businesses. Others think that is a simplistic idea which won't work in practice, and they have a point.

If the state running things makes things better, why don't we have the state produce our mobile phones? Mobile phones are surely a neccessity these days, and there is enourmous mobile phone inequality. Some people have £800 handsets, some people have £50 handsets and can't possibly afford the new iphone or can't meet the conditions of the contracts required to get one.

Imagine for a moment that you no longer chose in a competitive market place between say Apple and Samsung, but instead the state made all mobile phones for the good of society. What do you imagine would happen? Higher quality devices next year? lower prices? great service? When the providers of a product or service are not competing with one another in order to make a profit, where does the incentive to innovate and improve come from? Altruism? Government targets?

The state is not a savior, nothing is free, the only money the state has, all of it, first has to be taken out of the economy, i.e. from you and me. Then we get something back, usually a lot less than what we paid for, after also having paid for the beauracracy, inflated no bid contracts, subsidies, nepotism, general corruption and waste, and a whole bunch of other great stuff.

 

[Nottseagull]

Corrected for you.

I don't missquote you, so don't do the same to me.

 

[BLOCK F]

I really don't think we need to discuss the Tories positions of 1923 to score political points 96 years later.

Suffice to say the original point stands, the tories were against things that are now widely popular before they were for it, and thus their opposition to free broadband will hopefully dissipate in the future too :thumbup:

A slightly different question but do you ever wonder where all the dosh will come from to pay for these evermore fantasy promises made by both the Tories and even more so the Labour party?
Most of these spending promises just won't materialise as they will prove, unworkable, unaffordable or both.
Methinks it will all end in tears , disappointment and disillusionment. It is a pity that our political parties are not more honest with the public.

 

[Nottseagull]

Suggestions that flammable cladding involved in the Bolton student fires. Ooops. How will Tories spin this one?

Which government implemented the building regs which allowed that cladding? You don't know, do you. Nor do I. Still, nothing like a disaster to score cheap election points against the government.

 

[Bakero]

Haha.

No need to discuss the past, but in the past...

The original point doesn't stand it falls flat on it's face. I didn't bring up the past to score points, someone else brought up the past, and now so are you (while at the same time dismissing the actual things that actually happened in the actual past).

The argument isn't simply about free broadband, I'm sure if broadband were really free nobody would oppose it would they. The issue is about broadband for all, which by the way is the goal of both parties. Some people think that they way you achieve that is by having the state take ownership of businesses. Others think that is a simplistic idea which won't work in practice, and they have a point.

If the state running things makes things better, why don't we have the state produce our mobile phones? Mobile phones are surely a neccessity these days, and there is enourmous mobile phone inequality. Some people have £800 handsets, some people have £50 handsets and can't possibly afford the new iphone or can't meet the conditions of the contracts required to get one.

Imagine for a moment that you no longer chose in a competitive market place between say Apple and Samsung, but instead the state made all mobile phones for the good of society. What do you imagine would happen? Higher quality devices next year? lower prices? great service? When the providers of a product or service are not competing with one another in order to make a profit, where does the incentive to innovate and improve come from? Altruism? Government targets?

The state is not a savior, nothing is free, the only money the state has, all of it, first has to be taken out of the economy, i.e. from you and me. Then we get something back, usually a lot less than what we paid for, after also having paid for the beauracracy, inflated no bid contracts, subsidies, nepotism, general corruption and waste, and a whole bunch of other great stuff.

You and me put money into the economy after having received education, not to mention healthcare, from the state. It's a circle, not a one way street. And drawing an equivalence between the type of handset and access to broadband is a red herring, as you well know.

The state may not be a saviour but neither is the market.

 

[Bakero]

A slightly different question but do you ever wonder where all the dosh will come from to pay for these evermore fantasy promises made by both the Tories and even more so the Labour party?
Most of these spending promises just won't materialise as they will prove, unworkable, unaffordable or both.
Methinks it will all end in tears , disappointment and disillusionment. It is a pity that our political parties are not more honest with the public.

Labour's last manifesto was fully costed so I expect this one to be too. The Tories expect blind faith in their trustworthiness.

 

[Butch Willykins]

check the facts before making inaccurate claims. Here's a fact for you. Many people died in a fire, where flammable cladding made the fire worse. roll on two years, it's happened again, and the government have implement no changes to stop it.

Consider this fact well. and. truly. checked.

Sorry but that is not true. Approved document B was amended on 21/12/18 to ban combustibles above 18m. The government also issued building advice note(s) 14 & 22 which instruct the building owner to remove and replace the type of cladding used in Bolton. Literally hundreds of buildings have had cladding replaced already and many more are in the pipeline for 2020.

 

[theonlymikey]

Sorry but that is not true. Approved document B was amended on 21/12/18 to ban combustibles above 18m. The government also issued building advice note(s) 14 & 22 which instruct the building owner to remove and replace the type of cladding used in Bolton. Literally hundreds of buildings have had cladding replaced already and many more are in the pipeline for 2020.

Oh I see, rule changes but no enforcement or implementation.

Up there with the GK holding time rule. The government is ultimately accountable for these things. You'll be telling me local NHS trusts are responsible for the NHS failings next.