Very impressive speech by Ed Milliband

[number 6]

On social security this morning. NO labelling for people on benefits as "scroungers or workshy"",bringing in a contributory element to welfare if Labour win,so if you have worked for donkey's years and found yourself fon the dole you will get more. A commitment to build more social housing. Changing the tests for the sick and disabled so they get a fair hearing instead of being put through the ringer like they do now. All in all a very good speech,and the fact that the bbc tory boy political editor Nick Robinson hated it makes it all the more pleasing.

[Von Boy]

"the needle returns to the start of the song and we all sing along as before"!

[Arginald Valleywater]

Indeed. And how pray is he going to pay for all this social housing? And I mean genuine rental homes provided by housing associations, ALMOs and local authorities? Not the affordable cop out. Affordable in the Cotswolds or Lakes is ?350k.....Social landlords need a 30 year business model if they charge affordable instead of private rental rates btw.

Let me guess....tax, borrow, tax, borrow, and we soon we will be on a par with Spain. Osborne is poor but he was starting from near bankruptcy from years of McBroon and "my very good friend Sir Fred Goodwin"...

Now if he plans to quit the EU, sack half the NHS managers and hire more doctors and nurses, stop fighting the USA's wars and cut foreign aid to a fiver then fine. If not I anticipate the same old bollocks.

And now over to DJ after he has finished his daily wank over a photo of Cherie Blair....

[Gentleman]

Even if they build social housing it'll be the same old scumbags who end up living in it not the working poor.

If they wanted to reduce HB and increase people's standard of living they could reintroduce control of rents charged.

Also rather than the whole please pay a working wage approach to business it should be a YOU Will pay it.

[David Johnson]

Argie, what you must realise is when I reply to your posts I am not really replying to you specifically. It's more a generalised post on the forum.

Why? Because I know that you are utterly incapable of responding to my posts with anything resembling the intellect of an amoeba.

I long ago realised that coming across a half-sensible thought from your good self would be somewhat similar to finding a diamond in a dog turd.

Now as for "And now over to DJ after he has finished his daily wank over a photo of Cherie Blair...."

wash your mouth out with bicarb for using such foul language. It's not funny and it certainly isn't intelligent. And on top of all that, your mother certainly wouldn't like it Arginald.

!wink!

[David Johnson]

"Indeed. And how pray is he going to pay for all this social housing? And I mean genuine rental homes provided by housing associations, ALMOs and local authorities? Not the affordable cop out. Affordable in the Cotswolds or Lakes is ?350k.....Social landlords need a 30 year business model if they charge affordable instead of private rental rates btw".

Good point, well made. Sorry, I'm lying. So do you think the Tory plan to sell off what little council housing we have left at a huge discount is the answer is the solution to our housing problem?

Or what do you think about Osborne's Funding for Lending scheme re. housing purchase? Basically it means the taxpayer (that is you, Arginald) underwriting any potential losses up to 20% of the mortgage value of houses up to ?600K value. It is made up of two parts, Arginald,

Help to Buy - offering a loan to top up the deposits of people with a 5% deposit, adding an extra 20pc. The first five years of the loan will be interest free. Borrowers can repay the loan at any time. The loans will be available on newbuild homes costing up to ?600,000.

A second strand of the scheme called "Mortgage Guarantee", available from January next year, will incentivise lenders to give those with smaller deposits better mortgages, because the Government will guarantee 20% of the loan. Again, it will only be usable on properties worth up to ?600,000. If a borrower's property is repossessed, the Government will cover a proportion of the losses suffered by lenders.

So Argie, rather than building more social housing do you think it is wise for the government to risk your taxpayers money so that some tosser (sorry for the bad language, you are a very bad influence on me) can purchase a ?600K house they can't really afford anyway and inevitably result in house price rises?

Now I did notice Cameron was unable to answer the question put to him "Does that mean a Rumanian plumber can come to Britain and get the UK taxpayer to underwrite 20% of the value of his mortgage".

I bet that thought makes you feel warm inside, Argie. !wink!

[bernard72]

WHERE IS ALL THIS MONEY COMING FROM.

[randyandy]

Uncomfortable truth, for some, is that when a section of Labour were talking about what Ed eventually decided to do we were ridiculed, verbally attacked and branded Tory for doing it.

Look forward to the apology ED.

[Arginald Valleywater]

Easy. Borrow lots more off the banks, in particular American banks so they keep their influence. Then get a nice back hander off Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan. Simples.

[Gentleman]

Or sell off everything public owned for a bit of cash and then choose not to reinvest it in the country just use it for some vote buying tax cuts ala thatcher and co.