The General Election

[Delboy]

Hi David,

I think Carswell is getting far to big for his boots to suggest UKIP should only take half of the money which his party are entitled to. Fringe parties don't have the fund resurces that main stream parties have so are aways at a disavantage when it comes to getting their message across.

With the EU referendum not to far away UKIP are going to need every penny they can get there hands if they are to stand any chance of thwating what will be a well funded conserative pro EU memberdship campaign.

Regards

Keith

Mr Carswell is my local MP, although he did not get my vote.

The £650,000 is not for the UKIP party as such, its not for running the party or party resources, it's to run a staff of 15 in parliament, As Mr Carswell is the only UKIP MP the money goes to him, but he says he does not need 15 staff he can do it with 5 at the most. He says there are more deserving causes who could use the money. At the moment he runs his office with one member of staff, a young disabled boy, the young lad who's mother is a friend of my daughters, said Mr Carswell gave him a job, which has made a massive difference to his life.
As far as the 15 members of staff, it's just UKIP wanting jobs for the boys, I can see Mr Carswell even leaving UKIP and going independent if these arguments continue, he is certainly not a pushover.

[Silver_Shiney]

I think those who want to be in power would do well to remember the sentiments in Michael Nesmith's song "The Candidate"

[Onelife]

Hi David,

I think Carswell is getting far to big for his boots to suggest UKIP should only take half of the money which his party are entitled to. Fringe parties don't have the fund resurces that main stream parties have so are aways at a disavantage when it comes to getting their message across.

With the EU referendum not to far away UKIP are going to need every penny they can get there hands if they are to stand any chance of thwating what will be a well funded conserative pro EU memberdship campaign.

Regards

Keith

Mr Carswell is my local MP, although he did not get my vote.

The £650,000 is not for the UKIP party as such, its not for running the party or party resources, it's to run a staff of 15 in parliament, As Mr Carswell is the only UKIP MP the money goes to him, but he says he does not need 15 staff he can do it with 5 at the most. He says there are more deserving causes who could use the money. At the moment he runs his office with one member of staff, a young disabled boy, the young lad who's mother is a friend of my daughters, said Mr Carswell gave him a job, which has made a massive difference to his life.
As far as the 15 members of staff, it's just UKIP wanting jobs for the boys, I can see Mr Carswell even leaving UKIP and going independent if these arguments continue, he is certainly not a pushover.

Hi Delboy, Mr Carswell MP sounds like a man of integrity but mavericks in any party will get short shrift should they not tow the party line. The £3.25 million over five years would go a long way in helping bolster the parties forthcoming campaigns and although Mr Carswell says he doesn't need the money his party certainly dose. It is the party in my opinion who should decide how the money is distributed, as is case with all the other political parties short money.

Regards

Keith

[Delboy]

Hi David,

I think Carswell is getting far to big for his boots to suggest UKIP should only take half of the money which his party are entitled to. Fringe parties don't have the fund resurces that main stream parties have so are aways at a disavantage when it comes to getting their message across.

With the EU referendum not to far away UKIP are going to need every penny they can get there hands if they are to stand any chance of thwating what will be a well funded conserative pro EU memberdship campaign.

Regards

Keith

Mr Carswell is my local MP, although he did not get my vote.

The £650,000 is not for the UKIP party as such, its not for running the party or party resources, it's to run a staff of 15 in parliament, As Mr Carswell is the only UKIP MP the money goes to him, but he says he does not need 15 staff he can do it with 5 at the most. He says there are more deserving causes who could use the money. At the moment he runs his office with one member of staff, a young disabled boy, the young lad who's mother is a friend of my daughters, said Mr Carswell gave him a job, which has made a massive difference to his life.
As far as the 15 members of staff, it's just UKIP wanting jobs for the boys, I can see Mr Carswell even leaving UKIP and going independent if these arguments continue, he is certainly not a pushover.

Hi Delboy, Mr Carswell MP sounds like a man of integrity but mavericks in any party will get short shrift should they not tow the party line. The £3.25 million over five years would go a long way in helping bolster the parties forthcoming campaigns and although Mr Carswell says he doesn't need the money his party certainly dose. It is the party in my opinion who should decide how the money is distributed, as is case with all the other political parties short money.

Regards

Keith

Keith
Short funds are not meant to be used for campaigns and it's not up to the party to decide how the money is distributed whichever party that maybe.

Short funds are public funds to help pay for a party's activities in Parliament not for campaigning.

Short money takes its name from former Labour MP Ted Short who was instrumental in its introduction as leader of the House of Commons in 1974 and 1975.

What is the point of Short money?

The original idea was to create more of a level-playing field for opposition parties. The governing party has access to the full might of the civil service machine to formulate its policies. To hold ministers properly to account, opposition party MPs should be able to employ researchers and carry out detailed policy work. That was the thinking. It is meant to be used on policy research for frontbench spokesmen and to pay staff salaries in the Whips and leader of the opposition's offices. It is not meant to be used for political campaigning or paying staff salaries at party HQ.

What do the parties spend it on?

"Very little information is published about the qualifying parties' use of their Short money allocation in carrying out their parliamentary business," according to a paper by the Commons library.
"There has been some concern over the years about whether Short Money is being used appropriately," it adds.
The parties are required to submit a report from an independent auditor at the end of every financial year to verify that their Short money was spent "exclusively in connection with the party's parliamentary business".

[Onelife]

Thanks Delboy...I think your research demonstrates what the money should be used for but as per you last paragraph not always what it is used for.


Regards

Keith

[Onelife]

Btw Delboy.....you could have omitted the last paragraph so l thank you for your balanced post.

Regards

Keith

[Romig1]

http://www.halifaxcourier.co.uk/news/ca ... -1-7262609

Looks like Chuka has bottled it!

[david63]

... or if you cannot stand the heat get out of the kitchen!

[Onelife]

What the labour party certainly doesn't need is another weak leader and looking at who is left it appears that's precisely what labour supporters will be getting.

[towny44]

Listened to some left wing harridan on Talk Sport news today spouting that Chuka would not have had much support from within the mainstream party, and therefore realised he could not win. Presumably she thinks the Labour party should only pick someone who appeals to the diehard supporters, goody that means he will also be unelectable just like Ed was.

[oldbluefox]

Interesting that now the results are out all the political parties which lost are saying the process is wrong and all want a different system (to suit themselves). Nobody mentioned a word before the election did they?
And still the Labour party deny they had any role to play in bringing the country to its knees. As Nigel Pearson would say ' Are they an ostrich? Have they got their heads buried in the sand?' They cannot accept that yes, they did overspend nor the fact that during their 13 years in government the gap between the rich and the poor got wider. And these are the ones supposedly working for the poor. I would have much more respect for them if they put their hands in the air and admitted they got it wrong.
Excuse me, was that a pig flying past my window just then?

[Silver_Shiney]

As long he/she/it continues to make the Labour Party unelectable!

[Ranchi]

Is it me, or is there a certain irony/ folly in a unionist party banging on about 'a northern powerhouse' when the area to which they refer is about 300 miles south of Aberdeen & nearer 400 miles from Caithness? Surely 'Midlands powerhouse or even Southern powerhouse would be more appropriate. Or have I missed something?

[poole boy]

Manchester is in the north of England if the scots are stupid enough to want full independence and to pay for what they spend good luck to them and I for one would not try to stop them as England would be a lot better off.

[Kendhni]

What a great result from the election ... although I would have preferred to see the LibDems do better and remain in coalition ... compared to the mess of 2010 we are in a much better place in 2015 thanks to the coalition government. It always was Labours election to lose .. and they didn't disappoint.

It will be interesting to see who gets in to replace Milliband .. maybe they will do what Milliband failed to do and actually contribute to the recovery that we now have in place. I don't understand the comparison between Obama and Chuka though ... Obama is a great Statesman, Chuka isn't ... Obama is a great orator, Chuka is passable ... Obama is an OK leader, Chuka has no experience ... maybe someday Chuka will get the necessary skills, but now is not his time and he is probably correct to bypass.

The other reason for bypassing is that we are in a recovery that is gathering momentum and the UK is towards the front of leading the world into recovery. All the building blocks and many hard decisions were taken over the last 5 years and, as always happens due to fiscal lag, we will start reaping the benefits over the next 5+ years. If the Tory government gets this right then it is quite possible they will get a third term in government riding on the back of a booming economy.

[Mervyn and Trish]

Maybe that's why Chuka has backed off. He saw the number of Tory leaders who withered during their years out of power and noted a comparison. Perhaps he thinks the time isn't right and that the next Labour leader will crash and burn in 2020, and the one with the chance of power will be the one after?

[Onelife]

Being one of the less well educated on this fourm you'll no doubt allow me an opinion without having to reach for my tin hat.

The reason for our economic crisis wasn't the fault of the labour party it was the result of the global financial crisis of that l am in no doubt. It is true to say that things could have been handled better but to lay the blame at the door of the labour party is in my opinon wrong. The reason as to why the crash hit us so hard is that we became to relient on our financal sectors to fuel our ecomony. I hear all this talk about how labour ruined our ecomony but in reality both labour and the conservitives must shoulder this responsibility equally.

Regard

OL....a once, up until a few years ago lifetime Conservative voter.

[towny44]

Being one of the less well educated on this fourm you'll no doubt allow me an opinion without having to reach for my tin hat.

The reason for our economic crisis wasn't the fault of the labour party it was the result of the global financial crisis of that l am in no doubt. It is true to say that things could have been handled better but to lay the blame at the door of the labour party is in my opinon wrong. The reason as to why the crash hit us so hard is that we became to relient on our financal sectors to fuel our ecomony. I hear all this talk about how labour ruined our ecomony but in reality both labour and the conservitives must shoulder this responsibility equally.

Regard

OL....a once, up until a few years ago lifetime Conservative voter.

I always assumed the reason the financial crisis hit us harder than most was due to the Labour govt. overspending during the good times, instead of putting a little something away for a rainy day.
But then maybe that's because I don't fully understand economics.

[Mervyn and Trish]

I'm not an economist either FB but that's my layman's understanding too.

[Onelife]

Hi towny....well there you go.....you learn something every day

I think it is well accepted that the labour party spent to freely but if you are looking for the real culprits as to why we now find ourselves in the grip of austerity you should look no further than the banking sector who borrowed and spent as if moey was growing on trees.....Unfortunately when Autumn came all the trees were bear and we had to plant more trees to get us out of the sh*t they had put us in.

Regards

Keith

[towny44]

Keith, No one disputes that the banking sector caused the crash, but the UK regulations, under which our banking sector operated, were nearly all established by Gordon "Prudence" Brown the chancellor who claimed to have abolished "boom & bust", and it was these that nearly brought the UK to its knees and ensured that our recession was deeper and longer than most others.
So you can blame the bankers but they were only playing by Labour's rules, and it is because of those rules and regulations that we should never again let any Labour politician anywhere near the levers of Govt.

[Kendhni]

Being one of the less well educated on this fourm you'll no doubt allow me an opinion without having to reach for my tin hat.

The reason for our economic crisis wasn't the fault of the labour party it was the result of the global financial crisis of that l am in no doubt. It is true to say that things could have been handled better but to lay the blame at the door of the labour party is in my opinon wrong. The reason as to why the crash hit us so hard is that we became to relient on our financal sectors to fuel our ecomony. I hear all this talk about how labour ruined our ecomony but in reality both labour and the conservitives must shoulder this responsibility equally.

Regard

OL....a once, up until a few years ago lifetime Conservative voter.

That is the excuse a certain American spin doctor would like you to focus on but is primarily a diversionary tactic to take attention away from what people are actually blaming Labour for.

The economic crisis was global but the blame that Labour should be held responsible for is the depth of the recession and their total incompetence during the first 3 years when all they did was make it worse
- they continually ignored warnings about borrowing that stemmed from 2003 (a full 4 years before the crash)
- they continued to pander to a greedy selfish public with a pretence that we were wealthier than we were by recklessly spending money they did not have on services we could not afford
- they put Ed Balls in place to regulate the bankers (that worked out well)
- they deliberately opened the floodgates of immigration as they bribed workers to come to this country in the hope of creating a new generation of Labour voters (according to Mandelson)
- they put nearly 1 million people onto the dole queues (after having placed a cap on the amount of redundancy that had to be paid) ... so much for being the party of the worker
- they farmed out billions of pounds of contracts to 'their mates' without any due diligence (costing the new coalition government even more millions to buy their way out of the contracts)

in fact the only solution that Labour had in the period from 2007 to 2010 was to try to borrow their way out of debt (a Keynsian approach that even Jim Callaghan believed would never work again) ... if something had not been done, we were toppling on the edge of real austerity like the Greeks. But the final straw was (according to several economists) the deliberate destruction and vandalism of the economy during their last year in power.

So yes, in a 'no sh1t Sherlock' way you are correct in saying things could have been handled better, but there is no forgiving the incompetence and deliberate economic destruction Labour carried out. Should some blame lie at the feet of the Conservatives, the LibDems, the SNP, the Greens, DUP, SinnFein, Plaid Cymru etc. etc. ... quite probably, but they were not in power, they were not the ones making the decisions.

Regards

Ken ... who has never voted Conservative in his life.

[Mervyn and Trish]

What I have never understood about all this, and therefore don't know who to blame either, is why the solution to a crisis brought about, in simplistic terms, by reckless lending and borrowing, appears to have to been to slash interest rates, thus encouraging more lending and borrowing. And at the same time punishing the prudent savers.

I also don't understand the mentality on house prices. When house prices were rising it was a problem (people couldn't afford to buy houses). When house prices were falling it was a problem (people couldn't afford to sell houses). Whichever way house prices go, for the first few months politicians and the media celebrate the end of the previous problem, then soon start bemoaning the new problem!

(Mervyn, who at one time or another has voted for pretty much every party there is!)

[Kendhni]

What I have never understood about all this, and therefore don't know who to blame either, is why the solution to a crisis brought about, in simplistic terms, by reckless lending and borrowing, appears to have to been to slash interest rates, thus encouraging more lending and borrowing. And at the same time punishing the prudent savers.

M&T, the cut in interest rates was to reduce the rate of borrowing for governments and allow the governments of the world to stick their heads in the sand and borrow more money in the hope that some other government would sort it out ... they had no interest in savers but the side effect was to reduce the rates for individuals and businesses that had over-stretched themselves as well (not necessarily a bad thing, but it was purely a side-effect). Anybody who has not taken the opportunity to pay down on their mortgage over the last 7-or-so years may have missed a great opportunity.

You sort of have to laugh ... one of the first things that Brown did (and possibly the only decent thing he ever did) was to put the BoE in charge of interest rates ... thereafter government influence seems to have played just as much of a role in their level as previously.

I also don't understand the mentality on house prices. When house prices were rising it was a problem (people couldn't afford to buy houses). When house prices were falling it was a problem (people couldn't afford to sell houses). Whichever way house prices go, for the first few months politicians and the media celebrate the end of the previous problem, then soon start bemoaning the new problem!

House prices are a bit different ... they are driven by supply and demand ... politicians have less control. One of the downsides of the current recovery is that it is, in part, built on a new housing bubble ... I don;t think it is out of control yet (like it was last decade) but if interest rates do not start rising along with inflation it could easily get out of control. This time though the banks are (allegedly) stress testing borrowers rather than letting people recklessly borrow money.


Also, while rates are low so is inflation and one of the most important differentials is the difference between the base rate and inflation ... there is an argument that today that differential is quite high which means people are not much better off than when inflation and the base rate was higher (this is the part of economics that I am still trying to get my head around)

[david63]

Don't get me started on the housing market - we could be here all day.

The biggest issue with the current housing market is that the Government have a "one size fits all" approach. Whilst there is a problem in certain parts of the south the current policies are creating problems in other areas. We keep being told that there is a housing shortage - if that is true then why are all the estate agent's windows full of housed for sale?

Part of the economic crisis was, supposedly, people over-stretching themselves so what do the Government do? - you've got it - they encourage people to get into deeper borrowing/debt. "Help to buy" is a misnomer - it is "help to build" and its aim is to encourage the building industry to build more houses.

With all the enticements available for new build houses it is possible for a first time buyer under 40 to buy a £250k house by saving £9k and with a £140k mortgage. Mark my words in a few years time there will be so many "new" houses on the market it will be unbelievable because people will not be able to repay the Help to Buy loans.

Then there is the issue of trying to get people to buy their own homes instead of renting - so what happens to all the houses that are currently being rented?

All of this is from the experience of trying to sell our house for the last 18 months - all to no avail.