Discuss: Supporting housing aspirations
Labour in Government have made real progress since 1997 on housing, including:
· Over a million more home owners;
· £20 billion investment to deliver major improvements in social housing conditions lifting over one million children out of cold, damp or poor housing; and
· Action to cut homelessness by two thirds.
But we need to respond to today’s challenges and pressures.
The failure of housing supply to keep up with demand has led to a doubling of house prices in real terms. The number of households is projected to grow at 223,000 a year; however our housing stock is growing by only 185,000 a year. Still too many young couples are struggling to get a foot on the housing ladder and too many families are making do in unsuitable conditions.
Labour’s Housing Green Paper outlines new investment, targets and proposals as part of a radical programme to meet Gordon Brown’s announcement of three million more homes by 2020. It will accelerate action to tackle wealth and housing inequality and support the aspirations of hard-working families, young people and communities.
Our key proposals for housing include:
· Investing £8 billion programme for affordable housing in 2008-11, a £2.5 billion increase compared to previous three years;
· More homes to meet growing demand - 3 million new homes by 2020 - backed by ambitious building targets, increased investment and new ways of identifying land for development.
· More affordable housing - at least 70,000 more affordable homes a year by 2010-11, including 45,000 social homes a year and a goal of 50,000 social homes a year in the next spending review
· Building homes more quickly - unblocking the planning system and releasing land for development. New incentives for councils and developers to bring forward land more quickly
· Well designed and greener zero carbon homes - with higher environmental standards designed to link to the transport, schools and health infrastructure.
· Maintaining sustainable communities – through reinforcing guidance to prevent inappropriate development in flood risk areas and maintaining the existing policy on the green belt.
By 2020 Labour will have built an extra three million homes – but what else do you think we should be doing to support the housing aspirations of hard working families?
steve Message left at 10:24 pm, Sun 25th May 2008
What is the point in building "homes" (flats again just like the 70's) no one wants. why have labour let family homes become to expensive for families to buy. Why would any govermnet want to prop up
these stupid levels of debt with tax payer loans. All housing should be affordable and not require eye watering debt.
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
Ian Message left at 10:32 pm, Thu 10th Apr 2008
Over the past ten years, there have been hundreds of thousands of new houses built. The percentage of so called affordable housing is very small. In many places, three, four and five bedroomed houses
are the norm. Builders build houses to make a profit. There are tens of thousands of empty homes in this country. Thousands more, often occupied, are being demolished. You can eliminate the need for
new eco towns if you got the empty houses, occupied. There are affordable houses now. But the government and useless local authorities are demolishing them.Please do not make it easier to take
peoples homes by CPOs. In my town, the people have constantly wanted houses renovating. The local council wants to knock them down. Renovation is the best and cheapest option to provide good,
affordable housing for first time buyers. You fool no one by building social housing. Once it is occupied, it becomes part of the market every time it is sold. You can not impose sanctions on the
housing market to keep prices down. But bringing back to occupancy many terraced houses in the North will provide, now, good affordable houses to buy and rent. You would then not need to borrow
another £8 billion pounds to carry out an over expensive and wastefull use of land building three million houses. end pathfinder projects now.
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
Vanessa Message left at 02:18 pm, Fri 18th Apr 2008
The government assure us that the existing policy on greenbelt will be maintained. Then pray tell why has the government given the go ahead for 3000 homes to be built on agricultural and greenbelt
land. Food prices are going up due to lack of crop and they want to built houses on agricultural land. How utterly stupid. They also claim that this is going to be an eco project. What a load of
nonsense! New roads will have to be built. As for affordable housing, what a joke! Affordable housing was allegedly built in Bishop's Stortford yet first time buyers cannot afford it. How the devil
will they afford to live out in villages where the nearest supermarket is 7 miles away. Is this another ploy by the government to make money on petrol? Finally, we've been told that should this
project go ahead, building would start in 3 years time. Let's hope, for the sake of our beautiful countryside, that Labour is ousted before then and the decision is reversed.
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
Matt Message left at 08:24 am, Fri 4th Apr 2008
I would like to see mortgage tax relief restored for young first-time buyers. As a young first-time buyer i appreciated this support at the time; it made a big difference to my ability to manage my
budget. This relief would be easier to understand than the present restrictive "key worker" rationed shared ownership schemes available in only certain parts of the country.
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
Vanessa Message left at 04:16 pm, Mon 7th Apr 2008
There's absolutely no need to build new houses. Soon there'll be enough repossessions to make space for those who can afford a place.
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
Adam Message left at 03:14 pm, Thu 27th Mar 2008
Yes, Labour have indeed made real progress on housing. Because of their meddling with pensions, house prices have risen beyond reason. How can they expect to build a house and sell it well below what
the market wants for it. I wish Brown would read this comments. I would like to ask him about his election victory speech where he stated he would not let house prices get out of control. This
government is a shambles and is sending this country back to the victorian era
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
Peter Message left at 07:09 pm, Thu 17th Jan 2008
Labour introduced Home Information Packs which involves additional and pointless costs in the interests of ideology only. Thanks for nothing.
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
Chrissie Message left at 06:29 pm, Thu 17th Jan 2008
Hi, 5th line down should read private rented housing (sorry)
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
Chrissie Message left at 06:28 pm, Thu 17th Jan 2008
I agree with the comments on Social Housing. There is not enough of it. About 1/3 of new mortgages are for buy-to-let which helps to fuel the housing market which in turn means fewer houses to buy
and keeping the prices high, meaning more need for private rented housing - and on and on. Not everyone wants to buy so affordable good rented housing is needed and there should be a good supply of
social housing. Private housing often means no long term security and this does not lend itself to a stable family home, which is vital for self-respect and child development. Until there is more
housing available and more social housing I cant see the situation improving.
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
Bernard Message left at 09:20 am, Thu 13th Dec 2007
I have two children who have left university and are trying to buy houses in the NW and NE, both cheap housing areas, but cannot afford a mortgage unless they share with friends, both are on a
reasonable salary. Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper are both ministers (?combined income and expenses) living in London with their children who go to school in London. They claim they do not live in London
and are receiving £27,000 mortgage allowance on their 'second' house to which my children's taxes are contributing. "How much money do you need Ed?"
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
Stephen Message left at 09:57 am, Sat 3rd Nov 2007
I have an idea for you. New mini allotments for every new housing scheme with 20 or more units. Larger allotments for all new larger housing developments = green areas = fresh local food, = healthy
lives =attractive enviroment = help social cohesion and pride = easily achievable =encourage children to grow things & eat well regards stephen
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
tony Message left at 05:44 pm, Thu 4th Oct 2007
the shortage of housing in this country has nothing to do with the influx of migrants.what people forget is that most migrants come here to work and send money home to their families and thats
exactly what they do.the majority live in private accommodation and are paying over the odds to do so.it is a typical right wing response to blame immigration for our problems just like the bnp
do.the real reason for the shortage of housing is that during the tory years over half of all social housing was sold off to private buyers for a pittance and these social properties have never been
re built.we dont need affordable housing where a developer builds them cheaply and sells them foe a cheaper but still extortianate ammount of money.we need social housing,built by local
councils,maintained by local councils that local people can afford to rent,only then will we start to see the housing problem begin to abate.and so what if a migrant worker is given one of these
houses,if they are working,paying taxes and supporting themselves and their families then why the hell not.
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
abu emil Message left at 11:25 pm, Mon 5th Nov 2007
A nice piece of newspeak. Well done. It is particularly worrying when seemingly intelligent people manage to not tackle the blindingly obvious head on just because it will put their pc credentials
into question. Obviously, if x amount of people arrive in a country, then they have to have accommodation somewhere or other. No, recent immigrants are not the sole reason for the current housing
shortage, but anyone with a modicum of common sense can work out that they are a factor in this and that the Labour Party’s disastrous immigration policy has contributed greatly to this alongside,
undoubtedly, the policies of that woman that Tony Blair admired and copied so diligently.
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
treborc Message left at 10:06 am, Mon 29th Oct 2007
No immgration might not be the only reason we have housing problems, but it's part of the problem. Last month figures released in my area state we have between 900 to 1500 immgrants within my small
town, with a housing waiting list of four years finding another 900 houses does not help, unless you think sleeping in a bus shelter as being housed.
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
w Message left at 06:54 pm, Mon 17th Sep 2007
Its very simple, stop allowing people into the country!We should be trying to reduce not only our own but the worlds population.We also have policies in place to provide single mothers with housing
hence the highest teenage pregnacy rate in Europe .A young couple with a child is deemed less in need of housing than a single mother,why?
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
mide Message left at 05:34 pm, Tue 9th Oct 2007
i realy hope the labour govt or who ever gets to read these messages because they are giving us reasons to blame single parents or immigrants. i am a single parent and being single is not by choice
which i can say about alot of single parents out there. i am black british with African heritage. dose this make me an immigrant? i have been on the housing register for over 10 years and now i have
moved boroughs i am still on the waiting list for housing but now bidding for a house that only the grace of God will let me have. please bear in mind i have always worked, till date i work and
school at the same time but i still live in a private accommodation paying high rent. the government needs to adapt a policy of taking care of the present and backloge of hard working immigrants by
housing them especially those with children. at least they CLAIM that the childrens welfare is paramount.
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
treborc Message left at 06:34 am, Wed 26th Sep 2007
I do wish you would check your facts before pretending to know the regulations, councils have regulations and laws to find a person accomadation, so this can be flats private rented B&B. The same
housing rules are given to all people, single mother, married couples it's the child which is the priority, mothers with disabilities children with disablities, these take priority, but like I said
the duty of care is the child.
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
Simon Message left at 08:01 am, Mon 17th Sep 2007
Firstly, everyone should have a home, or at least a roof over their heads, not just "hard working families". Secondly, the need is not for "affordable" homes but for affordable rented accomodation:
not everyone wants to own their own home; but not everyone can afford accomodation in the private rented sector.
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
Justin A Message left at 11:30 am, Mon 10th Sep 2007
Read in Sunday papers that Government is encouraging councils to demolish houses and build new rather than repair them. Seems crazy when the country is short of houses to knock them down. Not against
affordable house, but my solution to the housing crisis would be: - remove government / council restrictions on what kind / size of houses private developers can build. - make owners pay council tax
on empty dwellings,possibly at double the normal rate. - double, or triple the council tax on 2nd homes
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
Robert Message left at 08:31 am, Sun 9th Sep 2007
But again Labour has stated this will be done by the private sector and not by allowing the building of council housing, the private sector will always make profits, profits means markets and markets
will work to the best price they can get. In my area a council house rent is £60 a week, the private sector right now are charging £100 to £150 a week because the market will allow this, so building
private housing will keep the rents high so high people cannot afford it. We need council houses now and we need these build cheap and if a person wants to rent and then buy fine but not council
houses. Brown says he is the New Thatcher well he has proved it so far.
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
Tony Message left at 04:22 pm, Thu 23rd Aug 2007
A house plot costs about 1/2 of the whole cost but what will this government do to purchase land at sensible cost? Zilch!
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
Peter Message left at 02:21 pm, Wed 5th Sep 2007
Labour are doing more than the Tories claim to be able to do. Cameron has said the answer to the housing problem is not building more houses, then he reversed his position and said it was more houses
that were required. At least the government is getting on with it and sourcing houses for people that need them.
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
RUTH Message left at 09:28 pm, Wed 22nd Aug 2007
houses what are they my two year old is still sharing our bedroom with us because of low housing or overcrowded uk.
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
alex Message left at 09:07 pm, Mon 20th Aug 2007
3 million new homes by 2020, affordable or not, is a sticking plaster on a gaping wound. I don't have a Phd in mathematics or statistics but even i can calculate that a tiny, already over populated
island and continued mass immigration (which no one is allowed to debate without being shouted down as a racist!)...you do the maths.
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
Paul Message left at 05:49 pm, Wed 8th Aug 2007
Any moves to increase the number of affordable homes has to be welcomed, if these homes are built to decent standards ( which may conflict with hitting delivery targets ), and if the new homes are
accompanied by the associated necesary infrastructure that helps make homes into communities. There is also the related fact that since 1997 more homes have left the ownership of Councils - mainly
due to stock transfers - than were lost from 1980 to 1997 under the Tories "Right To Buy" policy. Unless the government can in some way guarantee that many of the affordable homes that are due to be
built remain in public ownership, for future generations,we will simply be forced to face this issue again and again in future, at increased cost.
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
Karen Message left at 06:11 am, Mon 30th Jul 2007
I am glad that there is an aim of building well designed homes and making them sustainable. We need to make sure that any push to increase the number of new homes built doesn't lead to bad design and
badly built buildings.
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
peter Message left at 07:19 am, Mon 30th Jul 2007
Paul Most sensible people agree with you but most sensible people do not support this rubbish anyway,we just get branded as racists to deflect the arguement away from the dictatorships plan to move
the european population to break down patriotism to form the european superstate that few want
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
Duncan Message left at 02:45 pm, Sun 29th Jul 2007
I have a disability, I would have wanted a council move to Tower Hamlets in London. I was not given any preference and there were 20,000 on the list. The housing system was very depressing having to
bid for accomadation each week which you had no way of getting, a very pathetic and depressing system, I gave up.
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
roland Message left at 08:45 pm, Sat 28th Jul 2007
Can some one from labour please state above what it see as an affordable home.
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
Chanel Message left at 06:43 pm, Sat 28th Jul 2007
Can we have more support for Co-operative Housing? Bristol Co-op Party in collaboration with their Labour comrades on Bristol City Council and CDS the Co-operative Development Society (www.cds.coop),
are proposing that they use co-op housing as a major solution to our desperate affordablitly gap in the city. (House price affordability over average wages is running in excess of 8.5 to one). Co-op
Housing provides affordable home ownership for that section of our supporters that are not poor enough to qualify for Social Housing to rent, and are not wealthy enough to buy a house at market
rates. All the co-op needs is the land to be gifted to them from the council or government, and then the Co-op buyers pay the co-op for a proportion of their house, in £1,000 tranches. Even better is
the fact that as they only pay for the bricks and mortar construction cost and they can get a co-op mortgage over 30 years, the cost to the buyer is so much cheaper eg normally around 35% of an
average wage. The bonus for the tax payer is that once the council or the Government gives the land the houses are built on, there is no need for further public subsidy. This allows councils to use
their much needed Housing Corporation Money to build Rented Housing, for those who cannot afford it. In Scandinavia Co-ops are very popular. Oslo has a population of 400,000 (similar to Bristol) yet
120,000 of them are housed in Co-op housing. The other main bonus of co-op housing is that it empowers working class communities and its recipents usually take a much greater interest in civic life
as a result. It is also a powerful tool to marginalise the siren calls of Fascist groups who are attempting to use the paucity of housing to blame minority groups in the population. So can we please
have a real push from Labour Councils to carry on the lead Bristol is proposing, and I urge the Labour Government to do all it can to assist. Chanel Stevens
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
roland Message left at 03:33 pm, Sun 29th Jul 2007
Just been having a kwik look on the internet at how these co-op's work. It was only a kwik look but the idea is great and has the potential to genuinely develop good affordable home's.
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
roland Message left at 03:48 pm, Sun 29th Jul 2007
Just had a look on the internet. One thing i don't get. If gordon brown new about this then why is he not promoting the scheme. It says up the top they want to use 8 billion of tax payers money why
are they not putting 8 billion of tax payers money into what appears to be a well thought out and tested scheme. Yet again i find myself a bit suspishious of gordon browns true intentions.
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
Gary Message left at 03:08 pm, Sat 28th Jul 2007
Roland and Peter get real! I know it's very sad for you both to witness a successful dynamic Government led by an impressive leader making huge changes and improving everything from the economy to
the NHS (FREE AT THE POINT OF NEED - not privatised as many Tories would like), Education and the Environment. Yes everyday p[eople care about these things Roland and Peter and maybe that's wht
LABOUR is trouncing the Conservatives and Cameron is getting panned as being hapless from many in the CON party. Rolnad, wheer have you been. Gordon Brown is cancelling the super casinons. High coist
of living - my lifestyle and many others has soared during the Labour years and if you want Britain to levae the EU then think about the millions of lost jobs and the disasterous effect that would
bring on the economy.
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
peter Message left at 12:41 pm, Mon 30th Jul 2007
Gary Quiet on here today have you run out of positive things to say about your hero, Gordon the wonderful?
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
roland Message left at 07:11 pm, Sat 28th Jul 2007
Gary if it is the successful dynamic government as you say it is why exactly did you get rid of tony blair. If it is a successful dynamic government then how can you put that down to gordon brown as
he's only been the leader for what a month or so now. Gordon brown was there when the super casino idea started why did he not have the back bone to speak out againt it (is that your idea of a strong
leader). This is our country so no one should give power to any other country with out our permision. If those are labours intentions then they should have said that those were there intentions
before the last election it is that simple. I do not agree with most of what thatcher did i am not a tory supporter how ever at least we new where we stood, The economy is ok. so what the economy
would have been the same under tories. The issue is if a government has plans for this country they should speak up proudly for those intentions and let the country decide if that is what they want
not hide behind a manifesto of voter pleasing lies. Do not come back at me with 'oh don't you remeber how the toris did this, that or the other' we are talking about those in power now.
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
roland Message left at 08:15 pm, Sat 28th Jul 2007
One more point weather you liked them or not both kinnock and thatcher spoke up for what they beileved and that is why thatcher was a strong leader and kinnock if the country had taken him on would
have made a strong leader. How can a man claim to be a strong leader when he will not even let us know what his true thoughts are.
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
Josh Message left at 10:30 am, Fri 10th Aug 2007
Please, GB is always speaking up for what he believes in - he's not given a speech saying "These are my beliefs" (can you imagine anything more ridiculous?) but it's pretty obvious- why else would
the meedja be starting to talk about Brown's puritanical stance?
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
roland Message left at 08:03 pm, Sat 28th Jul 2007
Peter steady on were not that far down the line yet but if people don't wake up to what is slowly going on then that could well be where we end up. I have been noticing state control in all aspects
of life the biggest one of which was the smoking ban the majority of this country did not want a ban yet they lied to us to bring it in. The one thing you are certainly right about is that labour is
about it's own self interest's they know they would not win an election if they were to tell the country their true agenda how can their be such a thing as 'new labour' how can an intire party say
they had completely changed their hole ideology over night.
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
peter Message left at 10:52 pm, Sat 28th Jul 2007
Roland the signs are all there why wont they give a referendum if they have nothing to hide?
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
susan Message left at 06:05 pm, Fri 27th Jul 2007
Hmmn, well I can speak about my ward (one of the most deprived in the UK) in Manchester: The Council sell off land to developers - yet said COuncil have bulldozed our beloved community centre and, in
spite of a massive campaign to get a new one (and proposals and funding possibilities, supported by a Labour MP, to build facilities the site) no, the lovely Council say they want to sell the land;
this, along with the closure of our one supermarket, a run-down baths that is filthy (outsourced), and no other community facilities, new houses go up and stay empty. Yet there are vast areas of
land, privately owned, that have broken-down buildings on them, half-burnt commercial sites - and they have stayed that way for a decade. And then Council Houses are up to be possibly tranferred to
dubious social (er em) landlords. Sure Start: about to come to us but to be outsourced to another private affair. 2/3rds of kids don't get nursery class places. The lcoal primary school has one
teacher (plus assistants) to 60 kids for nursery and reception So all a bit of a shambles, really. No wonder new houses stay empty. House prices here were very cheap a few years ago, but that meant
landlords swooping en mass to buy and then rent them out at huge rents. Now the prices have soared (if people are fooled into living here they'll stay high - if not, they'll go down) Public sector
workers are being outjobbed by these bizarre social enterpise (read private) affairs who employ cheap labour. So, in terms of sorting out planning and releasing land - what about legislation that is
quickly enforced in terms of private land owners sitting on dumps? What about social housing? What about looking at how planning works in terms of regeneration so that land isn't built on where there
are no facilities? What about forcing Councils to properly consult with residents about housing? It isn't a rosy Labour area where I live (and no, I am not a Tory or Lib Dem). But I am furious at the
neglect and privatisation of servcies and assets. Oh and - we DON't want a Casino, thanks!
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
www.SquatNow.com Message left at 06:43 pm, Fri 27th Jul 2007
Those "broken-down buildings" and "half-burnt commercial sites" were left deliberately empty. Land speculators buy land with poor-conditions building on them during the troughs in the boom-bust
market and simply sit on the land while prices rise. Once prices reach their peak the land speculators sell at a huge profit to developers. Allowing the buildings to decay ensure that the land will
get planning permission for pretty much anything the developers want to build.
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
susan Message left at 08:33 am, Sat 28th Jul 2007
Thank you, that makes perfect sense. Is there anything the community can do? We know who owns some of the derelict sites.
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
John Message left at 02:44 pm, Fri 27th Jul 2007
While running the risk of getting jumped on for bringing this debate back to housing I am going to run that risk. As someone one who has just brought their first place I would welcome anything that
would make it easier. I was able to access the affordable housing schemes such as shared ownership, but there just wasn't enough flats and house coming up in my area. Because of low mortgages rates
and competition among the lenders I was able to do it, but it should be easier. I am not asking for the government to give me a flat or anything. I work and others need more help, but anything that
gets more affordable flats and houses build has to be a good thing. I am concerned however that some of the mistakes that were made in the past don’t happen again. Developers and councils should made
to only build good quality homes in situations were there are good local facilities such as shops and good public transport. Building a whole load of homes in the middle of no were won’t help anyone.
By the way, building a house is one of the most stressful things I have done!
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
will Message left at 02:52 pm, Fri 27th Jul 2007
I disagree, people should not get a leg up onto the property ladder at the tax payers expense. If everyone buys part shares it will mean house prices will go even higher and the problem will be ten
times worse. Affordable housing means cheaper housing not getting less for your money.
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
peter Message left at 08:06 am, Sat 28th Jul 2007
No way Those of us who do pay tax are skint and on the verge of bankruptcy already because of marvelous gordons superb handling of the economy.
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
www.SquatNow.com Message left at 06:48 pm, Fri 27th Jul 2007
I agree, the sared ownership scheme is just a desperate last gasp attempt by Gordon Brown to boost house prices before the crash. Why when our parents could buy 100% of a decent house for 30% of
their wages do hey think it's acceptable or the younger generation to pay 70% of our wages to buy 50% of a rabbit hutch? My advice: Squat somewere and wait out the crash, then snap up anice ex-BTL
flat for 30% of the current prices.
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
Gary Message left at 12:15 am, Fri 27th Jul 2007
Just an update for any Con Bloggers with some new info on who is winning public opinion. With thanks to the Daily Telegraph.... David Cameron has lost control of Tories: poll More than half of voters
do not believe that Tory leader David Cameron is in control of his party, a new poll has found. The survey of 1,877 people, conducted by YouGov for Channel 4 News at Noon, revealed voters consider
the Conservative Party to be well to the right of its leaders in terms of politics. Just 22 per cent of those questioned said Mr Cameron was in control of the Tories, compared to 52 per cent who said
he was not. advertisementIn stark contrast, Gordon Brown was viewed by 62 per cent of voters as being in control of the Labour Party, while just 16 per cent said he was not. Almost half of those
polled regarded the Prime Minister as "serious and trustworthy", but only 39 per cent could say the same about Mr Cameron. The poll findings are a further blow to Mr Cameron, who this month has
fallen behind in the polls and faced criticism from within his party. The Conservatives came third in two recent by-elections, prompting mutterings about his leadership from Tory backbenchers. Last
night Mr Cameron attempted to bury concerns about his leadership, calling for unity from his backbenchers and telling them he would not be blown off course. "Now is not time to change our strategy,
now is the time to reaffirm our strategy. Remember that elections are always won on the centre ground," he said. The poll also revealed that Mr Brown is considered closer to the political centre
ground than his Conservative opponent. On a scale running from extreme left at minus-100 to extreme right at plus-100 - with the political centre at zero - Mr Brown rated minus-25 and Labour
minus-22. Mr Cameron, meanwhile, rated plus-28, down from plus-33 in a similar poll last month. The Conservative Party as a whole was regarded as well to the right of the political spectrum and of
its own leader, on plus-46, compared to plus-52 last month. But neither Mr Brown nor Mr Cameron inspires voters. Only 26% saw the new PM as inspiring against 51% who said he was not. But the Tory
leader fared worse, receiving 22 per cent positive responses to the question and 54 per cent negative.
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
peter Message left at 08:09 am, Sat 28th Jul 2007
Blimey gary You really do have it bad for gordon dont you,are you his blue eyed boy or somthing? anyway the day a labour politician tells the truth will make a first.
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
john Message left at 09:43 pm, Fri 27th Jul 2007
this is why labour lost 600 council seats,and you still had a succesfull night!we know have 500,000 unemployed 18 to 24 year olds in the uk so why do we nead more young people and what is going to be
done to help them ?
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
john Message left at 05:03 pm, Fri 27th Jul 2007
gary stalin ! could you explain why houses have become so unaffordable and what should be done to tackle the problem
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
peter Message left at 06:32 am, Fri 27th Jul 2007
Gary Good morning How many times do both labour and conservative urge supporters to ignore opinion pols? i would imagine some former labour supporters are showing interest again after mr Bliars
departure,whilst i except that all political parties exagerate and tell lies to try to keep their support your government is totally based on lies,many people are scared that a future under a marxist
style dictatorship are the real agenda with the labour government and the brussels brigade and that the signs are already there perhapes if brown just came out and was honust to the electorate as to
what we should expect over the next few decades then he might get some respect from middle england wich he does not have at present.I would find it hard to believe many small business people would
support the labour dictatorship i know that from experience my own industry has become a minefield of pointless red tape and compliance and additional cost and expense,coupled with ridiculous tax
levels and employment laws that make it difficult to hire and fire,it is not surprising that big business is being driven away to asian countries with less overheads and more freedom who can blame
them?.The truth is britain is becoming a lawless multicultured ghetto with inadequate laws no selective imigration policey wich is totally insane,and please dont play the old tune of calling me a
racist because i am not but that is your normal attack so if it pleases you so be it is pure common sense look at the abu hamsa fiasco this idiot government made him a british citizen,we have
undisiplined youth on our streets making peoples lives miserable,school children shooting each other,no proper border controls and a huge drug problem,and daft irisponsible governent ministers
bragging about smoking canabis ,what a fine example they show to our children.I would say just two genuine positive things have come from 10 years of socialist dictatorship,the smoking ban and the
abolition of hunting wich did not go far enough,the rest is total rubbish and lies.
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
roland Message left at 12:34 am, Fri 27th Jul 2007
so basically no one likes either of them cheers for telling us what we already new.
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
roland Message left at 08:32 pm, Fri 27th Jul 2007
message above was for gary
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
Stephen Message left at 07:29 pm, Thu 26th Jul 2007
I contacted our Labour Party direct with the opportunity of vision,new self financing schemes,but much more.And Guess What!was told to go away and feed my Clp talking shop.Gordon Brown,you are
running a shambles of control mania already,maybe another party and business may have more receptive vision.
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
Ruth Message left at 06:59 pm, Thu 26th Jul 2007
I quote from above: " lifting over one million children out of cold, damp or poor housing; and ..." Perhaps Labour don't want to share with you (the general public, aka 'ordinary people' - a
loathsome phrase)the following: "Wednesday February 14, 2007 · UN puts UK bottom of 21 advanced nations · 'A crisis at heart of our society' - children's commissioner The UK is bottom of the league
of 21 economically advanced countries according to a "report card"' put together by Unicef on the wellbeing of children and adolescents, trailing the United States which comes second to last.
Children growing up in the United Kingdom suffer greater deprivation, worse relationships with their parents and are exposed to more risks from alcohol, drugs and unsafe sex than those in any other
wealthy country in the world, according to a study from the United Nations". Will they print this? Or are the Thought Police on the trail again?
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
www.SquatNow.com Message left at 06:54 pm, Fri 27th Jul 2007
Ask yourself a simple question: who would NuLabour rather see money going to... the rich backers who pay for their election campaign or the gullible electorate wh vote for whoever runs the best
advertising campaign. So now you know why poverty is spiralling out of control and the gap between rich and poor is like something out of a dickens novel.
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
Paul Message left at 05:39 pm, Thu 26th Jul 2007
Where is the help for young singles from the labour party. They talk about helping young couples, young families and single parent families, but what benefits do hardworking, law abiding young single
people like myself get from this government. I can't afford to get on the property ladder and fear I will be renting for they rest of my life!!
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
www.SquatNow.com Message left at 06:56 pm, Fri 27th Jul 2007
Single people are too busy working themselves to death to be able to vote.
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
peter Message left at 01:10 pm, Fri 27th Jul 2007
Might help if gordon the waster had not taxed us all so much
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
Fed Message left at 05:32 pm, Thu 26th Jul 2007
I did post a response to the above question, but it seems it was too close to the truth for this government and has been removed. A shame really since it was a succinct and real world answer, but I
don't think Labour want you guys to hear some real world examples of how they are destroying business in this country. I think the part when I mentioned that I know personally of 11 local businesses
that have collapsed due to their business rates increasing by 300% was a little too close to the truth for them. Shame really that they want to keep you guys in the dark about the state of affairs
but there you go-what else to expect?
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
roland Message left at 06:04 pm, Thu 26th Jul 2007
I did see your message it was there and it was in no way offensive so why was it moved.
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
peter Message left at 06:41 am, Fri 27th Jul 2007
Perhapes it should be put back on and see if it goes again, FREE SPEECH FOR ALL
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
Simon Message left at 10:30 am, Thu 26th Jul 2007
Did anyone else notice this.... First we get "Building homes more quickly - unblocking the planning system and releasing land for development. New incentives for councils and developers to bring
forward land more quickly", and then we get "Maintaining sustainable communities – through reinforcing guidance to prevent inappropriate development in flood risk areas and maintaining the existing
policy on the green belt.". They want to remove any need to ask permission to build where they want, but they also want to force them not to build on flood zones! Maybe im thinking too much into it,
but doesnt that contradict the other?
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
peter Message left at 01:14 pm, Fri 27th Jul 2007
I would love to see what would happen if a planning aplication for affordable housing went up by gordons house bet it would never go through or tonys.Should it be one rule for them and another for
the rest of us?
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
Simon Message left at 10:27 am, Thu 26th Jul 2007
Oh and maybe im being stupid here, but what exactly is a "social home"? Is the labour party creating new phrases again, or does this actually meant something?
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
peter Message left at 06:44 am, Fri 27th Jul 2007
Ghettos i would imagine and comunist style apartments.Wonder if brown is having a palace built?
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
roland Message left at 04:02 pm, Sun 29th Jul 2007
"social homes" is another word for "council housing" that was not scientifficly researched that is just obvious. I personly have nothing against that but why not just say that is what their doing i
also find it very hard to beileve it's only going to be 50'000 of those homes. But yeh at the end of the day they will be ghetto's.
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
will Message left at 10:25 am, Thu 26th Jul 2007
I find the comment at the top about making real progress on housing incredible. We have a chronic housing shortage, a rising population and the most unaffordable housing on record. I'm disappointed
that shared ownership is going to be extended. This can only boost house prices even more and make the problem worse. Why is tax payers money being used to subsidise high house prices? More money
will end up going to those already on the ladder, and it will be harder and harder for people starting out - they'll get less and less for their money, what will happen when 50% of a house is
unaffordable? The consequences of having everyone buying part shares in houses means house prices will go through the roof, it will be a disaster.
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
www.SquatNow.com Message left at 06:59 pm, Fri 27th Jul 2007
I agree, the shared ownership scheme is just a desperate last gasp attempt by Gordon Brown to boost house prices before the crash. Why when our parents could buy 100% of a decent house for 30% of
their wages do hey think it's acceptable or the younger generation to pay 70% of our wages to buy 50% of a rabbit hutch? My advice: Squat somewere and wait out the crash, then snap up anice ex-BTL
flat for 30% of the current prices.
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
Simon Message left at 10:25 am, Thu 26th Jul 2007
"Building homes more quickly - unblocking the planning system and releasing land for development. New incentives for councils and developers to bring forward land more quickly"..... well thats all
the land surrounding my small town gone!
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
Gary Message left at 06:28 pm, Wed 25th Jul 2007
I feel sorry for Conservative supporters who are trying to vent their spleen by posting blogs here. I'm sure if this was a Conservative web site the thought police would be censoring comments. While
Gordon Brown and the Labour Government are concentrating on the priorities, like Housing, the NHS and Education while Sham Cam floats about the country and abroad doing photo ops. David Cameron knows
more about fine champagne and more at home with Old Etonian cronies than the problems facing British people. The wheels have definately come off Camerons bicycle. The clunking fist is smashing the
lightweight!
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
peter Message left at 06:48 am, Fri 27th Jul 2007
Gary So do you think comrade brown goes home to his council flat in his smart car or on his bike and sips brown ale? i dont think so,nice new jag dont you think?
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
roland Message left at 08:52 pm, Wed 25th Jul 2007
Well gary i was bought up in a single parent family under margret thatcher which was not to pleasent at all. I WAS! a labour supporter all my life. And now we've had 10 years of them i now realise
new labour could not run a bath let alone a country. Please answer this simple question who voted in Gordon Brown who in this country said that is the man i want to lead this country. Please try to
answer with out calling me any thing like rasist it's a very simpler question.
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
roland Message left at 03:48 am, Sun 29th Jul 2007
Peter. There's an old saying that go's 'The road to hell is paved with good intention'.
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
roland Message left at 08:42 pm, Sat 28th Jul 2007
I don't think it's jelousey what i think their doing in an efort to bring in more revenue with out touching the basic rate of tax what they seem to be doing is trying to squeeze on taxes that already
exist or closing down on tax breaks. For a man/woman to run a business which is a 24 hour job not a 9-5 job these tax breaks etc.. were often the break they needed especialy when trying to get a
business off the ground and then to make all their hard work worth it. I'll give you a good example of puttin the squeeze on taxes that already exsist. Road tax. Surely it would be quite reasonable
for you to be given a weak leeway (given the amount of hassel it can be) after buying a car to get it taxed not any more you are not even allowed to drive that car to the post office to buy your tax.
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
Gary Message left at 09:13 pm, Wed 25th Jul 2007
Roland, I agree living under Margaret Thatcher was awful, however, who has been responsible for Britain's successful economy where Business is booming, none other than Mr GB. I havbe no doubts
whatsoever as and when a General Election is called Gordon Brown will win handsomely. I think the electorate have already seen through David Shameron, all spin and pr and no substance.
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
roland Message left at 10:33 pm, Wed 25th Jul 2007
Oh just one more point you did not answer my simple question. The answer is no one for any one wondering.
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
Gary Message left at 11:33 pm, Wed 25th Jul 2007
Roland, we don't have a Presidential system in the UK. We elect a Government to serve a full term. I seem to recall John Major stepping in when Margaret Thatcher stepped down...as I say some people
have short memories...
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
roland Message left at 04:46 pm, Thu 26th Jul 2007
As i remember it, there was at least a bit of debate over who should take over from thatcher although major was the obvious chose. There was also the fact she was more or less ousted out of office by
both this country and the tory party as i think there were serious doubts about her mental health. When John Major took over at least he carried on with their objectives regardless of weather you
liked them or not. Gordon Brown on the other hand has been lying in wait for his moment to take over for quite some time (let's face it the hole country knows that). He's been planning what was going
to happen to this country for quite some time and selling us to brussels is part of that plan. Wake up i have.
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
Gary Message left at 12:20 am, Fri 27th Jul 2007
You will find that the overwhelming majority of British people have woken up to reality and have spurned David Cameron and his reactionary Tory Party!
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
peter Message left at 01:20 pm, Fri 27th Jul 2007
How come 79% of this country are anti eu and yet they still will not have a referendum? and no we do not believe tonys lieing version either or his carefully worded constitutution WE WANT A
REFERENDUM is this a democracy or a dictatorship?
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
roland Message left at 12:38 am, Fri 27th Jul 2007
Have you ever told a vicar god dose not exist.
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
Elizabeth Message left at 01:31 pm, Wed 25th Jul 2007
Does Mr Brown think that building more houses to purchase would be beneficial? Wouldn't it be more prudent to build sufficient housing for people who Can't afford to buy their own homes, such as low
income families and disabled people who cannot work?
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
Tom Jones Message left at 02:10 pm, Wed 25th Jul 2007
I think that's kinda the point - affordable housing should be by defult - affordable
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
peter Message left at 08:48 am, Sat 28th Jul 2007
Well tom,my wife is a big fan of yours plenty of cheap houses in pontyprydd so they say hollywood got you down has it? well the green green grass of home beckons and gordons labour will welcome
you(give them a donation and you may end up in the house of lords even so they must be wringing their grubby little hands for all the tax money they could have and all the imigrant houses it would
build)
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
www.SquatNow.com Message left at 07:02 pm, Fri 27th Jul 2007
The problem you describing here is the fact that the tories sold off most of the cncil houses, and then labour sld what was left. Right-To-Buy should either be scrapped or should apply to all rental
property, council and private.
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
peter Message left at 08:55 am, Sat 28th Jul 2007
So the tories not labour have created much of the so called wealth by allowing people to buy affordable homes? i rest my case.
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
stephanie Message left at 12:00 pm, Wed 25th Jul 2007
Paul i put it to you. Would this country be better run by the "david beckham" of politics : David Cameron? I think not for the following reasons: Yes Tony Blair did make some mistakes, but he is only
human. I believe that he did not know that the decisions he made would result the way they have done. Howeverm i believe that no matter who you are you must give Gordon Brown a chance. If you are
narrow minded enough to listen to David Camerons insane policies and believe he can reach them then go ahead. But personally i believe the way forward for the united kindgom is in the power of gordon
brown and i trust that he will do a good job, if given the oppertunity.
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
peter Message left at 07:04 am, Fri 27th Jul 2007
Basil brush would make a better job then new labour.
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive