In London it is very easy to identify policies that people will respond to. Help Generation Rent. Build low cost housing and limit sales to people on the basic rate. That goes for a lot of urban areas nof just London. Generation rent should be natural Tory targets, decent income levels well educated etc... But they are stuck in a rental market paying off some arsehole's buy-to-let mortgage and the government have left this generation to rot in the rental market. HtB is completely useless for London so the current prescription falls on deaf ears. In areas where generation rent have a big presence the Tories have done poorly. They must govern in the interests of normal people and not for bloody landlords looking for easy returns by buying up London property.
Except that doesn't actually work, it's just a naive Miliband-like stab at the symptoms
'Build low cost housing' - Where? Paid for how?
"Limit sales to people on the basic rate" - How? By household, by individual? Do you take into account whether they've got other forms of capital or rich parents?
"They must govern in the interests of normal people and not for bloody landlords looking for easy returns by buying up London property." What on earth is wrong with a rental market where buy-to-let landlords are supplying the capital we all agree is required, and then competing with each other for tenants, thus driving down rents?
54% in according to the BBC and the Conservatives are heading for 250 losses, LibDems 280, UKIP 185 gains, Labour 315, on the naive measure. A small variation on the forecast at the 45% stage.
At the 61.5% stage, Con -255, LD -275, Lab +300, UKIP +200.
Lord Ashcroft @LordAshcroft 35m Isn't it wonderful to hear the establishment parties now saying they must listen to the voters concerns #doh
It would be even more wonderful if there was any person on this earth who could articulate how exactly the voters' concerns could be addressed, other than by the government doing what it is already doing or (in the case of the Tories) plans to do.
Build low cost housing and limit sales to people on the basic rate.
But why should 'normal people' be expected to subsidise these house purchases?
Would any subsequent sale of this housing be limited to another buyer on basic rate, and would any profit accrued be returned to the taxpayer?
I think the number of votes it has got for its actually policies, if anyone knows what they are, will be statistically insignificant.
I took the trouble to find out, out of curiosity. Their policies are identical to UKIP's, for all practical purposes. The only point of disagreement seems to be that they want the UK to leave the EU immediately, whereas (they claim) UKIP wants to use the Lisbon Treaty procedure which takes two years. It seems an odd point to go to the trouble of setting up a whole political party for, but there we go.
I think the whole point of AIFE was twofold. First it was a hope from Nattrass that he could keep his MEP seat. Second it was designed specifically to act as a spoiler for UKIP.
I am not actually that critical of either of these aims. It is all part of politics in Britain today. I am critical of the people Nattrass chose to ally himself with to achieve it who include some very nasty characters who I would hate to see gain any support at all.
You seem confused. The committee including cross party MSP's wrote the report and published it , that is democracy. It was not an SNP report. You are trying to conflate sour grapes with democracy and not painting a pretty picture.
I know 'facts' aren't your strong suit.....
Nationalist MSPs on a Holyrood committee examining the issue softened criticisms of the Scottish Government's stance in a major report to be published today, against the will of opposition members.
You do not seem to get the fact that a committee is made up of a number of members and the majority opinion is what is produced. Trying to say that because the minority parties did not get everything they wanted in the report as being suppression is laughable. Do you think the Tories do everything Nick Clegg tells them he wants, be serious. You have lost sight of reality with your hatred, I certainly do not expect David Cameron to implement SNP or Labour policies, why do you think it is sensible the other way round.
In Westminster' Parliamentary Cttes aim for consensus, and when that is not possible, publish minority reports.
In SNPLand, the SNP bulldoze dissenting opinion and veto the publication of a minority dissenting view.....
Where did you see there was not a consensus. Some weasely words fro a Tory paper and you make that into "suppression". Have you got names of MSP's who claim they were ignored and that their opinions were suppressed and excluded from the report.
Scottish Conservative MSP Jamie McGrigor, who sits on the committee, said: "The original draft report produced by the clerks was a clear, impartial reflection of the evidence the committee had received.
"However, it soon became clear the SNP members wanted to doctor this and include more pro-independence arguments, instead of a true record of what was heard.
"We are completely unsatisfied with the report and its conclusions, which differ greatly from the original draft. The SNP has used its in-built majority to gag opposing views, and that is a disgrace.
"I'm concerned that this is now becoming a pattern. The committees in Holyrood are supposed to fulfil a vital role in holding the Scottish Government to account, but because of the climate we live in now at the Scottish Parliament, those opportunities have been stamped out."
In London it is very easy to identify policies that people will respond to
Absolutely, Mr Max. Do you think it would help if the tories also...
1. cut personal income taxes further
2. Hiked the 'no stamp duty' threshold to, say, half a million?
All of that is tinkering around the edges. Getting generation rent onto the housing ladder and getting generation babyboomer/we had it all out is what will help the Tories in London. The demographics are changing and London is a city or renters, none of whom are predisposed to vote Con while they pay rent to their wealthy Tory voting landlord. RN and other Tories will deny that this is a problem, but they just don't see what it's like down on the ground and the amount of anger there is directed towards the ggovernment over the cosseting of private landlords by the Tories. All of my friends want to buy a flat, I am lucky enough to have supportive parents who let me live in their house rent free for 3 years while I saved money. Most people don't have that luxury. They need the government no their side, instead the government seems more interested in pleasing private landlords by overseeing a mega price bubble.
I think the whole point of AIFE was twofold. First it was a hope from Nattrass that he could keep his MEP seat. Second it was designed specifically to act as a spoiler for UKIP.
It will certainly vanish without trace. I really don't know why he bothered.
Miss Vance, if that's accurate it's rather shoddy.
Mr. Max, might this not be an either/or option? The proposals you've made around subsidy might well be hugely welcomed by renters in London, but they'd be loathed by everyone who isn't a Londoner.
More homes and a reduction in stamp duty would seem to be better options, but the numbers, of course, have to add up.
In London it is very easy to identify policies that people will respond to. Help Generation Rent. Build low cost housing and limit sales to people on the basic rate. That goes for a lot of urban areas nof just London. Generation rent should be natural Tory targets, decent income levels well educated etc... But they are stuck in a rental market paying off some arsehole's buy-to-let mortgage and the government have left this generation to rot in the rental market. HtB is completely useless for London so the current prescription falls on deaf ears. In areas where generation rent have a big presence the Tories have done poorly. They must govern in the interests of normal people and not for bloody landlords looking for easy returns by buying up London property.
Except that doesn't actually work, it's just a naive Miliband-like stab at the symptoms
'Build low cost housing' - Where? Paid for how?
"Limit sales to people on the basic rate" - How? By household, by individual? Do you take into account whether they've got other forms of capital or rich parents?
"They must govern in the interests of normal people and not for bloody landlords looking for easy returns by buying up London property." What on earth is wrong with a rental market where buy-to-let landlords are supplying the capital we all agree is required, and then competing with each other for tenants, thus driving down rents?
In London it is very easy to identify policies that people will respond to
Absolutely, Mr Max. Do you think it would help if the tories also...
1. cut personal income taxes further
2. Hiked the 'no stamp duty' threshold to, say, half a million?
All of that is tinkering around the edges. Getting generation rent onto the housing ladder and getting generation babyboomer/we had it all out is what will help the Tories in London. The demographics are changing and London is a city or renters, none of whom are predisposed to vote Con while they pay rent to their wealthy Tory voting landlord. RN and other Tories will deny that this is a problem, but they just don't see what it's like down on the ground and the amount of anger there is directed towards the ggovernment over the cosseting of private landlords by the Tories. All of my friends want to buy a flat, I am lucky enough to have supportive parents who let me live in their house rent free for 3 years while I saved money. Most people don't have that luxury. They need the government no their side, instead the government seems more interested in pleasing private landlords by overseeing a mega price bubble.
Good analysis. I'm afraid the Tories will always be the same: protecting the interests of the wealthy. Exactly the opposite of what Adam Smith was all about.
Mr. Tyndall, np (and the connection's a pretty logical one).
Not a huge Lor dof the Rings fan (I prefer The Silmarillion) but that name stuck with me, possibly because of the way the films managed to have seven endings which lasted about half an hour but they stupidly didn't have the rather good Saruman/Grima ending in there [I've since got the extended cut DVDs, which went a different route].
In London it is very easy to identify policies that people will respond to. Help Generation Rent. Build low cost housing and limit sales to people on the basic rate. That goes for a lot of urban areas nof just London. Generation rent should be natural Tory targets, decent income levels well educated etc... But they are stuck in a rental market paying off some arsehole's buy-to-let mortgage and the government have left this generation to rot in the rental market. HtB is completely useless for London so the current prescription falls on deaf ears. In areas where generation rent have a big presence the Tories have done poorly. They must govern in the interests of normal people and not for bloody landlords looking for easy returns by buying up London property.
Except that doesn't actually work, it's just a naive Miliband-like stab at the symptoms
'Build low cost housing' - Where? Paid for how?
"Limit sales to people on the basic rate" - How? By household, by individual? Do you take into account whether they've got other forms of capital or rich parents?
"They must govern in the interests of normal people and not for bloody landlords looking for easy returns by buying up London property." What on earth is wrong with a rental market where buy-to-let landlords are supplying the capital we all agree is required, and then competing with each other for tenants, thus driving down rents?
You Tories just don't get it. People don't want to effing rent and no one cares that rent costs have grown slightly less quickly. They want to be able to afford to buy their own flat. Until you guys get it through your collective heads that ggeneration rent see landlords as the enemy and by extension the Tories as the enemy you can kiss goodbye to winning seats on zone 2 and 3. Areas which should be fertile hunting grounds for Cameroons.
Sell the flats on a cost basis. Not-for-profit but not subsidised either.
According to the Beeb, on these results the LibDems would lose Hornsey & Wood Green, and Cambridge, to Labour, and Solihill and Twickenham (ouch!) to the Tories:
In London it is very easy to identify policies that people will respond to. Help Generation Rent. Build low cost housing and limit sales to people on the basic rate. That goes for a lot of urban areas nof just London. Generation rent should be natural Tory targets, decent income levels well educated etc... But they are stuck in a rental market paying off some arsehole's buy-to-let mortgage and the government have left this generation to rot in the rental market. HtB is completely useless for London so the current prescription falls on deaf ears. In areas where generation rent have a big presence the Tories have done poorly. They must govern in the interests of normal people and not for bloody landlords looking for easy returns by buying up London property.
Except that doesn't actually work, it's just a naive Miliband-like stab at the symptoms
'Build low cost housing' - Where? Paid for how?
"Limit sales to people on the basic rate" - How? By household, by individual? Do you take into account whether they've got other forms of capital or rich parents?
"They must govern in the interests of normal people and not for bloody landlords looking for easy returns by buying up London property." What on earth is wrong with a rental market where buy-to-let landlords are supplying the capital we all agree is required, and then competing with each other for tenants, thus driving down rents?
You Tories just don't get it. People don't want to effing rent and no one cares that rent costs have grown slightly less quickly. They want to be able to afford to buy their own flat. Until you guys get it through your collective heads that ggeneration rent see landlords as the enemy and by extension the Tories as the enemy you can kiss goodbye to winning seats on zone 2 and 3. Areas which should be fertile hunting grounds for Cameroons.
Sell the flats on a cost basis. Not-for-profit but not subsidised either.
You think the government should effectively subsidise your mates so that they can buy flats and hence vote Tory? Crackers.
Some of you are far too unadventurous in your UKIP bets. I have them to win Waveney at 50/1, Hastings & Rye at 100/1 and Blackpool North & Cleveleys at 250/1.
Because I was bored, I just calculated what a £25 accumulator would get you (if bookies allowed accumulators on seats)
£32,322,525
Sadly, Stan James wouldn't allow me 25p on a single bet, never mind £25 on an accumulator.
@MaxPB - Don't be silly. I get perfectly what people want. They want motherhood, apple pie, their own really nice home, cheap petrol, low heating bills, no wind farms, no fracking, low taxes, cheap air fares and lots of flights, no airports or aircraft noise, and lots of sex.
Identifying what people want is the easy bit. Even Ed Miliband can do that.
The hard bit is delivering it. The even harder bit is delivering one part of it without having a disastrous impact on something else.
In London it is very easy to identify policies that people will respond to. Help Generation Rent. Build low cost housing and limit sales to people on the basic rate. That goes for a lot of urban areas nof just London. Generation rent should be natural Tory targets, decent income levels well educated etc... But they are stuck in a rental market paying off some arsehole's buy-to-let mortgage and the government have left this generation to rot in the rental market. HtB is completely useless for London so the current prescription falls on deaf ears. In areas where generation rent have a big presence the Tories have done poorly. They must govern in the interests of normal people and not for bloody landlords looking for easy returns by buying up London property.
Except that doesn't actually work, it's just a naive Miliband-like stab at the symptoms
'Build low cost housing' - Where? Paid for how?
"Limit sales to people on the basic rate" - How? By household, by individual? Do you take into account whether they've got other forms of capital or rich parents?
"They must govern in the interests of normal people and not for bloody landlords looking for easy returns by buying up London property." What on earth is wrong with a rental market where buy-to-let landlords are supplying the capital we all agree is required, and then competing with each other for tenants, thus driving down rents?
It all sounds more 'Generation Want' than 'Rent'.
Interfering in the market would probably lead to all sorts of unintended consequences, some of which are hinted at Mr Nabavi. It's a supply problem, pure and simple, a large part of which has been the refusal to build on the green belt.
You could get tens of thousands of new low-cost houses and flats on Hyde Park. Just sayin'.
Miss Vance, if that's accurate it's rather shoddy.
Mr. Max, might this not be an either/or option? The proposals you've made around subsidy might well be hugely welcomed by renters in London, but they'd be loathed by everyone who isn't a Londoner.
More homes and a reduction in stamp duty would seem to be better options, but the numbers, of course, have to add up.
The government would have to take on the tender risk if it were to fail. Flats could be sold on a cost basis, and if we finally realise that building upwards is the only way to go then the per unit coat won't exceed the prices people can afford. Put ownership and reselling limitations on them for a lengthy period, write into the contract that they cannot be rented or leased in any way. The subsidy from the government would be to take on the risk and paying a 5% RoI to housebuilders.
Sell the flats on a cost basis. Not-for-profit but not subsidised either.
Mr Max you make a brilliant case, but you simply don;t understand the Cameroon mentality.
Big government and big business must come first, second and third.
Developers must be able to cherry pick only the most profitable developments. Frackers must be able to frack without compensation - people might get suspicious f they get paiod!!! The revenue must be able to plunder the accounts of ordinary taxpayers with no checks and balances.
Never mind you are working like a f8cking slave to stand still, look how much the economy's growing!!!
Miss Vance, if that's accurate it's rather shoddy.
Mr. Max, might this not be an either/or option? The proposals you've made around subsidy might well be hugely welcomed by renters in London, but they'd be loathed by everyone who isn't a Londoner.
More homes and a reduction in stamp duty would seem to be better options, but the numbers, of course, have to add up.
Once again, how do you expect London to keep driving UK Plc ahead in the global race when bugger all young professionals can avoid to buy a house here? My family is seen as rich (according to the PB Tories' hairshirt wing) on a household income of £82k. Yet we live well out in the suburbs.
Max is right – the Tory Bumpkin win has a blind spot on this issue, hence why they are about as popular as a cup of warm urine in London.
In London it is very easy to identify policies that people will respond to. Help Generation Rent. Build low cost housing and limit sales to people on the basic rate. That goes for a lot of urban areas nof just London. Generation rent should be natural Tory targets, decent income levels well educated etc... But they are stuck in a rental market paying off some arsehole's buy-to-let mortgage and the government have left this generation to rot in the rental market. HtB is completely useless for London so the current prescription falls on deaf ears. In areas where generation rent have a big presence the Tories have done poorly. They must govern in the interests of normal people and not for bloody landlords looking for easy returns by buying up London property.
Except that doesn't actually work, it's just a naive Miliband-like stab at the symptoms
'Build low cost housing' - Where? Paid for how?
"Limit sales to people on the basic rate" - How? By household, by individual? Do you take into account whether they've got other forms of capital or rich parents?
"They must govern in the interests of normal people and not for bloody landlords looking for easy returns by buying up London property." What on earth is wrong with a rental market where buy-to-let landlords are supplying the capital we all agree is required, and then competing with each other for tenants, thus driving down rents?
You Tories just don't get it. People don't want to effing rent and no one cares that rent costs have grown slightly less quickly. They want to be able to afford to buy their own flat. Until you guys get it through your collective heads that ggeneration rent see landlords as the enemy and by extension the Tories as the enemy you can kiss goodbye to winning seats on zone 2 and 3. Areas which should be fertile hunting grounds for Cameroons.
Sell the flats on a cost basis. Not-for-profit but not subsidised either.
Who's going to build them not for profit? Only the Govt can or would do that. Fair enough, but that means a plan to create a " National Home Builder Corp ". It's got to be staffed resourced with skilled people and it's still got to buy the land. It's doable ( if undesirable in my own view ) but you/we need something a bit more thought through from the politicians than " control prices" " or build more houses" even.
In London it is very easy to identify policies that people will respond to. Help Generation Rent. Build low cost housing and limit sales to people on the basic rate. That goes for a lot of urban areas nof just London. Generation rent should be natural Tory targets, decent income levels well educated etc... But they are stuck in a rental market paying off some arsehole's buy-to-let mortgage and the government have left this generation to rot in the rental market. HtB is completely useless for London so the current prescription falls on deaf ears. In areas where generation rent have a big presence the Tories have done poorly. They must govern in the interests of normal people and not for bloody landlords looking for easy returns by buying up London property.
Except that doesn't actually work, it's just a naive Miliband-like stab at the symptoms
'Build low cost housing' - Where? Paid for how?
"Limit sales to people on the basic rate" - How? By household, by individual? Do you take into account whether they've got other forms of capital or rich parents?
"They must govern in the interests of normal people and not for bloody landlords looking for easy returns by buying up London property." What on earth is wrong with a rental market where buy-to-let landlords are supplying the capital we all agree is required, and then competing with each other for tenants, thus driving down rents?
You Tories just don't get it. People don't want to effing rent and no one cares that rent costs have grown slightly less quickly. They want to be able to afford to buy their own flat. Until you guys get it through your collective heads that ggeneration rent see landlords as the enemy and by extension the Tories as the enemy you can kiss goodbye to winning seats on zone 2 and 3. Areas which should be fertile hunting grounds for Cameroons.
Sell the flats on a cost basis. Not-for-profit but not subsidised either.
Who's going to build them not for profit? Only the Govt can or would do that. Fair enough, but that means a plan to create a " National Home Builder Corp ". It's got to be staffed resourced with skilled people and it's still got to buy the land. It's doable ( if undesirable in my own view ) but you/we need something a bit more thought through from the politicians than " control prices" " or build more houses" even.
I may be mis-stating his position, but I interpreted from Max's posts that he expected the government to do this. They build houses already, what we need is for them to double or treble the rate in London.
EDIT: I have indeed misundersood him, his plan of government guarenteed building is a cunning one in my mind.
For my mind, although these results are not good enough really for Mr Miliband, the one light in all this is that we are witnessing the slow but certain defenestraion of this mind blowingly awful Tory administration next year.
Regardless of whether or not Labour gain a majority - and I don't think they really deserve one on all the evidence recently - Labour in coalition will be good enough.
Heavens, even a truly hung parliament with no one able to fomr a coaltion would be better than this useless, mean-spiritied, smugly stingey government.
In London it is very easy to identify policies that people will respond to. Help Generation Rent. Build low cost housing and limit sales to people on the basic rate. That goes for a lot of urban areas nof just London. Generation rent should be natural Tory targets, decent income levels well educated etc... But they are stuck in a rental market paying off some arsehole's buy-to-let mortgage and the government have left this generation to rot in the rental market. HtB is completely useless for London so the current prescription falls on deaf ears. In areas where generation rent have a big presence the Tories have done poorly. They must govern in the interests of normal people and not for bloody landlords looking for easy returns by buying up London property.
Except that doesn't actually work, it's just a naive Miliband-like stab at the symptoms
'Build low cost housing' - Where? Paid for how?
"Limit sales to people on the basic rate" - How? By household, by individual? Do you take into account whether they've got other forms of capital or rich parents?
"They must govern in the interests of normal people and not for bloody landlords looking for easy returns by buying up London property." What on earth is wrong with a rental market where buy-to-let landlords are supplying the capital we all agree is required, and then competing with each other for tenants, thus driving down rents?
You Tories just don't get it. People don't want to effing rent and no one cares that rent costs have grown slightly less quickly. They want to be able to afford to buy their own flat. Until you guys get it through your collective heads that ggeneration rent see landlords as the enemy and by extension the Tories as the enemy you can kiss goodbye to winning seats on zone 2 and 3. Areas which should be fertile hunting grounds for Cameroons.
Sell the flats on a cost basis. Not-for-profit but not subsidised either.
Have you thought through the implications of what you are saying?
I agree that the housing market in the UK does need reforming but I cannot work out how.
I think your suggestion could well lead to a massive crash in house prices, perhaps leading to a crash in the economy and in reality would then be an incredible vote loser.
Your suggestion may be the best idea for the UK housing market and may allow the country to start again on housing, but it is certainly not a vote winner.
In London it is very easy to identify policies that people will respond to. Help Generation Rent. Build low cost housing and limit sales to people on the basic rate. That goes for a lot of urban areas nof just London. Generation rent should be natural Tory targets, decent income levels well educated etc... But they are stuck in a rental market paying off some arsehole's buy-to-let mortgage and the government have left this generation to rot in the rental market. HtB is completely useless for London so the current prescription falls on deaf ears. In areas where generation rent have a big presence the Tories have done poorly. They must govern in the interests of normal people and not for bloody landlords looking for easy returns by buying up London property.
Except that doesn't actually work, it's just a naive Miliband-like stab at the symptoms
'Build low cost housing' - Where? Paid for how?
"Limit sales to people on the basic rate" - How? By household, by individual? Do you take into account whether they've got other forms of capital or rich parents?
"They must govern in the interests of normal people and not for bloody landlords looking for easy returns by buying up London property." What on earth is wrong with a rental market where buy-to-let landlords are supplying the capital we all agree is required, and then competing with each other for tenants, thus driving down rents?
It all sounds more 'Generation Want' than 'Rent'.
Interfering in the market would probably lead to all sorts of unintended consequences, some of which are hinted at Mr Nabavi. It's a supply problem, pure and simple, a large part of which has been the refusal to build on the green belt.
You could get tens of thousands of new low-cost houses and flats on Hyde Park. Just sayin'.
Supply, and the fact due to London's status as a truly international city, anyone trying to buy property in many areas is now competing with the rest of the world for it. The reality is that many people can never win that game, and would be better off living and working elsewhere, be it another city or even another country.
I think An Independence could surprise us all. It appeals to the dim Kipper, the drunk, the frivolous and the NOTA-and-don't-like-Farage-either. If it also gets some of the specifically bien-pensant Farage-haters, that's quite a lot of votes. And it might get that, because it is a much more vindictive way of spoiling Farage's day than boringly voting Lib/Lab/Con.
Apart from being a dim Kipper I am pretty much all of those, and I did indeed vote AIFE.
The combined total of any of the Tory and Ukip candidates would have defeated all of the Lib Dems. I wonder if we will see similar results in the GE next year?
You can bank on it. Miliband is probably doing so. It's thanks to UKIP that a good Eurosceptic Tory was defeated in Morley by the loathsome Ed Balls.
In London it is very easy to identify policies that people will respond to. Help Generation Rent. Build low cost housing and limit sales to people on the basic rate. That goes for a lot of urban areas nof just London. Generation rent should be natural Tory targets, decent income levels well educated etc... But they are stuck in a rental market paying off some arsehole's buy-to-let mortgage and the government have left this generation to rot in the rental market. HtB is completely useless for London so the current prescription falls on deaf ears. In areas where generation rent have a big presence the Tories have done poorly. They must govern in the interests of normal people and not for bloody landlords looking for easy returns by buying up London property.
Except that doesn't actually work, it's just a naive Miliband-like stab at the symptoms
'Build low cost housing' - Where? Paid for how?
"Limit sales to people on the basic rate" - How? By household, by individual? Do you take into account whether they've got other forms of capital or rich parents?
"They must govern in the interests of normal people and not for bloody landlords looking for easy returns by buying up London property." What on earth is wrong with a rental market where buy-to-let landlords are supplying the capital we all agree is required, and then competing with each other for tenants, thus driving down rents?
You Tories just don't get it. People don't want to effing rent and no one cares that rent costs have grown slightly less quickly. They want to be able to afford to buy their own flat. Until you guys get it through your collective heads that ggeneration rent see landlords as the enemy and by extension the Tories as the enemy you can kiss goodbye to winning seats on zone 2 and 3. Areas which should be fertile hunting grounds for Cameroons.
Sell the flats on a cost basis. Not-for-profit but not subsidised either.
They forget why Thatcher's right to buy policy was so popular.
It wasn't that the voters had a preference for private sector renting over state sector renting, but they much preferred owning a house themselves. There are masses of votes for the Tories to win if they can find a way to help first-time buyers over buy-to-let investors.
If they don't manage to do so then it leaves the field open for Labour to replace private renting with state sector renting. It's pretty clear what people's preferences are:
House ownership > Council house renting > Private rentals > Shanty towns
Why would Tories be on the side of Private renting rather than mass home ownership?
Mr. Woolie, isn't that a bit silly? If UKIP wins he gains nothing from the prediction, and if they lose (eminently possible) he'll look sillier than a man standing in a lake with a small painted wooden duck on his head.
I imagine Cameron will be on the phone to some EU bureaucrats urging them to make some noises about how his renegotiation tactic might work, rather than on all other occasions spit their raw contempt for anyone but ardent Europhiles around, if they want to at least possibly take some momentum away from UKIP. Not likely one thinks.
Developers must be able to cherry pick only the most profitable developments.
As opposed to being forced to develop unprofitable developments? Or is the theory that there are a bunch of developments they could be making that would make them money, but after making more money on even more profitable ones they can't be arsed?
In London it is very easy to identify policies that people will respond to. Help Generation Rent. Build low cost housing and limit sales to people on the basic rate. That goes for a lot of urban areas nof just London. Generation rent should be natural Tory targets, decent income levels well educated etc... But they are stuck in a rental market paying off some arsehole's buy-to-let mortgage and the government have left this generation to rot in the rental market. HtB is completely useless for London so the current prescription falls on deaf ears. In areas where generation rent have a big presence the Tories have done poorly. They must govern in the interests of normal people and not for bloody landlords looking for easy returns by buying up London property.
Except that doesn't actually work, it's just a naive Miliband-like stab at the symptoms
'Build low cost housing' - Where? Paid for how?
"Limit sales to people on the basic rate" - How? By household, by individual? Do you take into account whether they've got other forms of capital or rich parents?
"They must govern in the interests of normal people and not for bloody landlords looking for easy returns by buying up London property." What on earth is wrong with a rental market where buy-to-let landlords are supplying the capital we all agree is required, and then competing with each other for tenants, thus driving down rents?
It all sounds more 'Generation Want' than 'Rent'.
Interfering in the market would probably lead to all sorts of unintended consequences, some of which are hinted at Mr Nabavi. It's a supply problem, pure and simple, a large part of which has been the refusal to build on the green belt.
You could get tens of thousands of new low-cost houses and flats on Hyde Park. Just sayin'.
Supply, and the fact due to London's status as a truly international city, anyone trying to buy property in many areas is now competing with the rest of the world for it. The reality is that many people can never win that game, and would be better off living and working elsewhere, be it another city or even another country.
Yep, agree than most of zone 1&2 are never going to be accessible to 'normal people' (a horrible phrase). A isolated sh1tholes aside.
You think the government should effectively subsidise your mates so that they can buy flats and hence vote Tory? Crackers.
Another Tory who doesn't get it. The anger is at private landlords who are all getting other people to pay off buy-to-let mortgages. How can people who can't afford to save after rent ever hope to get on the housing ladder without assistance. HtB is completely useless in London because prices are out of control.
@MaxPB - Don't be silly. I get perfectly what people want. They want motherhood, apple pie, their own really nice home, cheap petrol, low heating bills, no wind farms, no fracking, low taxes, cheap air fares and lots of flights, no airports or aircraft noise, and lots of sex.
Identifying what people want is the easy bit. Even Ed Miliband can do that.
The hard bit is delivering it. The even harder bit is delivering one bit of it without having a disastrous impact on something else.
The impact would be on private landlords who would no longer be able to feck over young people for easy returns. That's why Tories will never go for it. It harms their members and voter base. Please name other parts of the economy that would be affected by the government building houses and flats then selling them on a cost basis to low and middle income earners? Oh right there are nkbe. It just reigns in rental yields until buy-to-lets are no longer sustainable. Private landlords are the enemy of a propey functioning economy. It ties money up into non-liquid assets and it drains mkneh out of the economy into the bank accounts of already wealthy people. Please explain to me why the working poor should be subsidising the lifestyles of private landlords? Is it right that the Tories are on the side of the wealthy rather than the side of those who want to work hard and get on in life? That's the message they are sending to a whole generation of people stuck renting from your generation.
The answer lies in my opinion in ensuring further rises in private housebuilding. I for my part would push for much greater development in a corridor running east of London, via the transport hub created in Stratford.
"With result still coming in from the locals, Ladbrokes have reacted to UKIP’s good performance by cutting them from 4/5 to 1/2 to win a seat at the next General Election. I suspect that, once we go through the results in detail, there are going to be lots of areas of concentrated UKIP support and constituencies where they are going to become a lot shorter to win.
... The betting on the winners of the Euro election has been a bit strange. UKIP were about 1.3 on the exchanges when the polls closed, and are still about the same price on Betfair this morning. Which seems odd given that they have out-performed expectations in the local votes declared so far. Ladbrokes are 1/6 and you can back Labour at 7/2."
They forget why Thatcher's right to buy policy was so popular.
The Cameroons are not thatcherites. In fact they are barely tories.
See RN's sneering reply about sex to Max's outstanding point about ordinary people wanting to own their own home and being potential zone 2 and 3 natural tories.
Miss Vance, if that's accurate it's rather shoddy.
Mr. Max, might this not be an either/or option? The proposals you've made around subsidy might well be hugely welcomed by renters in London, but they'd be loathed by everyone who isn't a Londoner.
More homes and a reduction in stamp duty would seem to be better options, but the numbers, of course, have to add up.
Once again, how do you expect London to keep driving UK Plc ahead in the global race when bugger all young professionals can avoid to buy a house here? My family is seen as rich (according to the PB Tories' hairshirt wing) on a household income of £82k. Yet we live well out in the suburbs.
Max is right – the Tory Bumpkin win has a blind spot on this issue, hence why they are about as popular as a cup of warm urine in London.
Whining Bob, of the expensive haircuts and a wife with a wardrobe stacked full of shoes thinks commuting is beneath him, and the rest of the UK should help out.
Only 2 BNP elected politicians in the UK so far and they only clung on.Griffin's fascist party face wipe-out. If nothing else in this election occurs,this is a very welcome development.
For my mind, although these results are not good enough really for Mr Miliband, the one light in all this is that we are witnessing the slow but certain defenestraion of this mind blowingly awful Tory administration next year.
Regardless of whether or not Labour gain a majority - and I don't think they really deserve one on all the evidence recently - Labour in coalition will be good enough.
Heavens, even a truly hung parliament with no one able to fomr a coaltion would be better than this useless, mean-spiritied, smugly stingey government.
It hasn't been that bad I think. Certainly the stingy part would not have been different and will not be different whoever is in power, it is just the superficial specifics of where that stingyness hits that is different (as the biggest areas are obviously where the biggest hits have to come, so would not alter significantly).
I would definitely prefer a coalition or a minority government though. For one I just think reasonably sized coalitions are a good idea, but particularly when, as you say, the opposition have not really done enough to show they deserve a majority.
PSG to sign David Luiz for £50 million of the Queen's Pounds.
Yes, fifty fecking million.
@TSE Called up Paddy, asked for twenty - they let me have another ten on.
As I said to you the seat looks perfect
10% UKIP + BNP
"Old Labour" Austin Mitchell standing down, Grimsby as far from Primrose Hill politically as you can get, East coast Conservative switchers also on 30% probably there too. Prof Curtice reckons its on too !
PSG to sign David Luiz for £50 million of the Queen's Pounds.
Yes, fifty fecking million.
@TSE Called up Paddy, asked for twenty - they let me have another ten on.
As I said to you the seat looks perfect
10% UKIP + BNP
"Old Labour" Austin Mitchell standing down, Grimsby as far from Primrose Hill politically as you can get, East coast Conservative switchers also on 30% probably there too. Prof Curtice reckons its on too !
You think the government should effectively subsidise your mates so that they can buy flats and hence vote Tory? Crackers.
Another Tory who doesn't get it. The anger is at private landlords who are all getting other people to pay off buy-to-let mortgages. How can people who can't afford to save after rent ever hope to get on the housing ladder without assistance. HtB is completely useless in London because prices are out of control.
@MaxPB - Don't be silly. I get perfectly what people want. They want motherhood, apple pie, their own really nice home, cheap petrol, low heating bills, no wind farms, no fracking, low taxes, cheap air fares and lots of flights, no airports or aircraft noise, and lots of sex.
Identifying what people want is the easy bit. Even Ed Miliband can do that.
The hard bit is delivering it. The even harder bit is delivering one bit of it without having a disastrous impact on something else.
The impact would be on private landlords who would no longer be able to feck over young people for easy returns. That's why Tories will never go for it. It harms their members and voter base. Please name other parts of the economy that would be affected by the government building houses and flats then selling them on a cost basis to low and middle income earners? Oh right there are nkbe. It just reigns in rental yields until buy-to-lets are no longer sustainable. Private landlords are the enemy of a propey functioning economy. It ties money up into non-liquid assets and it drains mkneh out of the economy into the bank accounts of already wealthy people. Please explain to me why the working poor should be subsidising the lifestyles of private landlords? Is it right that the Tories are on the side of the wealthy rather than the side of those who want to work hard and get on in life? That's the message they are sending to a whole generation of people stuck renting from your generation.
Commute from Zone 6 or further and save up for 5 years. Why the hell should you be able to buy wherever you want? Oh life is so unfair, I want it all, and I want it now! (calm down, TSE).
''Is it right that the Tories are on the side of the wealthy rather than the side of those who want to work hard and get on in life? That's the message they are sending to a whole generation of people stuck renting from your generation.''
Mr Max, my hero. A brilliant, brilliant set of posts that tells us everything that is wrong with cameroonian conservatism, and why it has lost supporters to UKIP or to apathy by the boatload.
"With result still coming in from the locals, Ladbrokes have reacted to UKIP’s good performance by cutting them from 4/5 to 1/2 to win a seat at the next General Election. I suspect that, once we go through the results in detail, there are going to be lots of areas of concentrated UKIP support and constituencies where they are going to become a lot shorter to win.
... The betting on the winners of the Euro election has been a bit strange. UKIP were about 1.3 on the exchanges when the polls closed, and are still about the same price on Betfair this morning. Which seems odd given that they have out-performed expectations in the local votes declared so far. Ladbrokes are 1/6 and you can back Labour at 7/2."
Only 2 BNP elected politicians in the UK so far and they only clung on.Griffin's fascist party face wipe-out. If nothing else in this election occurs,this is a very welcome development.
Please explain to me why the working poor should be subsidising the lifestyles of private landlords? Is it right that the Tories are on the side of the wealthy rather than the side of those who want to work hard and get on in life? That's the message they are sending to a whole generation of people stuck renting from your generation.
You are talking utter nonsense. The government is not 'subsidising the lifestyles of private landlords'. In fact, it is being criticised for subsidising people to buy their own homes through Help-to-Buy.
It seems to me that your only criticism is that they are not subsidising you, someone extremely well-paid, from what you have told us before.
Mr. Woolie, isn't that a bit silly? If UKIP wins he gains nothing from the prediction, and if they lose (eminently possible) he'll look sillier than a man standing in a lake with a small painted wooden duck on his head.
DYOR but I think you can assume he expects to win easily.
Cheltenham final results 19 seats plus 1 postponed due to death of a councillor Con 5 seats LD 12 seats PAB 2 seats Conservatives gained 1 from Lib Dems and 1 from Independent nimby elected as a Lib Dem
Commute from Zone 6 or further and save up for 5 years. Why the hell should you be able to buy wherever you want? Oh life is so unfair, I want it all, and I want it now! (calm down, TSE).
Alternatively, get a job somewhere with a more reasonable cost of living.
But to let "ties money up into non-liquid assets"? How does this make any sense at all? You realise that if one person buys a house, the money they used to buy it goes to someone else right?
Farage " Can we top the poll across the UK? Thats the marker that Im looking towards"
Dimbleby "... and do you think you will?"
Farage "I do! Yes, I do, I do"
Would any other leader give a straight answer? Or do they play expectations management in case, horror of horrors, they dont win?
UKIP the party of positive thinking and going for it!!
That Nigel Farage is an amazing man. The casual nonchalant way in which he inhales, followed by an inexpressibly confident exhalation. And he does that every single time.
Can you think of another party leader who would be able to pull this off? No wonder the British public are falling in love with him.
Developers must be able to cherry pick only the most profitable developments.
As opposed to being forced to develop unprofitable developments? Or is the theory that there are a bunch of developments they could be making that would make them money, but after making more money on even more profitable ones they can't be arsed?
It is a well known and accepted tactic that developers sit on land which on which they have applied for and obtained planning permission whilst continuing to try and get more land released for development by citing the need for more building.
I do agree with the proposals that any builder sitting on land for more than 6 months should lose the planning permission and have to start reapplication with all the risks and costs that entails.
You think the government should effectively subsidise your mates so that they can buy flats and hence vote Tory? Crackers.
Another Tory who doesn't get it. The anger is at private landlords who are all getting other people to pay off buy-to-let mortgages. How can people who can't afford to save after rent ever hope to get on the housing ladder without assistance. HtB is completely useless in London because prices are out of control.
@MaxPB - Don't be silly. I get perfectly what people want. They want motherhood, apple pie, their own really nice home, cheap petrol, low heating bills, no wind farms, no fracking, low taxes, cheap air fares and lots of flights, no airports or aircraft noise, and lots of sex.
Identifying what people want is the easy bit. Even Ed Miliband can do that.
The hard bit is delivering it. The even harder bit is delivering one bit of it without having a disastrous impact on something else.
The impact would be on private landlords who would no longer be able to feck over young people for easy returns. That's why Tories will never go for it. It harms their members and voter base. Please name other parts of the economy that would be affected by the government building houses and flats then selling them on a cost basis to low and middle income earners? Oh right there are nkbe. It just reigns in rental yields until buy-to-lets are no longer sustainable. Private landlords are the enemy of a propey functioning economy. It ties money up into non-liquid assets and it drains mkneh out of the economy into the bank accounts of already wealthy people. Please explain to me why the working poor should be subsidising the lifestyles of private landlords? Is it right that the Tories are on the side of the wealthy rather than the side of those who want to work hard and get on in life? That's the message they are sending to a whole generation of people stuck renting from your generation.
Commute from Zone 6 or further and save up for 5 years. Why the hell should you be able to buy wherever you want? Oh life is so unfair, I want it all, and I want it now! (calm down, TSE).
It's not like the suburbs are much cheaper. My sister and her husband are looking around for a two bed flat right now in zone 4/5 and their saving compared to my zone 2 flat is not very large. London is a law unto itself and unless you want to end up with a city where everyone either commutes from Stevenage or around there and everyone else within the city limits rent other than the very wealthy or foreign wealthy people then the government need to act to assist people onto the housing market. They already do it with help to buy, now they need help to build.
You think the government should effectively subsidise your mates so that they can buy flats and hence vote Tory? Crackers.
Another Tory who doesn't get it. The anger is at private landlords who are all getting other people to pay off buy-to-let mortgages. How can people who can't afford to save after rent ever hope to get on the housing ladder without assistance. HtB is completely useless in London because prices are out of control.
@MaxPB - Don't be silly. I get perfectly what people want. They want motherhood, apple pie, their own really nice home, cheap petrol, low heating bills, no wind farms, no fracking, low taxes, cheap air fares and lots of flights, no airports or aircraft noise, and lots of sex.
Identifying what people want is the easy bit. Even Ed Miliband can do that.
The hard bit is delivering it. The even harder bit is delivering one bit of it without having a disastrous impact on something else.
The impact would be on private landlords who would no longer be able to feck over young people for easy returns. That's why Tories will never go for it. It harms their members and voter base. Please name other parts of the economy that would be affected by the government building houses and flats then selling them on a cost basis to low and middle income earners? Oh right there are nkbe. It just reigns in rental yields until buy-to-lets are no longer sustainable. Private landlords are the enemy of a propey functioning economy. It ties money up into non-liquid assets and it drains mkneh out of the economy into the bank accounts of already wealthy people. Please explain to me why the working poor should be subsidising the lifestyles of private landlords? Is it right that the Tories are on the side of the wealthy rather than the side of those who want to work hard and get on in life? That's the message they are sending to a whole generation of people stuck renting from your generation.
'The anger is at private landlords who are all getting other people to pay off buy-to-let mortgages.'
I suspect a large number of BTL's are on interest only mortgages, and once that's paid, the landlord gets a return on whatever they've put up themselves as equity, plus any increase in property value. Someone here must have the figures.
"With result still coming in from the locals, Ladbrokes have reacted to UKIP’s good performance by cutting them from 4/5 to 1/2 to win a seat at the next General Election. I suspect that, once we go through the results in detail, there are going to be lots of areas of concentrated UKIP support and constituencies where they are going to become a lot shorter to win.
... The betting on the winners of the Euro election has been a bit strange. UKIP were about 1.3 on the exchanges when the polls closed, and are still about the same price on Betfair this morning. Which seems odd given that they have out-performed expectations in the local votes declared so far. Ladbrokes are 1/6 and you can back Labour at 7/2."
I think An Independence could surprise us all. It appeals to the dim Kipper, the drunk, the frivolous and the NOTA-and-don't-like-Farage-either. If it also gets some of the specifically bien-pensant Farage-haters, that's quite a lot of votes. And it might get that, because it is a much more vindictive way of spoiling Farage's day than boringly voting Lib/Lab/Con.
Apart from being a dim Kipper I am pretty much all of those, and I did indeed vote AIFE.
The combined total of any of the Tory and Ukip candidates would have defeated all of the Lib Dems. I wonder if we will see similar results in the GE next year?
You can bank on it. Miliband is probably doing so. It's thanks to UKIP that a good Eurosceptic Tory was defeated in Morley by the loathsome Ed Balls.
Miss Vance, if that's accurate it's rather shoddy.
Mr. Max, might this not be an either/or option? The proposals you've made around subsidy might well be hugely welcomed by renters in London, but they'd be loathed by everyone who isn't a Londoner.
More homes and a reduction in stamp duty would seem to be better options, but the numbers, of course, have to add up.
Once again, how do you expect London to keep driving UK Plc ahead in the global race when bugger all young professionals can avoid to buy a house here? My family is seen as rich (according to the PB Tories' hairshirt wing) on a household income of £82k. Yet we live well out in the suburbs.
Max is right – the Tory Bumpkin win has a blind spot on this issue, hence why they are about as popular as a cup of warm urine in London.
Whining Bob, of the expensive haircuts and a wife with a wardrobe stacked full of shoes thinks commuting is beneath him, and the rest of the UK should help out.
Hardly a vote winner outside of the South East.
I;m not talking about me (I was merely making a point that I live in London but not in the central city). I'm talking about the thousands of people who keep entire industries going on £30-£40k a year and are being priced out of the main driver for the UK economy.
That the PB Tories think this is just c'est la vie tells me that you just don't get it.
You think the government should effectively subsidise your mates so that they can buy flats and hence vote Tory? Crackers.
Another Tory who doesn't get it. The anger is at private landlords who are all getting other people to pay off buy-to-let mortgages. How can people who can't afford to save after rent ever hope to get on the housing ladder without assistance. HtB is completely useless in London because prices are out of control.
@MaxPB - Don't be silly. I get perfectly what people want. They want motherhood, apple pie, their own really nice home, cheap petrol, low heating bills, no wind farms, no fracking, low taxes, cheap air fares and lots of flights, no airports or aircraft noise, and lots of sex.
Identifying what people want is the easy bit. Even Ed Miliband can do that.
The hard bit is delivering it. The even harder bit is delivering one bit of it without having a disastrous impact on something else.
The impact would be on private landlords who would no longer be able to feck over young people for easy returns. That's why Tories will never go for it. It harms their members and voter base. Please name other parts of the economy that would be affected by the government building houses and flats then selling them on a cost basis to low and middle income earners? Oh right there are nkbe. It just reigns in rental yields until buy-to-lets are no longer sustainable. Private landlords are the enemy of a propey functioning economy. It ties money up into non-liquid assets and it drains mkneh out of the economy into the bank accounts of already wealthy people. Please explain to me why the working poor should be subsidising the lifestyles of private landlords? Is it right that the Tories are on the side of the wealthy rather than the side of those who want to work hard and get on in life? That's the message they are sending to a whole generation of people stuck renting from your generation.
'The anger is at private landlords who are all getting other people to pay off buy-to-let mortgages.'
I suspect a large number of BTL's are on interest only mortgages, and once that's paid, the landlord gets a return on whatever they've put up themselves as equity, plus any increase in property value. Someone here must have the figures.
"BBC North West Political Editor Arif Ansari tweets: The Lib Dems have lost all 6 seats they were defending in Liverpool. And have conceded all 9 in Manchester."
So UKIP are effectively the only opposition to Labour in several northern cities? Interesting times.
Farage " Can we top the poll across the UK? Thats the marker that Im looking towards"
Dimbleby "... and do you think you will?"
Farage "I do! Yes, I do, I do"
Would any other leader give a straight answer? Or do they play expectations management in case, horror of horrors, they dont win?
UKIP the party of positive thinking and going for it!!
That Nigel Farage is an amazing man. The casual nonchalant way in which he inhales, followed by an inexpressibly confident exhalation. And he does that every single time.
Can you think of another party leader who would be able to pull this off? No wonder the British public are falling in love with him.
I like Farage, but that did need to be said, bravo.
Developers must be able to cherry pick only the most profitable developments.
As opposed to being forced to develop unprofitable developments? Or is the theory that there are a bunch of developments they could be making that would make them money, but after making more money on even more profitable ones they can't be arsed?
It is a well known and accepted tactic that developers sit on land which on which they have applied for and obtained planning permission whilst continuing to try and get more land released for development by citing the need for more building.
I do agree with the proposals that any builder sitting on land for more than 6 months should lose the planning permission and have to start reapplication with all the risks and costs that entails.
What's their objective in sitting on land that they could profitably develop?
Please explain to me why the working poor should be subsidising the lifestyles of private landlords? Is it right that the Tories are on the side of the wealthy rather than the side of those who want to work hard and get on in life? That's the message they are sending to a whole generation of people stuck renting from your generation.
You are talking utter nonsense. The government is not 'subsidising the lifestyles of private landlords'. In fact, it is being criticised for subsidising people to buy their own homes through Help-to-Buy.
It seems to me that your only criticism is that they are not subsidising you, someone extremely well-paid, from what you have told us before.
Correct. Dig into it a bit, and I expect you'd find that MaxPB went speculatively short of Londojn property some years ago, in the same way others went speculatively long. He has missed out on hundreds of thousands of pounds thereby. So he's needy. He needs someone to blame and to be angry with. He needs to believe that some great wrong, or crime, or piece of epic graft has occurred against his interests. He needs to believe that he has been diddled, and is the victim. He needs a villain, and the villain is anyone who called it right. He needs not to face up to the fact that his judgment was poor.
Perhaps he spent too much time reading - and swallowing - the crap posted on housepricecrash.co.uk.
The funny thing is that there were people on Usenet in 1996 arguing that UK property was about to crash. Someone posted a link in the DT comments a few months ago. Think about that; on the eve of 300% price appreciation over the next 18 years, on the eve of an 18-year of historically unbelieveably cheap interest rates, there were fools urging other fools not to buy because it was all about to get cheaper.
I've no sympathy. It's the same as Labour dressing up envy as principle to make it respectable when it's reprehensible.
BBC : Con 973 (-171) Lab 1270 (+205) LD 356 (-194) UKIP 134 (+133) SKy : Con 1851 (-165) Lab 2611 (+147) LD 613 (-149) UKIP 152 (+138)
I am pretty sure this happened the last time too and IIRC the BBC moved towards the Sky figures once everyone had stopped watching. I think Sky were faster in reporting the outcome of seats while the BBC, for some bizarre reason, don't report until every council seat in that authority has reported.
Getting the final results from the MSM is generally very difficult. It stretches their very short concentration span.
I do agree with the proposals that any builder sitting on land for more than 6 months should lose the planning permission and have to start reapplication with all the risks and costs that entails.
Barmy idea. House building is risky enough as it is without the risk of even more up-front expense, bureaucracy and uncertainty. Several of the big housebuilding forms were close to going bust in the last downturn, and most of them had to raise extra capital. They are doing well now, but there's no certainty that will last. [I shall probably be getting out of housebuilders before IndyRef and especially the Labour conference]
The idea that housebuilding firms would deliberately tie capital up in land when they could turn it over is just crazy.
London prices are too high, but people here are exaggerating. A couple of teachers should be able to buy somewhere in zone 2 or 3 by the time they're 30.
They already do it with help to buy, now they need help to build.
My daughter has just started work in London after uni. We live in surrey and don;t charge any rent so she gets to save what she earns.
Its much worse for every one of her friends. After rent, tax, travel and food they have nothing. Zip. Nada. Nix. They can't dream of a deposit, never mind a home of their own. When I started working in London thirty years ago central properties were expensive, but what were then the grottier boroughs were within some sort of compass. Now nothing is. Nothing at all.
We have some young people at the office I work who are the same. They have nothing, bless em and no prospect whatsoever of owning.
Please explain to me why the working poor should be subsidising the lifestyles of private landlords? Is it right that the Tories are on the side of the wealthy rather than the side of those who want to work hard and get on in life? That's the message they are sending to a whole generation of people stuck renting from your generation.
You are talking utter nonsense. The government is not 'subsidising the lifestyles of private landlords'. In fact, it is being criticised for subsidising people to buy their own homes through Help-to-Buy.
It seems to me that your only criticism is that they are not subsidising you, someone extremely well-paid, from what you have told us before.
Correct. Dig into it a bit, and I expect you'd find that MaxPB went speculatively short of Londojn property some years ago, in the same way others went speculatively long. He has missed out on hundreds of thousands of pounds thereby. So he's needy. He needs someone to blame and to be angry with. He needs to believe that some great wrong, or crime, or piece of epic graft has occurred against his interests. He needs to believe that he has been diddled, and is the victim. He needs a villain, and the villain is anyone who called it right. He needs not to face up to the fact that his judgment was poor.
Perhaps he spent too much time reading - and swallowing - the crap posted on housepricecrash.co.uk.
The funny thing is that there were people on Usenet in 1996 arguing that UK property was about to crash. Someone posted a link in the DT comments a few months ago. Think about that; on the eve of 300% price appreciation over the next 18 years, on the eve of an 18-year of historically unbelieveably cheap interest rates, there were fools urging other fools not to buy because it was all about to get cheaper.
I've no sympathy. It's the same as Labour dressing up envy as principle to make it respectable when it's reprehensible.
How did he go 'short' on London property, I know he has a good job and all but wouldn't taking a short position on London property require substantial capital available ?
Or do you mean he rented. Which isn't ... exactly the same as going 'short'
Comments
'Build low cost housing' - Where? Paid for how?
"Limit sales to people on the basic rate" - How? By household, by individual? Do you take into account whether they've got other forms of capital or rich parents?
"They must govern in the interests of normal people and not for bloody landlords looking for easy returns by buying up London property." What on earth is wrong with a rental market where buy-to-let landlords are supplying the capital we all agree is required, and then competing with each other for tenants, thus driving down rents?
Would any subsequent sale of this housing be limited to another buyer on basic rate, and would any profit accrued be returned to the taxpayer?
16/1 at the moment.
Fill yer boots
I am not actually that critical of either of these aims. It is all part of politics in Britain today. I am critical of the people Nattrass chose to ally himself with to achieve it who include some very nasty characters who I would hate to see gain any support at all.
"However, it soon became clear the SNP members wanted to doctor this and include more pro-independence arguments, instead of a true record of what was heard.
"We are completely unsatisfied with the report and its conclusions, which differ greatly from the original draft. The SNP has used its in-built majority to gag opposing views, and that is a disgrace.
"I'm concerned that this is now becoming a pattern. The committees in Holyrood are supposed to fulfil a vital role in holding the Scottish Government to account, but because of the climate we live in now at the Scottish Parliament, those opportunities have been stamped out."
http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/scotland/snp-doctoring-report-msps-claim-1.385209
UKIP 1.32
Lab 3.65
Con 42
Betfair - In-Play - European Parliament Election 2014 - Most seats
UKIP 1.5
Lab 2.6
Con 21
Mr. Max, might this not be an either/or option? The proposals you've made around subsidy might well be hugely welcomed by renters in London, but they'd be loathed by everyone who isn't a Londoner.
More homes and a reduction in stamp duty would seem to be better options, but the numbers, of course, have to add up.
45 to go
Not a huge Lor dof the Rings fan (I prefer The Silmarillion) but that name stuck with me, possibly because of the way the films managed to have seven endings which lasted about half an hour but they stupidly didn't have the rather good Saruman/Grima ending in there [I've since got the extended cut DVDs, which went a different route].
Sell the flats on a cost basis. Not-for-profit but not subsidised either.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2014/may/23/local-election-results-live
#UKIP wins 10 seats out of possible 13 in Great Yarmouth. Another astonishing result. #GreatYarmouth #Norfolk
Con lose 3 in Elm Park to Residents.
Identifying what people want is the easy bit. Even Ed Miliband can do that.
The hard bit is delivering it. The even harder bit is delivering one part of it without having a disastrous impact on something else.
You could get tens of thousands of new low-cost houses and flats on Hyde Park. Just sayin'.
Mr Max you make a brilliant case, but you simply don;t understand the Cameroon mentality.
Big government and big business must come first, second and third.
Developers must be able to cherry pick only the most profitable developments.
Frackers must be able to frack without compensation - people might get suspicious f they get paiod!!!
The revenue must be able to plunder the accounts of ordinary taxpayers with no checks and balances.
Never mind you are working like a f8cking slave to stand still, look how much the economy's growing!!!
Max is right – the Tory Bumpkin win has a blind spot on this issue, hence why they are about as popular as a cup of warm urine in London.
http://www.doncaster.gov.uk/sections/councilanddemocracy/votingelectionsanddemocracy/ElectionResults/Results/Local_Elections_2014.aspx
Lab gain 1 from Con and 2 from Green in the double election
EDIT: I have indeed misundersood him, his plan of government guarenteed building is a cunning one in my mind.
Well done all.
For my mind, although these results are not good enough really for Mr Miliband, the one light in all this is that we are witnessing the slow but certain defenestraion of this mind blowingly awful Tory administration next year.
Regardless of whether or not Labour gain a majority - and I don't think they really deserve one on all the evidence recently - Labour in coalition will be good enough.
Heavens, even a truly hung parliament with no one able to fomr a coaltion would be better than this useless, mean-spiritied, smugly stingey government.
I agree that the housing market in the UK does need reforming but I cannot work out how.
I think your suggestion could well lead to a massive crash in house prices, perhaps leading to a crash in the economy and in reality would then be an incredible vote loser.
Your suggestion may be the best idea for the UK housing market and may allow the country to start again on housing, but it is certainly not a vote winner.
It wasn't that the voters had a preference for private sector renting over state sector renting, but they much preferred owning a house themselves. There are masses of votes for the Tories to win if they can find a way to help first-time buyers over buy-to-let investors.
If they don't manage to do so then it leaves the field open for Labour to replace private renting with state sector renting. It's pretty clear what people's preferences are:
House ownership > Council house renting > Private rentals > Shanty towns
Why would Tories be on the side of Private renting rather than mass home ownership?
PSG to sign David Luiz for £50 million of the Queen's Pounds.
Yes, fifty fecking million.
You think the government should effectively subsidise your mates so that they can buy flats and hence vote Tory? Crackers.
Another Tory who doesn't get it. The anger is at private landlords who are all getting other people to pay off buy-to-let mortgages. How can people who can't afford to save after rent ever hope to get on the housing ladder without assistance. HtB is completely useless in London because prices are out of control. The impact would be on private landlords who would no longer be able to feck over young people for easy returns. That's why Tories will never go for it. It harms their members and voter base. Please name other parts of the economy that would be affected by the government building houses and flats then selling them on a cost basis to low and middle income earners? Oh right there are nkbe. It just reigns in rental yields until buy-to-lets are no longer sustainable. Private landlords are the enemy of a propey functioning economy. It ties money up into non-liquid assets and it drains mkneh out of the economy into the bank accounts of already wealthy people. Please explain to me why the working poor should be subsidising the lifestyles of private landlords? Is it right that the Tories are on the side of the wealthy rather than the side of those who want to work hard and get on in life? That's the message they are sending to a whole generation of people stuck renting from your generation.
"With result still coming in from the locals, Ladbrokes have reacted to UKIP’s good performance by cutting them from 4/5 to 1/2 to win a seat at the next General Election. I suspect that, once we go through the results in detail, there are going to be lots of areas of concentrated UKIP support and constituencies where they are going to become a lot shorter to win.
... The betting on the winners of the Euro election has been a bit strange. UKIP were about 1.3 on the exchanges when the polls closed, and are still about the same price on Betfair this morning. Which seems odd given that they have out-performed expectations in the local votes declared so far. Ladbrokes are 1/6 and you can back Labour at 7/2."
http://politicalbookie.wordpress.com/2014/05/23/betting-markets-react-to-ukip-successes/
The Cameroons are not thatcherites. In fact they are barely tories.
See RN's sneering reply about sex to Max's outstanding point about ordinary people wanting to own their own home and being potential zone 2 and 3 natural tories.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/this-vine-of-ed-miliband-trying-to-look-normal-is-strangely
Hardly a vote winner outside of the South East.
If nothing else in this election occurs,this is a very welcome development.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/the-bnp-has-just-two-councillors-remaining-in-britain
I would definitely prefer a coalition or a minority government though. For one I just think reasonably sized coalitions are a good idea, but particularly when, as you say, the opposition have not really done enough to show they deserve a majority.
As I said to you the seat looks perfect
10% UKIP + BNP
"Old Labour" Austin Mitchell standing down, Grimsby as far from Primrose Hill politically as you can get, East coast Conservative switchers also on 30% probably there too.
Prof Curtice reckons its on too !
Farage " Can we top the poll across the UK? Thats the marker that Im looking towards"
Dimbleby "... and do you think you will?"
Farage "I do! Yes, I do, I do"
Would any other leader give a straight answer? Or do they play expectations management in case, horror of horrors, they dont win?
UKIP the party of positive thinking and going for it!!
Mr Max, my hero. A brilliant, brilliant set of posts that tells us everything that is wrong with cameroonian conservatism, and why it has lost supporters to UKIP or to apathy by the boatload.
Thank you.
It seems to me that your only criticism is that they are not subsidising you, someone extremely well-paid, from what you have told us before.
Different can of worms due to higher commuting costs?? All Mr Max is asking for is a shot at the title. He's not asking for a handout.
Con 5 seats LD 12 seats PAB 2 seats Conservatives gained 1 from Lib Dems and 1 from Independent nimby elected as a Lib Dem
https://www.harrow.gov.uk/www2/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=10249 To the benefit of Farage's fascist party, unfortunately.
I hope !
A disgraceful remark. You and your type are a liability to the Conservative Party.
UKIP are your opponents, not your enemy.
Can you think of another party leader who would be able to pull this off? No wonder the British public are falling in love with him.
I do agree with the proposals that any builder sitting on land for more than 6 months should lose the planning permission and have to start reapplication with all the risks and costs that entails.
I suspect a large number of BTL's are on interest only mortgages, and once that's paid, the landlord gets a return on whatever they've put up themselves as equity, plus any increase in property value. Someone here must have the figures.
BBC : Con 973 (-171) Lab 1270 (+205) LD 356 (-194) UKIP 134 (+133)
SKy : Con 1851 (-165) Lab 2611 (+147) LD 613 (-149) UKIP 152 (+138)
That the PB Tories think this is just c'est la vie tells me that you just don't get it.
Max is absolutely right.
So UKIP are effectively the only opposition to Labour in several northern cities? Interesting times.
Lab 31
Con 29 UKip 17 LD 13 Other 10
Perhaps he spent too much time reading - and swallowing - the crap posted on housepricecrash.co.uk.
The funny thing is that there were people on Usenet in 1996 arguing that UK property was about to crash. Someone posted a link in the DT comments a few months ago. Think about that; on the eve of 300% price appreciation over the next 18 years, on the eve of an 18-year of historically unbelieveably cheap interest rates, there were fools urging other fools not to buy because it was all about to get cheaper.
I've no sympathy. It's the same as Labour dressing up envy as principle to make it respectable when it's reprehensible.
Getting the final results from the MSM is generally very difficult. It stretches their very short concentration span.
The idea that housebuilding firms would deliberately tie capital up in land when they could turn it over is just crazy.
My daughter has just started work in London after uni. We live in surrey and don;t charge any rent so she gets to save what she earns.
Its much worse for every one of her friends. After rent, tax, travel and food they have nothing. Zip. Nada. Nix. They can't dream of a deposit, never mind a home of their own. When I started working in London thirty years ago central properties were expensive, but what were then the grottier boroughs were within some sort of compass. Now nothing is. Nothing at all.
We have some young people at the office I work who are the same. They have nothing, bless em and no prospect whatsoever of owning.
Or do you mean he rented. Which isn't ... exactly the same as going 'short'