Why the Tories are done. Buy-to-let is a scourge on society. Until the Tories step in and take an almighty axe to the sector either by severely restricting mortgages for BTL or by introducing a LVT on second or non-resident property the Tories are going to be out of the game long term. Labour don't offer a solution but they have recognised the problem and for that they will get credit. The Tories are burying their heads in the sand over this issue and long term it buries them.
Ed Miliband has enjoyed a particularly significant boost to his personal polling, however. The Labour leader has seen a six-point rise on last week, up from -21% to -15% (29% approve, 44% disapprove) with his net rating among Labour voters rising from +53% to +59%.
l
I wonder, is that what is really driving Ed Miliband improvement in approval numbers? i.e People who would have voted Labour anyway saying he isn't crap anymore and hence no real VI poll boost?
And vice versa, Tories have given Cameorn the massive thumbs up, like a North Korean asked about Kim Jong Un, for basically the past 5 years.
Interesting point, Francis, but does it work that way?
Ed's improved rating would, I guess, increase the 'propensity to vote' amongst Labour voters, who traditional are rather less conscientious in their voting habits than their Conservative counterparts. So I would have thought that it would help Labour convert support into votes into seats.
But I'm not sure. Could be you are right and the improvement has little electoral consequence.
Ed Miliband has enjoyed a particularly significant boost to his personal polling, however. The Labour leader has seen a six-point rise on last week, up from -21% to -15% (29% approve, 44% disapprove) with his net rating among Labour voters rising from +53% to +59%.
l
I wonder, is that what is really driving Ed Miliband improvement in approval numbers? i.e People who would have voted Labour anyway saying he isn't crap anymore and hence no real VI poll boost?
And vice versa, Tories have given Cameorn the massive thumbs up, like a North Korean asked about Kim Jong Un, for basically the past 5 years.
Interesting point, Francis, but does it work that way?
Ed's improved rating would, I guess, increase the 'propensity to vote' amongst Labour voters, who traditional are rather less conscientious in their voting habits than their Conservative counterparts. So I would have thought that it would help Labour convert support into votes into seats.
But I'm not sure. Could be you are right and the improvement has little electoral consequence.
I honestly don't know. It was as much of a question as an answer.
Why the Tories are done. Buy-to-let is a scourge on society. Until the Tories step in and take an almighty axe to the sector either by severely restricting mortgages for BTL or by introducing a LVT on second or non-resident property the Tories are going to be out of the game long term. Labour don't offer a solution but they have recognised the problem and for that they will get credit. The Tories are burying their heads in the sand over this issue and long term it buries them.
In London this is a massive problem.People are converting houses into 5 or 6 one-roomed residences and essentially living off this.
Why the Tories are done. Buy-to-let is a scourge on society. Until the Tories step in and take an almighty axe to the sector either by severely restricting mortgages for BTL or by introducing a LVT on second or non-resident property the Tories are going to be out of the game long term. Labour don't offer a solution but they have recognised the problem and for that they will get credit. The Tories are burying their heads in the sand over this issue and long term it buries them.
Buy-to-let is only a problem for the London middle class young. There is no obvious reason why young middle class people in London should have the right to own a property in prime London locations. Renting isn't automatically a hardship and the desirability of buy-to-let is mainly driven by shortage of supply.
The focus should instead be on improving the supply of properties in general (for which there is an urgent need) rather than pandering specifically to one of the groups with least to grumble about.
Why the Tories are done. Buy-to-let is a scourge on society. Until the Tories step in and take an almighty axe to the sector either by severely restricting mortgages for BTL or by introducing a LVT on second or non-resident property the Tories are going to be out of the game long term. Labour don't offer a solution but they have recognised the problem and for that they will get credit. The Tories are burying their heads in the sand over this issue and long term it buries them.
The BOE base rate needs jacking up to 5% or so. There are way too many zombie households and businesses which are solely staying afloat due to the low interest rate environment we are currently in.
Why the Tories are done. Buy-to-let is a scourge on society. Until the Tories step in and take an almighty axe to the sector either by severely restricting mortgages for BTL or by introducing a LVT on second or non-resident property the Tories are going to be out of the game long term. Labour don't offer a solution but they have recognised the problem and for that they will get credit. The Tories are burying their heads in the sand over this issue and long term it buries them.
The BOE base rate needs jacking up to 5% or so. There are way too many zombie households and businesses which are solely staying afloat due to the low interest rate environment we are currently in.
Whoever is in government when interest rates return to historical norms is going to be in a fun time, as so many people are wed to current "fake" level of interest rates.
Why the Tories are done. Buy-to-let is a scourge on society. Until the Tories step in and take an almighty axe to the sector either by severely restricting mortgages for BTL or by introducing a LVT on second or non-resident property the Tories are going to be out of the game long term. Labour don't offer a solution but they have recognised the problem and for that they will get credit. The Tories are burying their heads in the sand over this issue and long term it buries them.
The tax benefits given to BTL in terms of setting off the full interest costs, repairs and our rather generous CGT regime gives those with capital an unfair advantage and our absurd HB scheme under the last government where the rents were rigged in an upwards direction at the cost of the taxpayer made BTL something of a no brainer.
Reforms to HB have reduced the return somewhat but there is a great deal more to do there. At the moment the opportunity to rent property at public expense is making the cost of housing too high for all of us. Something really needs to be done.
Why the Tories are done. Buy-to-let is a scourge on society. Until the Tories step in and take an almighty axe to the sector either by severely restricting mortgages for BTL or by introducing a LVT on second or non-resident property the Tories are going to be out of the game long term. Labour don't offer a solution but they have recognised the problem and for that they will get credit. The Tories are burying their heads in the sand over this issue and long term it buries them.
The BOE base rate needs jacking up to 5% or so. There are way too many zombie households and businesses which are solely staying afloat due to the low interest rate environment we are currently in.
"The BOE base rate needs jacking up to 5% or so."
I wonder which party would be brave enough to do that?
Well it was peak kipper when they were going down - now they're going back up again it is still peak kipper? Of course all this is within MOE and thus we learn nothing about VI.
Why the Tories are done. Buy-to-let is a scourge on society. Until the Tories step in and take an almighty axe to the sector either by severely restricting mortgages for BTL or by introducing a LVT on second or non-resident property the Tories are going to be out of the game long term. Labour don't offer a solution but they have recognised the problem and for that they will get credit. The Tories are burying their heads in the sand over this issue and long term it buries them.
Buy-to-let is only a problem for the London middle class young. There is no obvious reason why young middle class people in London should have the right to own a property in prime London locations. Renting isn't automatically a hardship and the desirability of buy-to-let is mainly driven by shortage of supply.
The focus should instead be on improving the supply of properties in general (for which there is an urgent need) rather than pandering specifically to one of the groups with least to grumble about.
Capital is flowing in the wrong direction. That is poor economics. Young people are handing over a third to half of their pay to old people who own the property. London has no space to build new property the existing stock will have to do, even if we build on all of the available brownfield sites it would not keep up with demand. It means the existing owners who lease their property need to be ousted in favour of owner occupiers.
It may be a London issue today, but it is coming soon to a cities around the country.
B-t-L wouldn’t be a problem IF the demand for London housing didn’t far exceed the supply.
Yeah, I know ..... bears in woods etc.
However the question is how do you resolve it without wrecking the situation elsewhere in the country. As antifrank says, renting isn’t a problem per se; the rest of Europe seems to manage perfectly well with a lot more rental than we do.
Why the Tories are done. Buy-to-let is a scourge on society. Until the Tories step in and take an almighty axe to the sector either by severely restricting mortgages for BTL or by introducing a LVT on second or non-resident property the Tories are going to be out of the game long term. Labour don't offer a solution but they have recognised the problem and for that they will get credit. The Tories are burying their heads in the sand over this issue and long term it buries them.
The tax benefits given to BTL in terms of setting off the full interest costs, repairs and our rather generous CGT regime gives those with capital an unfair advantage and our absurd HB scheme under the last government where the rents were rigged in an upwards direction at the cost of the taxpayer made BTL something of a no brainer.
Reforms to HB have reduced the return somewhat but there is a great deal more to do there. At the moment the opportunity to rent property at public expense is making the cost of housing too high for all of us. Something really needs to be done.
Rent control? Nationalise rented property? Would make a difference in London but what would in do in, say, Stoke?
Opinium fieldwork 2/3 April - so partially pre debate?
Or did they only start at 10pm on Thurs?
Started straight after the debate finished
OK, thanks.
Hard to say who's happiest with it. I guess all we can say is if there is no discernible movement even when a poll is done the moment the debate has finished then it points strongly to no debate effect.
If anything it maybe points to the big 2 likely to strengthen further in due course - ie this was the opportunity for minor parties to make an impact but they haven't done so.
Why the Tories are done. Buy-to-let is a scourge on society. Until the Tories step in and take an almighty axe to the sector either by severely restricting mortgages for BTL or by introducing a LVT on second or non-resident property the Tories are going to be out of the game long term. Labour don't offer a solution but they have recognised the problem and for that they will get credit. The Tories are burying their heads in the sand over this issue and long term it buries them.
Buy-to-let is only a problem for the London middle class young. There is no obvious reason why young middle class people in London should have the right to own a property in prime London locations. Renting isn't automatically a hardship and the desirability of buy-to-let is mainly driven by shortage of supply.
The focus should instead be on improving the supply of properties in general (for which there is an urgent need) rather than pandering specifically to one of the groups with least to grumble about.
Capital is flowing in the wrong direction. That is poor economics. Young people are handing over a third to half of their pay to old people who own the property. London has no space to build new property the existing stock will have to do, even if we build on all of the available brownfield sites it would not keep up with demand. It means the existing owners who lease their property need to be ousted in favour of owner occupiers.
It may be a London issue today, but it is coming soon to a cities around the country.
London has three dimensions and is one of the least densely populated major cities in the world. Building the necessary quantities is feasible if the political will were there.
Why do you think that young middle class people should be prioritised over the poor? They shouldn't effectively be given subsidised housing just because they squawk louder.
Why the Tories are done. Buy-to-let is a scourge on society. Until the Tories step in and take an almighty axe to the sector either by severely restricting mortgages for BTL or by introducing a LVT on second or non-resident property the Tories are going to be out of the game long term. Labour don't offer a solution but they have recognised the problem and for that they will get credit. The Tories are burying their heads in the sand over this issue and long term it buries them.
Buy-to-let is only a problem for the London middle class young. There is no obvious reason why young middle class people in London should have the right to own a property in prime London locations. Renting isn't automatically a hardship and the desirability of buy-to-let is mainly driven by shortage of supply.
The focus should instead be on improving the supply of properties in general (for which there is an urgent need) rather than pandering specifically to one of the groups with least to grumble about.
Capital is flowing in the wrong direction. That is poor economics. Young people are handing over a third to half of their pay to old people who own the property. London has no space to build new property the existing stock will have to do, even if we build on all of the available brownfield sites it would not keep up with demand. It means the existing owners who lease their property need to be ousted in favour of owner occupiers.
It may be a London issue today, but it is coming soon to a cities around the country.
Several million homes need to be built in London and south east in the next couple of years to cope with demand. This is obviously not going to happen so buyers will be pushed further out. Anecdotally where I live even the most basic of flats is only within reach of those who will be paying higher rates of tax.
Why the Tories are done. Buy-to-let is a scourge on society. Until the Tories step in and take an almighty axe to the sector either by severely restricting mortgages for BTL or by introducing a LVT on second or non-resident property the Tories are going to be out of the game long term. Labour don't offer a solution but they have recognised the problem and for that they will get credit. The Tories are burying their heads in the sand over this issue and long term it buries them.
The tax benefits given to BTL in terms of setting off the full interest costs, repairs and our rather generous CGT regime gives those with capital an unfair advantage and our absurd HB scheme under the last government where the rents were rigged in an upwards direction at the cost of the taxpayer made BTL something of a no brainer.
Reforms to HB have reduced the return somewhat but there is a great deal more to do there. At the moment the opportunity to rent property at public expense is making the cost of housing too high for all of us. Something really needs to be done.
Rent control? Nationalise rented property? Would make a difference in London but what would in do in, say, Stoke?
I was thinking more about having a declining cap in real terms for HB over a number of years so people have time to adapt.
I agree that this is mainly a London problem but the national costs are unacceptable and BTL means that this has switched from a massive subsidy to public sector housing to a huge subsidy for private sector housing which has had a predictable and substantial effect on the private market making housing less affordable.
Max PB..Why do you assume that all of the large properties being converted belong to OLD PEOPLE...I have a few friends in the conversion business in London who are definitely not old.In a couple of cases they have clubbed together to buy large, usually rundown properties, and have made a modest living from converting them into rather pleasant, but smaller, dwellings.
Ed Miliband has enjoyed a particularly significant boost to his personal polling, however. The Labour leader has seen a six-point rise on last week, up from -21% to -15% (29% approve, 44% disapprove) with his net rating among Labour voters rising from +53% to +59%.
l
I wonder, is that what is really driving Ed Miliband improvement in approval numbers? i.e People who would have voted Labour anyway saying he isn't crap anymore and hence no real VI poll boost?
And vice versa, Tories have given Cameorn the massive thumbs up, like a North Korean asked about Kim Jong Un, for basically the past 5 years.
Interesting point, Francis, but does it work that way?
Ed's improved rating would, I guess, increase the 'propensity to vote' amongst Labour voters, who traditional are rather less conscientious in their voting habits than their Conservative counterparts. So I would have thought that it would help Labour convert support into votes into seats.
But I'm not sure. Could be you are right and the improvement has little electoral consequence.
I honestly don't know. It was as much of a question as an answer.
There's a school of thought here on PB which is convinced that come the day, voters will enter the Polling Booth and, pen in hand, will contemplate the prospect of Ed (is Crap) becoming Prime Minister and saying to themselves 'Hell, No', or words to that effect, before voting for Anybody But. They will do so in such numbers that the Conservative Party will poll much heavier than the Opinion Polls have been suggesting and secure most seats, possibly even an overall majority.
Now this all sounds to me more like a religious belief than a realistic expectation, and it is definitely not a sound basis for betting on an election, but if there is any truth in it all, surely it is undermined by any improvement in the public perception of the Leader Of The Opposition. Surely said voters are more likely now to pause over their ballot papers and think 'Hell, why not?'
Anyway, whichever way you read it I am sure it cannot be bad for Ed who must be fed up with being portrayed in much of the MSM and by some of the sillier posters on here as a nerd, or an idiot, or a combination of both.
Perhaps instead we will see a change of tack, and a more focused critique of policies and the like, rather than kitchenettes and bacon sandwiches.
I seem to remember Tim used to say (while I was still lurking) that a rise in a party leader's personal ratings usually foreshadowed a rise in the party's poll ratings a couple of weeks later.
I seem to remember Tim used to say (while I was still lurking) that a rise in a party leader's personal ratings usually foreshadowed a rise in the party's poll ratings a couple of weeks later.
I seem to remember Tim used to say (while I was still lurking) that a rise in a party leader's personal ratings usually foreshadowed a rise in the party's poll ratings a couple of weeks later.
Why the Tories are done. Buy-to-let is a scourge on society. Until the Tories step in and take an almighty axe to the sector either by severely restricting mortgages for BTL or by introducing a LVT on second or non-resident property the Tories are going to be out of the game long term. Labour don't offer a solution but they have recognised the problem and for that they will get credit. The Tories are burying their heads in the sand over this issue and long term it buries them.
Well, I've spent the afternoon painting the hall of a slum that my wife and I bought. We'll have it fit for human habitation in about four weeks. Then, we'll let it out. I don't see anything wrong with this. A flat will be available for use, that previously you wouldn't house a pig in.
But, the housing Market in Luton is far better than in London. People can buy or rent decent properties without beggaring themselves.
Why the Tories are done. Buy-to-let is a scourge on society. Until the Tories step in and take an almighty axe to the sector either by severely restricting mortgages for BTL or by introducing a LVT on second or non-resident property the Tories are going to be out of the game long term. Labour don't offer a solution but they have recognised the problem and for that they will get credit. The Tories are burying their heads in the sand over this issue and long term it buries them.
Those are a couple of the things that could be addressed. I don't agree that Labour have recognised the problem at all - their thinking is far too tactical and one-dimensional.
Others things that could, or should, be done:
*) Try to get us over our space-hogging desire to have a detached house with garden (often a six-foot square of mangy grass), and garage 'ideal' home.
*) Try to give blocks of flats a better image. This is slowly happening, but only for the yuppy-style developments. The shadows of sixties and seventies tower blocks still loom large, even after many have been demolished.
*) Talk about building communities, not houses.
*) Strengthen, not weaken, S106.
*) Reduce demand.
*) Controversially, reduce expensive environmental constraints, but make developers stick to them. Unlike the current situation where the environmental standards are increased but developers ignore them. Audit houses randomly a year after construction, and check that they meet those environmental standards.
But all of these are difficult to one degree or another.
If EdM ceases to be crap, then the Tories have a problem. They have staked a hell of a lot on a presidential battle. If his ratings continue to rise, that will be very significant. For now, it probably just indicates a hardening of the Labour vote. But in an election where converting soft support into hard voted will be crucial that, too, is noteworthy if it is happeniing
Perhaps instead we will see a change of tack, and a more focused critique of policies and the like, rather than kitchenettes and bacon sandwiches.
I was under the impression that the discussion of kitchenettes etc was at least in part owning to the complete lack of any solid policy to critique. The bit we do see like student loans and ZHC seems to disintegrate like that tissue you forgot to take out of your jeans pocket when it went into the wash.
Sky News Newsdesk @SkyNewsBreak 3m3 minutes ago Cabinet Secretary orders a leak inquiry into how a newspaper obtained an account of Nicola #Sturgeon's private meeting with an ambassador.
The big question is why do so many people want to get into the buy to let business in the first place? Because the British economy doesn't work properly, there's a complete lack of trust and people want the security of bricks and mortar instead.
Perhaps instead we will see a change of tack, and a more focused critique of policies and the like, rather than kitchenettes and bacon sandwiches.
I was under the impression that the discussion of kitchenettes etc was at least in part owning to the complete lack of any solid policy to critique. The bit we do see like student loans and ZHC seems to disintegrate like that tissue you forgot to take out of your jeans pocket when it went into the wash.
The FT report into todays policy burst didn't exactly reveal that the housing policy had been carefully planned. Got the name wrong of the ISA they were targetting, had different names for the fund they were talking about creating and apparently when the FT asked the shadow treasury team about it, they had no idea what they were going on about.
ZHC stuff was similar..different Labour people seemed to be suggesting different things for the past few weeks and months, ranging from modest changes to outright bans.
Makes you wonder what all those people looking to fill in the blank piece of paper having been doing for the past few years? Maybe as we get closer to the election they will show the big well thought out policy programme, or maybe we are still on Ed's 35% strategy.
Old Holborn retweeted Nicola Sturgeon @NicolaSturgeon 29 Oct 2011 Sad news about #JimmySavile. Once had lovely chat with him in Franco's at Central Station. A real treat for a child of the Jim'll Fix It era.
I see "50 Ukip second places, then win in 2020" is still a meme. In 1983, the Alliance won 23 seats and got a stonking 312 second places. In 1987, they came home with a triumphant... 22 seats!
Old Holborn retweeted Nicola Sturgeon @NicolaSturgeon 29 Oct 2011 Sad news about #JimmySavile. Once had lovely chat with him in Franco's at Central Station. A real treat for a child of the Jim'll Fix It era.
That will redirect some bile.
Ah, the Guido-esque blogger trolls like Old Holborn are up to their tricks. Any chance they'd turn their sights on their heroine Mrs T. in this regard, or is that not current enough?
Sights of Shadow Cabinet on Labourdoorstep today....
Khan: Tooting Angela Eagle: Harrow East and Harrow West Maria Eagle: Aberconwy Ed & Yvette: Dewsbury Chuka: Streatham Mary Creagh: Wakefield (with John Prescott) Owen Smith: Pontrypridd Tristam: at a NASUWT conference Reeves: Keighley Dougie: Paisley Dugher: Barnsley
The big question is why do so many people want to get into the buy to let business in the first place? Because the British economy doesn't work properly, there's a complete lack of trust and people want the security of bricks and mortar instead.
Here in London,it`s an easy way of making money.
Buy a house and rent it out.
The rent pays for the mortgage and you are the owner in 2 decades.
If you convert the house and rent it to several people,you have a couple of thousand over the mortgage amount.
The big question is why do so many people want to get into the buy to let business in the first place? Because the British economy doesn't work properly, there's a complete lack of trust and people want the security of bricks and mortar instead.
Look the returns on savings accounts, shares, stocks, and consider prospect of capital gains and yields from rents.
Makes you wonder what all those people looking to fill in the blank piece of paper having been doing for the past few years? Maybe as we get closer to the election they will show the big well thought out policy programme.
18 months ago Labour was 10 points clear in the polls and the "do nothing and wait for the election to fall in our laps" policy was paying dividends, then it started to go wrong and people started asking about policies, and fag packets were hastily snatched from pockets and policies conjurer up, but after 4 years of idleness waiting for the world on a stick they are not very good at it.
Its the same with all parties and press interviews, everyone spent almost five years hiding from television reporters, and now we have the spectacle of 7 supposed leaders of parties starting behind their lecterns trying to project the impression of gravitas, whilst actually looking like a group of terrified rabbits transfixed by the camera and frantically busking it.
Why the Tories are done. Buy-to-let is a scourge on society. Until the Tories step in and take an almighty axe to the sector either by severely restricting mortgages for BTL or by introducing a LVT on second or non-resident property the Tories are going to be out of the game long term. Labour don't offer a solution but they have recognised the problem and for that they will get credit. The Tories are burying their heads in the sand over this issue and long term it buries them.
Those are a couple of the things that could be addressed. I don't agree that Labour have recognised the problem at all - their thinking is far too tactical and one-dimensional.
Others things that could, or should, be done:
*) Try to get us over our space-hogging desire to have a detached house with garden (often a six-foot square of mangy grass), and garage 'ideal' home.
*) Try to give blocks of flats a better image. This is slowly happening, but only for the yuppy-style developments. The shadows of sixties and seventies tower blocks still loom large, even after many have been demolished.
*) Talk about building communities, not houses.
*) Strengthen, not weaken, S106.
*) Reduce demand.
*) Controversially, reduce expensive environmental constraints, but make developers stick to them. Unlike the current situation where the environmental standards are increased but developers ignore them. Audit houses randomly a year after construction, and check that they meet those environmental standards.
But all of these are difficult to one degree or another.
Regional development: boost regional economies to ease demand on London and the Home Counties. If there still are places where you can buy a whole street for the price of a second-hand Mondeo, then buy it, refurbish it and add it to the social housing stock.
Cut housing benefits aka subsidies to private landlords (not all of whom you'd want to meet down a dark alley).
Improve transport links so commuting is easier and affordable.
The big question is why do so many people want to get into the buy to let business in the first place? Because the British economy doesn't work properly, there's a complete lack of trust and people want the security of bricks and mortar instead.
The UK government believes in subsidising house prices so making it a lot more secure than business or stock market investment.
I seem to remember Tim used to say (while I was still lurking) that a rise in a party leader's personal ratings usually foreshadowed a rise in the party's poll ratings a couple of weeks later.
The big question is why do so many people want to get into the buy to let business in the first place? Because the British economy doesn't work properly, there's a complete lack of trust and people want the security of bricks and mortar instead.
Look the returns on savings accounts, shares, stocks, and consider prospect of capital gains and yields from rents.
My portfolio has averaged returns of 8% pa for a while now. Well diversified across multiple asset classes. Borrowing up to your eye balls on a single property in a single region seems incredibly risky in comparison.
Labour Party dirty tricks from what I read on here this morning. Serves Cameron right for not replacing Labour ministers after 2010.
Feels like we went from "They don't exist" to "They don't exist, but we're having an inquiry into how the non-existent thing was leaked" quite quickly.
JosiasJessop re:housing. You omit the main problem that affects supply. Planning. One example. By having requirements such as 40% for "affordable housing" this badly distorts the funding of estates since the buyer of affordable are the housing associations who have much less funds.... Builders got badly burned during the boom times of the noughties with having 40% of their new built estates being almost unsaleable since the "key workers" did not want to buy the "affordable housing" and builders were forced to sell at large losses to the housing associations.... Utter madness. These 40% requirements have been temporarily eased this year. Another Planning missdirection of the market arises from the fact that by proscribing these 40% factors and Govt enforced minimum number of housing units per acre, we are not building enough bungalows. Bungalows that would attract retired people out of their houses and provide homes for families.....
The big question is why do so many people want to get into the buy to let business in the first place? Because the British economy doesn't work properly, there's a complete lack of trust and people want the security of bricks and mortar instead.
Look the returns on savings accounts, shares, stocks, and consider prospect of capital gains and yields from rents.
It's another nice political Catch 22.
If we are desperate for people to invest in our economy, the best people to make that investment are the British public, so they benefit from any growth, and we should encourage that by moving taxation off saving and investment income onto other forms of taxation. The problem is that everyone left of centre starts screaming about tax cuts for the rich, overlooking that a) lots of people who are not rich leave their money in their current accounts because the amount they make from investments if so derisory as to not be worth the effort and the additional tax return paperwork, and b) if you want rich people to invest here, rather than in other countries, you need to make it worth their wild doing it, or they wont.
"I was under the impression that the discussion of kitchenettes etc was at least in part owning to the complete lack of any solid policy to critique."
Is that it, Indigo? And there was I thinking it was just the childishness of those lacking the maturity to comment on politics, or even betting.
But what about the main point Francis and I were pondering? Will Ed's improved rating impact on the election outcome? Are you of the school of thought that thinks that on the day, voters will say 'Hell, no', or 'Hell, why not'?
The big question is why do so many people want to get into the buy to let business in the first place? Because the British economy doesn't work properly, there's a complete lack of trust and people want the security of bricks and mortar instead.
Look the returns on savings accounts, shares, stocks, and consider prospect of capital gains and yields from rents.
My portfolio has averaged returns of 8% pa for a while now. Well diversified across multiple asset classes. Borrowing up to your eye balls on a single property in a single region seems incredibly risky in comparison.
If you buy a property in London and do nothing with it you will have made between 12-19% per annum under the last decade just from the increase in property prices, so the increase in capital value is probably more than the interest on the mortgage. If you rent it out as well you are quids in.
Ten years ago there were housing developments being bought off plan by investors and left empty for a couple of years before being sold on, they made 30% in those two years without even having the hassle of bothering to find and manage tenants.
Why the Tories are done. Buy-to-let is a scourge on society. Until the Tories step in and take an almighty axe to the sector either by severely restricting mortgages for BTL or by introducing a LVT on second or non-resident property the Tories are going to be out of the game long term. Labour don't offer a solution but they have recognised the problem and for that they will get credit. The Tories are burying their heads in the sand over this issue and long term it buries them.
Well, I've spent the afternoon painting the hall of a slum that my wife and I bought. We'll have it fit for human habitation in about four weeks. Then, we'll let it out. I don't see anything wrong with this. A flat will be available for use, that previously you wouldn't house a pig in.
But, the housing Market in Luton is far better than in London. People can buy or rent decent properties without beggaring themselves.
Isn't Luton arguably the least affluent town in SE England.
I seem to remember Tim used to say (while I was still lurking) that a rise in a party leader's personal ratings usually foreshadowed a rise in the party's poll ratings a couple of weeks later.
Regional development: boost regional economies to ease demand on London and the Home Counties. If there still are places where you can buy a whole street for the price of a second-hand Mondeo, then buy it, refurbish it and add it to the social housing stock.
Cut housing benefits aka subsidies to private landlords (not all of whom you'd want to meet down a dark alley).
Improve transport links so commuting is easier and affordable.
Yep, they''re all good ones.
On your first point, we should remember Prescott's hideous Pathfinder program, which should be bashed around Labour's head time and time again. Perfectly good houses with tonnes of embodied energy that some simple renovations and out-of-the-box thinking could improve. Then the few new houses that were built were not for the original residents, but for incomers.
In a handful of cases the out-of-the-box thinking did occur.
If an area has poor housing and low demand, the first question that should be asked is why. Is it lack of jobs? Transport links? Social problems / deprivation? Lack of facilities? Lack of green spaces? Lack of parking? Are they too small? Too cold? Ask the residents rather than assuming central government knows best.
Instead, the tendency is for grand projects that just send in the bulldozers. Sometimes that is necessary, but many times it is not.
A few years ago I drove through Chesterfield (I think) and saw a street of empty houses. I did a little research, and these potentially good houses had all been routinely condemned for the Pathfinder project years before.
Murali s.. Would that be the Tim Cheshire land owning Squire ..or Tim the off license worker in Liverpool..we need to know..cos one of em was a lying ba^tard
JosiasJessop re:housing. You omit the main problem that affects supply. Planning. One example. By having requirements such as 40% for "affordable housing" this badly distorts the funding of estates since the buyer of affordable are the housing associations who have much less funds.... Builders got badly burned during the boom times of the noughties with having 40% of their new built estates being almost unsaleable since the "key workers" did not want to buy the "affordable housing" and builders were forced to sell at large losses to the housing associations.... Utter madness. These 40% requirements have been temporarily eased this year. Another Planning missdirection of the market arises from the fact that by proscribing these 40% factors and Govt enforced minimum number of housing units per acre, we are not building enough bungalows. Bungalows that would attract retired people out of their houses and provide homes for families.....
Bungalows are the biggest waste of development land possible. Better to have sheltered and managed accommodation for elderly people.
Is that it, Indigo? And there was I thinking it was just the childishness of those lacking the maturity to comment on politics, or even betting.
Well if not, why haven't the press being going over the kitchenettes and other minutia of Farage, a figure far more hated that Miliband ? Because people have been so busy kicking his policies and pronouncements that they haven't had the opportunity to consider his domestic circumstances.
But what about the main point Francis and I were pondering? Will Ed's improved rating impact on the election outcome? Are you of the school of thought that thinks that on the day, voters will say 'Hell, no', or 'Hell, why not'?
I am unconvinced of any correlation between approval rating and VI unless its of the form of "do you think X would make a good prime minister", I approved of John Smith, he was a fine labour leader, would I have voted for him ? Not a chance. Also approval is usually a binary measure so you cant tell if it means X% of people think the leader is just about tolerable, or the same percentage think they are doing an amazing job. Cameron is a case in point here, he has a high approval rating with Conservatives, but relatively few are even vaguely enthusiastic about him.
I have never been of the opinion that voters make up their minds on the day, people are either too committed to their party and wont be moving (core vote) or they are disinterested in politics and settle on their political views by osmosis, rather than some epiphany in the polling booth. I am much more of the opinion that people are economical with the truth that they tell pollsters and use the polls as a means of sending messages to their preferred party.
I think people will say "Hell, whatever I thought last week is still the case"
There was a great, short piece on this on Look North. North Yorkshire is practically all blue, and South Yorkshire almost all red. West Yorkshire is crammed with marginals (many red-blue).
With Labour supposedly in the lead in the North and UKIP cutting into the Tory vote,this is the region which has the most potential for Labour.
In the real world with real votes away from your sweeping generalisations, you nearly lost the rock solid seat of H&M smack bang in your North West heartlands just a few months ago.
Murali s.. Would that be the Tim Cheshire land owning Squire ..or Tim the off license worker in Liverpool..we need to know..cos one of em was a lying ba^tard
There are some Conservative pb-ites whose various accounts of their circumstances seem hard to reconcile with each other too. On the internet, no-one knows you're a dog, as people used to say.
Tim was a shrewd punter with a fair grasp of politics, a combination surely to be welcomed on a site called politicalbetting.com.
"I was under the impression that the discussion of kitchenettes etc was at least in part owning to the complete lack of any solid policy to critique."
Is that it, Indigo? And there was I thinking it was just the childishness of those lacking the maturity to comment on politics, or even betting.
But what about the main point Francis and I were pondering? Will Ed's improved rating impact on the election outcome? Are you of the school of thought that thinks that on the day, voters will say 'Hell, no', or 'Hell, why not'?
If Ed does get a Hell why not . It will be some achievement , to win the leadership of his party and become PM after just one term. He has always been underestimated by many, but as an opposition leader he had had an impact on the discourse of politics, from the squeezed middle through syria to the cost of living crisis to name just a few, whether you agree with his analysis or not.
Big Labour rally today in Warrington south - should be one of their easiest gains so doesn't suggest the most confident of campaigns.
Of the 28 non-Labour seats in the NorthWest,14 are marginals.
With Labour supposedly in the lead in the North and UKIP cutting into the Tory vote,this is the region which has the most potential for Labour.
In the south the kippers clearly take a lot of votes from grumpy Tories that don't like Cameron and live in safe seats. I am not sure this holds in the North. The big unknown which is going to have both main parties on the edge of their seats is does UKIP in the northern seats take more from LAB than from CON, Heywood & Middleton suggests they do.
JosiasJessop re:housing. You omit the main problem that affects supply. Planning. One example. By having requirements such as 40% for "affordable housing" this badly distorts the funding of estates since the buyer of affordable are the housing associations who have much less funds.... Builders got badly burned during the boom times of the noughties with having 40% of their new built estates being almost unsaleable since the "key workers" did not want to buy the "affordable housing" and builders were forced to sell at large losses to the housing associations.... Utter madness. These 40% requirements have been temporarily eased this year. Another Planning missdirection of the market arises from the fact that by proscribing these 40% factors and Govt enforced minimum number of housing units per acre, we are not building enough bungalows. Bungalows that would attract retired people out of their houses and provide homes for families.....
Bungalows are the biggest waste of development land possible. Better to have sheltered and managed accommodation for elderly people.
What if people 60 years old do not want to live in these "sheltered and managed accommodation". Some certainly want a bungalow where they can carry on living independently for up to 30 years. Trying to buck the market leads to massive distortions in what is used.
Big Labour rally today in Warrington south - should be one of their easiest gains so doesn't suggest the most confident of campaigns.
Of the 28 non-Labour seats in the NorthWest,14 are marginals.
With Labour supposedly in the lead in the North and UKIP cutting into the Tory vote,this is the region which has the most potential for Labour.
In the south the kippers clearly take a lot of votes from grumpy Tories that don't like Cameron and live in safe seats. I am not sure this holds in the North. The big unknown which is going to have both main parties on the edge of their seats is does UKIP in the northern seats take more from LAB than from CON, Heywood & Middleton suggests they do.
On that basis,the Tories would lose all their Southern seats to UKIP given UKIP won both Clacton and Rochester and Strood.(not nearly won but won).
Josias, we also need more high rise development in our cities for the young and childless. There is also a segment of the retireds who want to live in such blocks where they are near to the cultural entertainment that they want.
Big Labour rally today in Warrington south - should be one of their easiest gains so doesn't suggest the most confident of campaigns.
Of the 28 non-Labour seats in the NorthWest,14 are marginals.
With Labour supposedly in the lead in the North and UKIP cutting into the Tory vote,this is the region which has the most potential for Labour.
In the south the kippers clearly take a lot of votes from grumpy Tories that don't like Cameron and live in safe seats. I am not sure this holds in the North. The big unknown which is going to have both main parties on the edge of their seats is does UKIP in the northern seats take more from LAB than from CON, Heywood & Middleton suggests they do.
Labour's vote share in Heywood and Middleton was almost static. Conservatives were down by 16 per cent.
JosiasJessop re:housing. You omit the main problem that affects supply. Planning. One example. By having requirements such as 40% for "affordable housing" this badly distorts the funding of estates since the buyer of affordable are the housing associations who have much less funds.... Builders got badly burned during the boom times of the noughties with having 40% of their new built estates being almost unsaleable since the "key workers" did not want to buy the "affordable housing" and builders were forced to sell at large losses to the housing associations.... Utter madness. These 40% requirements have been temporarily eased this year. Another Planning missdirection of the market arises from the fact that by proscribing these 40% factors and Govt enforced minimum number of housing units per acre, we are not building enough bungalows. Bungalows that would attract retired people out of their houses and provide homes for families.....
Bungalows are the biggest waste of development land possible. Better to have sheltered and managed accommodation for elderly people.
What if people 60 years old do not want to live in these "sheltered and managed accommodation". Some certainly want a bungalow where they can carry on living independently for up to 30 years. Trying to buck the market leads to massive distortions in what is used.
So use the market, an annual residential tax based of land area rather than land value would rapidly lead people to the conclusion that apartment blocks were a good idea compared to bungalows.
Big Labour rally today in Warrington south - should be one of their easiest gains so doesn't suggest the most confident of campaigns.
Of the 28 non-Labour seats in the NorthWest,14 are marginals.
With Labour supposedly in the lead in the North and UKIP cutting into the Tory vote,this is the region which has the most potential for Labour.
In the south the kippers clearly take a lot of votes from grumpy Tories that don't like Cameron and live in safe seats. I am not sure this holds in the North. The big unknown which is going to have both main parties on the edge of their seats is does UKIP in the northern seats take more from LAB than from CON, Heywood & Middleton suggests they do.
On that basis,the Tories would lose all their Southern seats to UKIP given UKIP won both Clacton and Rochester and Strood.(not nearly won but won).
No I mean places like Bexhill & Battle, the kippers will probably pick up 7-8000 votes, which will make no difference at all to the Tories holding the seat there, especially with the LD collapse.
Big Labour rally today in Warrington south - should be one of their easiest gains so doesn't suggest the most confident of campaigns.
Of the 28 non-Labour seats in the NorthWest,14 are marginals.
With Labour supposedly in the lead in the North and UKIP cutting into the Tory vote,this is the region which has the most potential for Labour.
Its important not to think of the 'North' as one region.
The North-West and Yorkshire often have different voting trends.
I suspect Labour will do quite well in north west England but only gain Dewsbury from the Conservatives in Yorkshire.
I do not know Yorkshire intimately but I suspect you are underestimating Labour gains in this area.
Miliband has been campaigning in this area recently visiting the seats and Labour will probably not be wasting their leaders` time if they didn`t think they had a chance.
The big question is why do so many people want to get into the buy to let business in the first place? Because the British economy doesn't work properly, there's a complete lack of trust and people want the security of bricks and mortar instead.
Look the returns on savings accounts, shares, stocks, and consider prospect of capital gains and yields from rents.
My portfolio has averaged returns of 8% pa for a while now. Well diversified across multiple asset classes. Borrowing up to your eye balls on a single property in a single region seems incredibly risky in comparison.
If you buy a property in London and do nothing with it you will have made between 12-19% per annum under the last decade just from the increase in property prices, so the increase in capital value is probably more than the interest on the mortgage. If you rent it out as well you are quids in.
Ten years ago there were housing developments being bought off plan by investors and left empty for a couple of years before being sold on, they made 30% in those two years without even having the hassle of bothering to find and manage tenants.
True. The increases in London property have been spectacular. However, anyone looking to buy now as investment may not be so fortunate. I believe yields for London property are around 2%. Therefore they are relying on capital appreciation. If that does not materialise or there is a crash they are in trouble. The OECD believe that UK property is 30% overvalued.
All the leaders achieved positive marks for how they performed in the seven-way debate, with the Green party’s Natalie Bennett coming closest to a negative mark – 24% said she was out of her depth and 29% said the Ukip leader, Nigel Farage, did badly.
Ed Miliband has enjoyed a particularly significant boost to his personal polling, however. The Labour leader has seen a six-point rise on last week, up from -21% to -15% (29% approve, 44% disapprove) with his net rating among Labour voters rising from +53% to +59%.
David Cameron’s approval rating is largely unchanged at +1% overall; both approval an disapproval have seen a one point rise.
Mr. City, Arcadius and Honorius both became emperor. That wasn't necessarily an indication of their worthy leadership skills.
Morris
Yes I was just comparing opposition leaders and the discourse of politics. I believe Ed Milliband has had some impact in that regard compared to others.
My memory goes like this : Cameron = Big Society Broken Britain Howard = can`t remember Duncan- Smith- Can`t remember Hague - Save the Pound Blair - Something about Stakeholders
Why the Tories are done. Buy-to-let is a scourge on society. Until the Tories step in and take an almighty axe to the sector either by severely restricting mortgages for BTL or by introducing a LVT on second or non-resident property the Tories are going to be out of the game long term. Labour don't offer a solution but they have recognised the problem and for that they will get credit. The Tories are burying their heads in the sand over this issue and long term it buries them.
Well, I've spent the afternoon painting the hall of a slum that my wife and I bought. We'll have it fit for human habitation in about four weeks. Then, we'll let it out. I don't see anything wrong with this. A flat will be available for use, that previously you wouldn't house a pig in.
But, the housing Market in Luton is far better than in London. People can buy or rent decent properties without beggaring themselves.
Sean, if you are redeveloping an existing home and spending capital your yield is going to be much higher than the 3-4% offered in London. Rental yield for your place is going to be what, 8-10%? A 2.5% LVT won't really make that much difference to the long term picture for redevelopers like yourself and you will still get to offset mortgage interest against tax and a favourable capital gains environment. It is an issue for people who buy existing stock for cash, spend a couple of grand on decorating and then put it out for rent.
Like you, I don't see anything wrong with what you are doing, and you would still get a handsome return even if a LVT was put in place.
London property is a market like any other. There are 250 towers of mainly residential property either on the drawing board or at some stage of construction.
And some point supply will exceed demand and prices will drop. There is some evidence prices are stagnant at best in London already - while wages are increasing and inflation is zero.
Hello peeps. Bit knackered after delivering 2,500 bits of literature over the past three days. Man alive, Torbay has some ridiculously steep bits...
I suppose OGH has pointed out that Opinium shows that 12% of the LibDems fled the party after the debate reminded them that Clegg was their leader....?
Sights of Shadow Cabinet on Labourdoorstep today....
Khan: Tooting Angela Eagle: Harrow East and Harrow West Maria Eagle: Aberconwy Ed & Yvette: Dewsbury Chuka: Streatham Mary Creagh: Wakefield (with John Prescott) Owen Smith: Pontrypridd Tristam: at a NASUWT conference Reeves: Keighley Dougie: Paisley Dugher: Barnsley
If those are not their own seats then it gives you a list of where Labour think they have a fight.
That leaves Harrow East (CON maj 7.1%), Dewsbury (CON maj 2.8%), Keighley (CON maj 6.2%) & Barnsley (LAB maj 30% , typical UKIP vs LAB fight). All 3 Tory seats fall with a swing to Labour ranging from 1.4 to 3.6%.
"The second question is whether it was said. This strikes me as vanishingly unlikely. It is the sort of thing you might say to your very closest allies in private. To make such comments to a foreign diplomat you are meeting for the first time would be so far as beyond indiscrete as to be almost unimaginable. Especially when you know civil servants are listening in."
I don't agree at all. Firstly it was meant to be confidential and secondly I've yet to meet two women who get on well that don't know each others inner most secrets within a very short time. Often things much more interesting than who they'd prefer as Prime Minister!
How it became public knowledge might be of interest but my guess is it's just tittle tattle. I'm always amazed by how people want to ingratiate themselves with semi strangers-even journalists-by sharing gossip.
For Nicola lovers I'm afraid the bad news is she's just too gobby!
"I suppose OGH has pointed out that Opinium shows that 12% of the LibDems fled the party after the debate reminded them that Clegg was their leader....? "
Comments
Why the Tories are done. Buy-to-let is a scourge on society. Until the Tories step in and take an almighty axe to the sector either by severely restricting mortgages for BTL or by introducing a LVT on second or non-resident property the Tories are going to be out of the game long term. Labour don't offer a solution but they have recognised the problem and for that they will get credit. The Tories are burying their heads in the sand over this issue and long term it buries them.
http://ourinsight.opinium.co.uk/survey-results/political-polling-2nd-april-2015
Ed's improved rating would, I guess, increase the 'propensity to vote' amongst Labour voters, who traditional are rather less conscientious in their voting habits than their Conservative counterparts. So I would have thought that it would help Labour convert support into votes into seats.
But I'm not sure. Could be you are right and the improvement has little electoral consequence.
The focus should instead be on improving the supply of properties in general (for which there is an urgent need) rather than pandering specifically to one of the groups with least to grumble about.
http://www.georgegrant.org.uk/news/statement-george-grant-and-baroness-sayeeda-warsi-ongoing-campaign-intimidation-bradford-west
Or did they only start at 10pm on Thurs?
Reforms to HB have reduced the return somewhat but there is a great deal more to do there. At the moment the opportunity to rent property at public expense is making the cost of housing too high for all of us. Something really needs to be done.
"The BOE base rate needs jacking up to 5% or so."
I wonder which party would be brave enough to do that?
It may be a London issue today, but it is coming soon to a cities around the country.
Yeah, I know ..... bears in woods etc.
However the question is how do you resolve it without wrecking the situation elsewhere in the country. As antifrank says, renting isn’t a problem per se; the rest of Europe seems to manage perfectly well with a lot more rental than we do.
Hard to say who's happiest with it. I guess all we can say is if there is no discernible movement even when a poll is done the moment the debate has finished then it points strongly to no debate effect.
If anything it maybe points to the big 2 likely to strengthen further in due course - ie this was the opportunity for minor parties to make an impact but they haven't done so.
Why do you think that young middle class people should be prioritised over the poor? They shouldn't effectively be given subsidised housing just because they squawk louder.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/usvsth3m/george-galloway-big-twitter-fight-5458041#ICID=sharebar_twitter
I agree that this is mainly a London problem but the national costs are unacceptable and BTL means that this has switched from a massive subsidy to public sector housing to a huge subsidy for private sector housing which has had a predictable and substantial effect on the private market making housing less affordable.
Now this all sounds to me more like a religious belief than a realistic expectation, and it is definitely not a sound basis for betting on an election, but if there is any truth in it all, surely it is undermined by any improvement in the public perception of the Leader Of The Opposition. Surely said voters are more likely now to pause over their ballot papers and think 'Hell, why not?'
Anyway, whichever way you read it I am sure it cannot be bad for Ed who must be fed up with being portrayed in much of the MSM and by some of the sillier posters on here as a nerd, or an idiot, or a combination of both.
Perhaps instead we will see a change of tack, and a more focused critique of policies and the like, rather than kitchenettes and bacon sandwiches.
....couldn't happen, could it?
If Tim said that, can't be right.... ;-)
But, the housing Market in Luton is far better than in London. People can buy or rent decent properties without beggaring themselves.
http://www.bbc.scotlandshire.co.uk/index.php/city-news/922-election-2015-jim-morphy-denies-preferring-cameron.html
Others things that could, or should, be done:
*) Try to get us over our space-hogging desire to have a detached house with garden (often a six-foot square of mangy grass), and garage 'ideal' home.
*) Try to give blocks of flats a better image. This is slowly happening, but only for the yuppy-style developments. The shadows of sixties and seventies tower blocks still loom large, even after many have been demolished.
*) Talk about building communities, not houses.
*) Strengthen, not weaken, S106.
*) Reduce demand.
*) Controversially, reduce expensive environmental constraints, but make developers stick to them. Unlike the current situation where the environmental standards are increased but developers ignore them. Audit houses randomly a year after construction, and check that they meet those environmental standards.
But all of these are difficult to one degree or another.
Cabinet Secretary orders a leak inquiry into how a newspaper obtained an account of Nicola #Sturgeon's private meeting with an ambassador.
ZHC stuff was similar..different Labour people seemed to be suggesting different things for the past few weeks and months, ranging from modest changes to outright bans.
Makes you wonder what all those people looking to fill in the blank piece of paper having been doing for the past few years? Maybe as we get closer to the election they will show the big well thought out policy programme, or maybe we are still on Ed's 35% strategy.
Nicola Sturgeon @NicolaSturgeon 29 Oct 2011
Sad news about #JimmySavile. Once had lovely chat with him in Franco's at Central Station. A real treat for a child of the Jim'll Fix It era.
That will redirect some bile.
Khan: Tooting
Angela Eagle: Harrow East and Harrow West
Maria Eagle: Aberconwy
Ed & Yvette: Dewsbury
Chuka: Streatham
Mary Creagh: Wakefield (with John Prescott)
Owen Smith: Pontrypridd
Tristam: at a NASUWT conference
Reeves: Keighley
Dougie: Paisley
Dugher: Barnsley
Buy a house and rent it out.
The rent pays for the mortgage and you are the owner in 2 decades.
If you convert the house and rent it to several people,you have a couple of thousand over the mortgage amount.
Its the same with all parties and press interviews, everyone spent almost five years hiding from television reporters, and now we have the spectacle of 7 supposed leaders of parties starting behind their lecterns trying to project the impression of gravitas, whilst actually looking like a group of terrified rabbits transfixed by the camera and frantically busking it.
Cut housing benefits aka subsidies to private landlords (not all of whom you'd want to meet down a dark alley).
Improve transport links so commuting is easier and affordable.
You omit the main problem that affects supply. Planning.
One example. By having requirements such as 40% for "affordable housing" this badly distorts the funding of estates since the buyer of affordable are the housing associations who have much less funds.... Builders got badly burned during the boom times of the noughties with having 40% of their new built estates being almost unsaleable since the "key workers" did not want to buy the "affordable housing" and builders were forced to sell at large losses to the housing associations.... Utter madness. These 40% requirements have been temporarily eased this year.
Another Planning missdirection of the market arises from the fact that by proscribing these 40% factors and Govt enforced minimum number of housing units per acre, we are not building enough bungalows. Bungalows that would attract retired people out of their houses and provide homes for families.....
If we are desperate for people to invest in our economy, the best people to make that investment are the British public, so they benefit from any growth, and we should encourage that by moving taxation off saving and investment income onto other forms of taxation. The problem is that everyone left of centre starts screaming about tax cuts for the rich, overlooking that a) lots of people who are not rich leave their money in their current accounts because the amount they make from investments if so derisory as to not be worth the effort and the additional tax return paperwork, and b) if you want rich people to invest here, rather than in other countries, you need to make it worth their wild doing it, or they wont.
"I was under the impression that the discussion of kitchenettes etc was at least in part owning to the complete lack of any solid policy to critique."
Is that it, Indigo? And there was I thinking it was just the childishness of those lacking the maturity to comment on politics, or even betting.
But what about the main point Francis and I were pondering? Will Ed's improved rating impact on the election outcome? Are you of the school of thought that thinks that on the day, voters will say 'Hell, no', or 'Hell, why not'?
Ten years ago there were housing developments being bought off plan by investors and left empty for a couple of years before being sold on, they made 30% in those two years without even having the hassle of bothering to find and manage tenants.
On your first point, we should remember Prescott's hideous Pathfinder program, which should be bashed around Labour's head time and time again. Perfectly good houses with tonnes of embodied energy that some simple renovations and out-of-the-box thinking could improve. Then the few new houses that were built were not for the original residents, but for incomers.
In a handful of cases the out-of-the-box thinking did occur.
If an area has poor housing and low demand, the first question that should be asked is why. Is it lack of jobs? Transport links? Social problems / deprivation? Lack of facilities? Lack of green spaces? Lack of parking? Are they too small? Too cold? Ask the residents rather than assuming central government knows best.
Instead, the tendency is for grand projects that just send in the bulldozers. Sometimes that is necessary, but many times it is not.
A few years ago I drove through Chesterfield (I think) and saw a street of empty houses. I did a little research, and these potentially good houses had all been routinely condemned for the Pathfinder project years before.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/nov/19/slum-clearance-housing-failed
With Labour supposedly in the lead in the North and UKIP cutting into the Tory vote,this is the region which has the most potential for Labour.
The North-West and Yorkshire often have different voting trends.
I suspect Labour will do quite well in north west England but only gain Dewsbury from the Conservatives in Yorkshire.
I have never been of the opinion that voters make up their minds on the day, people are either too committed to their party and wont be moving (core vote) or they are disinterested in politics and settle on their political views by osmosis, rather than some epiphany in the polling booth. I am much more of the opinion that people are economical with the truth that they tell pollsters and use the polls as a means of sending messages to their preferred party.
I think people will say "Hell, whatever I thought last week is still the case"
There was a great, short piece on this on Look North. North Yorkshire is practically all blue, and South Yorkshire almost all red. West Yorkshire is crammed with marginals (many red-blue).
In the real world with real votes away from your sweeping generalisations, you nearly lost the rock solid seat of H&M smack bang in your North West heartlands just a few months ago.
Turnout does look high indeed.
Tim was a shrewd punter with a fair grasp of politics, a combination surely to be welcomed on a site called politicalbetting.com.
It will be some achievement , to win the leadership of his party and become PM after just one term.
He has always been underestimated by many, but as an opposition leader he had had an impact on the discourse of politics, from the squeezed middle through syria to the cost of living crisis to name just a few, whether you agree with his analysis or not.
England:
Cons: 35; LAB: 34; LD: 7; UKIP: 15; GN:7
Scotland: Small sample
Cons: 16; LAB: 28; LD: 6; UKIP: 3; SNP: 42; Gn:4
Wales: V small sample
Cons: 33; LAB: 28; LD: 9; UKIP: 18; PC: 7; GN:4
That Wales sub sample is hilarious
What chutzpah!
Miliband has been campaigning in this area recently visiting the seats and Labour will probably not be wasting their leaders` time if they didn`t think they had a chance.
Yes I was just comparing opposition leaders and the discourse of politics.
I believe Ed Milliband has had some impact in that regard compared to others.
My memory goes like this :
Cameron = Big Society Broken Britain
Howard = can`t remember
Duncan- Smith- Can`t remember
Hague - Save the Pound
Blair - Something about Stakeholders
Like you, I don't see anything wrong with what you are doing, and you would still get a handsome return even if a LVT was put in place.
And some point supply will exceed demand and prices will drop. There is some evidence prices are stagnant at best in London already - while wages are increasing and inflation is zero.
I suppose OGH has pointed out that Opinium shows that 12% of the LibDems fled the party after the debate reminded them that Clegg was their leader....?
That leaves Harrow East (CON maj 7.1%), Dewsbury (CON maj 2.8%), Keighley (CON maj 6.2%) & Barnsley (LAB maj 30% , typical UKIP vs LAB fight).
All 3 Tory seats fall with a swing to Labour ranging from 1.4 to 3.6%.
"The second question is whether it was said. This strikes me as vanishingly unlikely. It is the sort of thing you might say to your very closest allies in private. To make such comments to a foreign diplomat you are meeting for the first time would be so far as beyond indiscrete as to be almost unimaginable. Especially when you know civil servants are listening in."
I don't agree at all. Firstly it was meant to be confidential and secondly I've yet to meet two women who get on well that don't know each others inner most secrets within a very short time. Often things much more interesting than who they'd prefer as Prime Minister!
How it became public knowledge might be of interest but my guess is it's just tittle tattle. I'm always amazed by how people want to ingratiate themselves with semi strangers-even journalists-by sharing gossip.
For Nicola lovers I'm afraid the bad news is she's just too gobby!
"I suppose OGH has pointed out that Opinium shows that 12% of the LibDems fled the party after the debate reminded them that Clegg was their leader....? "
Have you missed a word?