Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Latest batch of Lord Ashcroft polling finds

1356

Comments

  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    Can anyone explain how right to buy proposal will protect number of houses available to rent.

    Person in the house will have a house

    Local HA will have a big wad of cash to build 1 or 2 new houses on brownfield sites.

    More houses.
    Person renting buys house at 70% discount so 1 fewer house in rental sector.

    Someone gets 30% proceeds to build a new house.

    What am i missing.

    Heard May say housing association paid by LA being forced to sell more council stock how does that fit in.

    She is either a poor explainer or the policy won't work (apart from as an election bribe) which i guess is most important TBF
    " so 1 fewer house in rental sector."

    Bingo - you've got it. Great isn't it ?
    At least your honest
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,415
    What is it with the Conservatives and selling everything off a long way below book value ?

    Foolishly I assumed they'd sell the PO off at an assumed book value and didn't realise it was a free money giveaway ><
  • murali_s said:

    FWIW, the SPIN spreads 'gap' has reduced to 8...

    Still way too high, certainly on today's report from Lord A.

    OGH's recommendation a few weeks back to sell seat supremacy at 12 is looking increasingly sound. It's now trading at 6-12, and again it's probably still a sell.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    edited April 2015
    TGOHF said:

    Smarmeron said:

    @TGOHF
    Housing is an investment, not a necessity?

    exactly - so there is no need for housing authorities to be looking after tenants where they don't have to.

    One more home owner breaks free of the state as their landlord - a wonderful outcome.
    Are housing Associations all part of the state?

    Thought they were Charities
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,992
    Morning all :)

    Well, a frenetic opening to the week with yesterday's polling. In the remote fastness of East Ham, the election seems a million miles away as people get on with their lives (in whatever form that takes).

    To be honest, I genuinely don't know what is going to the outcome of the election and anyone who thinks they do at this stage is playing with fire (or their cash). Five years ago today, Mrs Stodge and I were flying out to Las Vegas, beating the Icelandic dust cloud by 24 hours or so, and the polls showed the Conservatives well ahead of Labour and on the cusp of a majority - indeed, yesterday's ICM shares for CON-LAB were eerily reminiscent of the 2010 polls at this time.

    As we know, things didn't quite turn out that way but back then there was far greater agreement among the pollsters (CON 37-39, LAB 31-33, LD 18-20) than we saw yesterday with a massive 6% divergence in the Conservative number between ICM and Ashcroft and a similar divergence in the UKIP numbers.

    As we also know, there are fools, damn fools, people who backs odds on in novice chases and political canvassers. Judging an election's outcome by the "feel on the ground" is the quickest way to disappointment and/or the poorhouse and of course activists/canvassers will always, as the song has it, "accentuate the positive".

    Manifesto launches are pretty but not of great significance ordinarily (though the 2005 LD offering did presage trouble ahead). For all that Labour can be battered on the economy, so can the Conservatives on immigration (very quiet so far - the issue yet to speak its name perhaps ?), the NHS and the economy (in some respects).

    I do think parties that on the one hand tell us there is a substantial deficit and an even more substantial debt to manage but on the other indulge in statist giveaways such as offering to freeze rail fares probably are undeserving of our support but there you go. The Devil is in the detail and the scale and extent of spending cuts (and I do know of several councils already planning for a renewed onslaught on local government funding) remain unsatisfactorily nebulous.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    surbiton said:

    Dair said:

    surbiton said:

    SMukesh said:

    These are Labour target seats 70-90.

    Bad news for Con:That means 1 in 2 seats requiring 5 % swing are open for Labour.

    Nicola Sturgeon won't be liking this.
    This confirms that a reasonable expectation is Labour gaining 60 seats from the Tories, add in the 10-15 Liberal seats they will take and the 40 they lose to the SNP and you have Labour comfortably in teh 280-290 range which is where ONLY the SNP can make Ed PM.

    EICINPIPM.
    In the end they will not lose more than 30 to the SNP.
    Name the 10 that SLab will hold.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786

    Lots of those are very close, and could easily go either way.

    Maybe the Conservatives should clone Mogg.

    Yes, he comes across as authentic and independent-minded, whether you agree or don't with what he says. These days that in itself is enough to win the respect of many voters.

    I think it's also why Simon Hughes will possibly buck the pro-Labour trend in London and hold on in Bermondsey. Going to be very close though.
    Also, of course, Simon Hughes is the straight choice for Bermondsey.
    I believe he apologised (rightly) to Peter Tatchell for that a long time ago.
    Just as soon as he could afford to. Job done.
    I reminded of BrassEye when the sublime Chris Morris suggested to an amused Tatchell Outrage should start outing straight people.
    Would be good to see Hughes given the treatment.
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @TGOHF
    And those that can't afford a mortgage get shafted by those who can afford to buy more homes than they need?
    You are a genius!
  • FalseFlagFalseFlag Posts: 1,801
    edited April 2015

    Finchley looks like a classic example of UKIP voting against an EU referendum and for a Labour government.

    I hope these pr>cks are proud of themselves.

    Insult the people you need to come back to the fold, excellent strategy that has worked brilliantly thus far.
    I don't want ghastly toxic racist loonies back in the fold. I actually want all UKIPpers to just leave the country they utterly hate, like they are constantly threatening to do in the Telegraph comments.

    There is something profoundly unBritish about UKIP.
    That's a lot of hate you have there, we need to lose the toxic elements like you.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    Though councils will be obliged to use sale proceeds to build new housing
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664

    Finchley looks like a classic example of UKIP voting against an EU referendum and for a Labour government.

    I hope these pr>cks are proud of themselves.

    Insult the people you need to come back to the fold, excellent strategy that has worked brilliantly thus far.
    I don't want ghastly toxic racist loonies back in the fold. I actually want all UKIPpers to just leave the country they utterly hate, like they are constantly threatening to do in the Telegraph comments.

    There is something profoundly unBritish about UKIP.
    You see no irony at all in your use of "unBritish" as an insult, nor your suggestion of forced expatriation as a cure for unBritishness?

    Do you think Aidan should leave at the same time?
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341

    Person renting buys house at 70% discount so 1 fewer house in rental sector.

    1) It makes no difference to the overall housing stock. The house doesn't get demolished.

    2) People on a waiting list have no chance of getting at it anyway due to tenancies for life.

    3) The costs of maintenance and repair are all shifted onto the owner for years to come, and the freeholder gets to bill them for ground rent, service charge etc;

    4) Future BTL rental income generates tax revenue for the exchequer;

    5) BTL dictates that allocation of the property is efficient in terms of the number of occupiers, so you don't end up with millions of empty bedrooms which is the wasteful situation in the social rental sector presently.

    6) The owners do alright, but it effectively removes them from welfare dependency for years to come because they own a valuable asset, and that independence becomes inter-generational upon inheritance.

    7) The owners are also granted greater freedom of movement which is denied them when they are dependent on the government to allocate their home.

    8) Homeowners generally take greater care of properties than people that have them on loan via rental.

  • FalseFlagFalseFlag Posts: 1,801

    Lots of those are very close, and could easily go either way.

    Maybe the Conservatives should clone Mogg.

    Yes, he comes across as authentic and independent-minded, whether you agree or don't with what he says. These days that in itself is enough to win the respect of many voters.

    I think it's also why Simon Hughes will possibly buck the pro-Labour trend in London and hold on in Bermondsey. Going to be very close though.
    Also, of course, Simon Hughes is the straight choice for Bermondsey.
    I believe he apologised (rightly) to Peter Tatchell for that a long time ago.
    Just as soon as he could afford to. Job done.
    I reminded of BrassEye when the sublime Chris Morris suggested to an amused Tatchell Outrage should start outing straight people.
    Would be good to see Hughes given the treatment.
    More concerned with outing the likes of Cyril Smith myself.
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    edited April 2015
    Lots of noise from the Left today. Can't think why.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,064
    BenM said:

    Has anyone told the Tories that they will not be able to implement their policy of selling housing association housing at discount prices.Housing associations are non-profit making charities bound by the rules of the charity commission and are required to gain the full market value for their housing stock.Has anyone told the Tory policymakers about this or are they merely posturing? Another potential joke policy for the Tories.

    That's an interesting caveat.

    I'm sure the Tories have done their homework on that. Surely?
    I think the cost of the policy is so high because the government will make up the difference for the housing association. Doesn't make sense otherwise.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    chestnut said:

    Person renting buys house at 70% discount so 1 fewer house in rental sector.

    1) It makes no difference to the overall housing stock. The house doesn't get demolished.

    2) People on a waiting list have no chance of getting at it anyway due to tenancies for life.

    3) The costs of maintenance and repair are all shifted onto the owner for years to come, and the freeholder gets to bill them for ground rent, service charge etc;

    4) Future BTL rental income generates tax revenue for the exchequer;

    5) BTL dictates that allocation of the property is efficient in terms of the number of occupiers, so you don't end up with millions of empty bedrooms which is the wasteful situation in the social rental sector presently.

    6) The owners do alright, but it effectively removes them from welfare dependency for years to come because they own a valuable asset, and that independence becomes inter-generational upon inheritance.

    7) The owners are also granted greater freedom of movement which is denied them when they are dependent on the government to allocate their home.

    8) Homeowners generally take greater care of properties than people that have them on loan via rental.

    £77k handout of taxpayers money per house well spent then
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,964
    Double-edged sword for Cameron today. Good opportunity to either bugger it up or do well [the latter having the bonus of a comparison with Miliband's manifesto, which appears not to have gone down too well].

    Perplexed by Labour's positioning. Those convinced by austerity are blue-inclined. By posing as austerity converts (ironic after voting against measures as draconian as limiting annual benefits to £26,000) and seeming to confirm they'd cut Scottish funding, they've just made Murphy's job far harder.

    Labour could yet retain a good number of Scottish seats. A landslide defeat is not inevitable, but the manifesto launch really won't help them.
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @HYUFD
    "Though councils will be obliged to use sale proceeds to build new housing "

    You also are a genius.
    Logically of course, it should be extended to those in the private sector also? (with attendant discounts for the purchaser of course)

    Yes?
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    Natalie Bennett on Sky now

    Where is she standing for Parliament?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,415

    Natalie Bennett on Sky now

    Where is she standing for Parliament?

    Finsbury Islington.
  • BenM said:

    Has anyone told the Tories that they will not be able to implement their policy of selling housing association housing at discount prices.Housing associations are non-profit making charities bound by the rules of the charity commission and are required to gain the full market value for their housing stock.Has anyone told the Tory policymakers about this or are they merely posturing? Another potential joke policy for the Tories.

    That's an interesting caveat.

    I'm sure the Tories have done their homework on that. Surely?
    This was always the reason given for not including it past Tory manifestoes. BUT not all HAs have charitable status and in any case such status rests on statute law.

  • valleyboyvalleyboy Posts: 606
    Just a quick reply to earlier comments on Welsh seats.
    Labour have been working harder than I have ever know on their Welsh target seats, since well before Xmas and will hopefully reap some benefits.
    They will gain the Cardiff seats, will retain Llanelli.
    Labour are getting closer in Carmarthen and Pembrokeshire, but my guess would be, not close enough to effect any changes there.
    I am not aware of any Leanne Wood bounce. Not that popular in Plaid circles, let alone the rest of The electorate.
  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 4,291
    I'm really not sure about much of this housing policy despite reading all the press reports.

    For example, the funding for the HA tenants' right to buy will be secured from Councils being compelled to sell their most expensive properties as these become vacant. But many - indeed probably a majority - of Councils, including mine, sold their entire stock under the Voluntary Transfer Arrangements to newly created Housing Associations years ago. So we have no Council Housing to sell in the first place. How will we be affected if tenants in our RSLs do exercise this new right? I'll be making inquiries of our team today!

    I can imagine that those Borough/Districts, still largely Conservative, who remain as Housing Authorities will be perplexed (to put it mildly).
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,415
    UKIP's ground game looks poor to me in Dover, Cleethorpes and Dudley South.
  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012

    TGOHF said:

    Smarmeron said:

    @TGOHF
    Housing is an investment, not a necessity?

    exactly - so there is no need for housing authorities to be looking after tenants where they don't have to.

    One more home owner breaks free of the state as their landlord - a wonderful outcome.
    Are housing Associations all part of the state?

    Thought they were Charities
    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/79b43bbe-c7b3-11e2-be27-00144feab7de.html#axzz3XGyzuaoX

    ''Britain’s housing associations are drawing up contingency business plans to operate as private companies, highlighting the depth of concern over the possible end of government funding to the sector.''

    Housing Associations are ''a model that has always relied on some level of state funding,''
    ''the existing £4.5bn programme of grants to build new social housing running out in 2015''
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    Can anyone explain how right to buy proposal will protect number of houses available to rent.

    Person in the house will have a house

    Local HA will have a big wad of cash to build 1 or 2 new houses on brownfield sites.

    More houses.
    Person renting buys house at 70% discount so 1 fewer house in rental sector.

    Someone gets 30% proceeds to build a new house.

    What am i missing.

    Heard May say housing association paid by LA being forced to sell more council stock how does that fit in.

    She is either a poor explainer or the policy won't work (apart from as an election bribe) which i guess is most important TBF
    " so 1 fewer house in rental sector."

    Bingo - you've got it. Great isn't it ?
    At least your honest
    But one extra home owner free of the yoke of the state - is that the bit you object to ?
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    Caroline Lucas is just so much better than Natalie Bennett.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,415
    Hmm...

    Reasons for voting Conservative:

    Bribes.

    Reasons for not voting Conservative:

    Bribes.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,569
    edited April 2015
    Pulpstar said:



    We'd got a date and a pub for this I thought ?

    Sorry, yes, I'd forgotten. Do you (or anyone) remember where/when?

  • peter_from_putneypeter_from_putney Posts: 6,956
    edited April 2015
    Despite yesterday's encouraging ICM poll for the Blue Team, Sporting's GE Seats spread for the Tories has actually declined very slightly to 280 - 284.
    It appears therefore that the betting fraternity views it as something of an outlier.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Luke Springthorpe
    @L_Springthorpe
    Just three paragraphs of Labour's 86 page manifesto of spending commitments devoted to tax. The elephant in the room... #GE2015
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Am I allowed to say this? Unsure of the PB race relations act

    Pakistanis for ukip

    http://order-order.com/2015/04/14/pray4ukip-ukip-does-god/#_@/HzbMza0K6x5RiA
  • Interesting marginal polls and some entertaining views from contributors (ARSE etc)

    Cam still needs 290 or he's toast. ICM would deliver but they are only poll in the last week or so that would.

    Let's see how the manifesto launches pan out in the polls by the weekend when everyone has a chance for them to sink in.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    Can anyone explain how right to buy proposal will protect number of houses available to rent.

    Person in the house will have a house

    Local HA will have a big wad of cash to build 1 or 2 new houses on brownfield sites.

    More houses.
    Person renting buys house at 70% discount so 1 fewer house in rental sector.

    Someone gets 30% proceeds to build a new house.

    What am i missing.

    Heard May say housing association paid by LA being forced to sell more council stock how does that fit in.

    She is either a poor explainer or the policy won't work (apart from as an election bribe) which i guess is most important TBF
    " so 1 fewer house in rental sector."

    Bingo - you've got it. Great isn't it ?
    At least your honest
    But one extra home owner free of the yoke of the state - is that the bit you object to ?
    I dont see Housing Associations as Charities as part of the state.

    I also think LA landlords tend to be better than private landlords from my experience of yesteryear
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,064

    Caroline Lucas is just so much better than Natalie Bennett.

    Labour would be in serious trouble if Lucas was still Green leader. She is so much more credible than Bennett and comea across as a person who gets ordinary people's concerns. Bennett just sounds like another politician pretending to be of the people.
  • Ishmael_X said:

    Finchley looks like a classic example of UKIP voting against an EU referendum and for a Labour government.

    I hope these pr>cks are proud of themselves.

    Insult the people you need to come back to the fold, excellent strategy that has worked brilliantly thus far.
    I don't want ghastly toxic racist loonies back in the fold. I actually want all UKIPpers to just leave the country they utterly hate, like they are constantly threatening to do in the Telegraph comments.

    There is something profoundly unBritish about UKIP.
    You see no irony at all in your use of "unBritish" as an insult, nor your suggestion of forced expatriation as a cure for unBritishness?

    Do you think Aidan should leave at the same time?
    Who said anything about forced repatriation? The ghastly little oiks are dead keen on leaving. They are always banging on about how "their" country is being "stolen" by all these "immigrants clogging up the motorways".

    Right, so if they don't like it here they can just piss off somewhere that resembles Britain 60 years ago, where B & Bs still have signs saying "No Blacks or Irish", and everyone thinks Love Thy Neighbour is hilarious clean fun.

    The one place they absolutely do not belong is in an economically hawkish, socially liberal party of the centre right in 2015.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    FalseFlag said:

    Lots of those are very close, and could easily go either way.

    Maybe the Conservatives should clone Mogg.

    Yes, he comes across as authentic and independent-minded, whether you agree or don't with what he says. These days that in itself is enough to win the respect of many voters.

    I think it's also why Simon Hughes will possibly buck the pro-Labour trend in London and hold on in Bermondsey. Going to be very close though.
    Also, of course, Simon Hughes is the straight choice for Bermondsey.
    I believe he apologised (rightly) to Peter Tatchell for that a long time ago.
    Just as soon as he could afford to. Job done.
    I reminded of BrassEye when the sublime Chris Morris suggested to an amused Tatchell Outrage should start outing straight people.
    Would be good to see Hughes given the treatment.
    More concerned with outing the likes of Cyril Smith myself.
    Quite. Although don't expect the Establishment to help demonise itself for the corrupt bed of sin and iniquity it is.
    However outing haters is also fair game.

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,415

    Pulpstar said:



    We'd got a date and a pub for this I thought ?

    Sorry, yes, I'd forgotten. Do you (or anyone) remember where/when?

    Strong Labour pub in Broxtowe, Early May ?
  • BenMBenM Posts: 1,795
    TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    Can anyone explain how right to buy proposal will protect number of houses available to rent.

    Person in the house will have a house

    Local HA will have a big wad of cash to build 1 or 2 new houses on brownfield sites.

    More houses.
    Person renting buys house at 70% discount so 1 fewer house in rental sector.

    Someone gets 30% proceeds to build a new house.

    What am i missing.

    Heard May say housing association paid by LA being forced to sell more council stock how does that fit in.

    She is either a poor explainer or the policy won't work (apart from as an election bribe) which i guess is most important TBF
    " so 1 fewer house in rental sector."

    Bingo - you've got it. Great isn't it ?
    At least your honest
    But one extra home owner free of the yoke of the state - is that the bit you object to ?
    The "yoke" which put a roof over someone's head...
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,680
    BenM said:

    Not surprised at Dover. Kent is going to remain a Labour free zone.

    The trick when the swing is against you nationally is to work hard and get yourself a decent profile - Halfon, Mogg and Elphicke all seem to prove this rule.

    I agree. Zac Goldsmith has successfully done this in Richmond Park - not that he needs to given his majority over the LDs. I haven't recently checked his odds. Whatever it is , it is free money. I'm in for a decent amount at 10/1 on. 10% tax free return.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 11,491

    Natalie Bennett on Sky now

    Where is she standing for Parliament?

    In my constituency, Holborn & St Pancras. Other notable residents included Ed Miliband.

    Henry
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    Barnesian said:

    BenM said:

    Not surprised at Dover. Kent is going to remain a Labour free zone.

    The trick when the swing is against you nationally is to work hard and get yourself a decent profile - Halfon, Mogg and Elphicke all seem to prove this rule.

    I agree. Zac Goldsmith has successfully done this in Richmond Park - not that he needs to given his majority over the LDs. I haven't recently checked his odds. Whatever it is , it is free money. I'm in for a decent amount at 10/1 on. 10% tax free return.
    A nice lad, shame his father was such a ridiculous old goat. Zac for the Greens!
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    BenM said:

    TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    Can anyone explain how right to buy proposal will protect number of houses available to rent.

    Person in the house will have a house

    Local HA will have a big wad of cash to build 1 or 2 new houses on brownfield sites.

    More houses.
    Person renting buys house at 70% discount so 1 fewer house in rental sector.

    Someone gets 30% proceeds to build a new house.

    What am i missing.

    Heard May say housing association paid by LA being forced to sell more council stock how does that fit in.

    She is either a poor explainer or the policy won't work (apart from as an election bribe) which i guess is most important TBF
    " so 1 fewer house in rental sector."

    Bingo - you've got it. Great isn't it ?
    At least your honest
    But one extra home owner free of the yoke of the state - is that the bit you object to ?
    The "yoke" which put a roof over someone's head...
    But no longer required - frees up the HA, frees up govt future liabilities, frees up the tenant to spend money in B+Q etc etc.

    It's shrinking the state one family at a time - it's fantastic.
  • TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    Can anyone explain how right to buy proposal will protect number of houses available to rent.

    Person in the house will have a house

    Local HA will have a big wad of cash to build 1 or 2 new houses on brownfield sites.

    More houses.
    Person renting buys house at 70% discount so 1 fewer house in rental sector.

    Someone gets 30% proceeds to build a new house.

    What am i missing.

    Heard May say housing association paid by LA being forced to sell more council stock how does that fit in.

    She is either a poor explainer or the policy won't work (apart from as an election bribe) which i guess is most important TBF
    " so 1 fewer house in rental sector."

    Bingo - you've got it. Great isn't it ?
    At least your honest
    Um - if they're sold at a 50-70% discount, then for every 10 houses sold:
    10 houses removed from supply, 10 families removed from demand, 3-5 houses built from proceeds = improvement in situation of 3-5 houses per 10 sold. That is, where once we had 10 houses, we now have 13-15.

    We desperately need more houses built; this will achieve that.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    Pulpstar said:



    We'd got a date and a pub for this I thought ?

    Sorry, yes, I'd forgotten. Do you (or anyone) remember where/when?

    Yes Nick.

    You're standing in Broxtowe and the election is on Thursday 7th May. :smile:

  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    Can anyone explain how right to buy proposal will protect number of houses available to rent.

    Person in the house will have a house

    Local HA will have a big wad of cash to build 1 or 2 new houses on brownfield sites.

    More houses.
    Person renting buys house at 70% discount so 1 fewer house in rental sector.

    Someone gets 30% proceeds to build a new house.

    What am i missing.

    Heard May say housing association paid by LA being forced to sell more council stock how does that fit in.

    She is either a poor explainer or the policy won't work (apart from as an election bribe) which i guess is most important TBF
    " so 1 fewer house in rental sector."

    Bingo - you've got it. Great isn't it ?
    At least your honest
    Um - if they're sold at a 50-70% discount, then for every 10 houses sold:
    10 houses removed from supply, 10 families removed from demand, 3-5 houses built from proceeds = improvement in situation of 3-5 houses per 10 sold. That is, where once we had 10 houses, we now have 13-15.

    We desperately need more houses built; this will achieve that.
    But 13 families extra not relying on the state for their roof - that's what the left hate about it.
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    edited April 2015
    surbiton said:

    Dair said:

    surbiton said:

    SMukesh said:

    These are Labour target seats 70-90.

    Bad news for Con:That means 1 in 2 seats requiring 5 % swing are open for Labour.

    Nicola Sturgeon won't be liking this.
    This confirms that a reasonable expectation is Labour gaining 60 seats from the Tories, add in the 10-15 Liberal seats they will take and the 40 they lose to the SNP and you have Labour comfortably in teh 280-290 range which is where ONLY the SNP can make Ed PM.

    EICINPIPM.
    In the end they will not lose more than 30 to the SNP.
    Fancy a bet on the McSlaughter?

    How about evens on SLAB holding more than 7x as many seats as the LD's?

    ie,

    LD's 1 seat, SLAB 8 seats or more you win, 7 or less I win.
    LD's 2 seats SLAB 15 seats or more you win, 14 or less I win.
    LD's 3 seats SLAB 22 seats or more you win, 21 or less I win.

    etc etc.

    Interested?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,328
    antifrank said:

    Have the pb Tories mentioned yet that the BBC reports yesterday's polls from Lord Ashcroft and Populus, but not ICM?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32295970

    You're very naughty! Best not to poke a sleeping bear with a sharp stick.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    Interesting marginal polls and some entertaining views from contributors (ARSE etc)

    One aims to please. :innocent:

  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821
    edited April 2015

    Took my Mum home yesterday.

    Saw more Tory posters than LAB ones on what would normally be a strong LAB estate.

    I think Lee Rowley has done more footwork than any previous candidate in NE Derbyshire.

    Engels hold though

    Yes, Lee Rowley has been working very hard, and I think will do very well in the circumstances. For that matter Huw Merriman did an amazing job last time as well, but Lee is a local lad and better suited to the constituency.

    However: yes, Natasha will hold easily enough. She'll have a good personal vote. I expect her to have an increased majority, but a respectable performance by Lee Rowley.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    MaxPB said:

    Caroline Lucas is just so much better than Natalie Bennett.

    Labour would be in serious trouble if Lucas was still Green leader. She is so much more credible than Bennett and comea across as a person who gets ordinary people's concerns. Bennett just sounds like another politician pretending to be of the people.
    I would vote Lucas.

    Bennet is so crap. unbelievably incoherent, terrible (BISCUIT)
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704

    chestnut said:

    Person renting buys house at 70% discount so 1 fewer house in rental sector.

    1) It makes no difference to the overall housing stock. The house doesn't get demolished.

    2) People on a waiting list have no chance of getting at it anyway due to tenancies for life.

    3) The costs of maintenance and repair are all shifted onto the owner for years to come, and the freeholder gets to bill them for ground rent, service charge etc;

    4) Future BTL rental income generates tax revenue for the exchequer;

    5) BTL dictates that allocation of the property is efficient in terms of the number of occupiers, so you don't end up with millions of empty bedrooms which is the wasteful situation in the social rental sector presently.

    6) The owners do alright, but it effectively removes them from welfare dependency for years to come because they own a valuable asset, and that independence becomes inter-generational upon inheritance.

    7) The owners are also granted greater freedom of movement which is denied them when they are dependent on the government to allocate their home.

    8) Homeowners generally take greater care of properties than people that have them on loan via rental.

    £77k handout of taxpayers money per house well spent then
    If there is a house building program as a result of the sale to employ builders and improve the economy, it may not be a bad 'investment'. And more cost effective in reducing unemployment and bolstering confidence than many government schemes.

    There is also the chance that enough houses will be built to stem the rise in house prices, in an ideal world.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    I remember the cleethorpes story now... The mp was a poss defector but instead cut a deal to let ukip run the council if they went easy in the GE
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664

    Ishmael_X said:

    Finchley looks like a classic example of UKIP voting against an EU referendum and for a Labour government.

    I hope these pr>cks are proud of themselves.

    Insult the people you need to come back to the fold, excellent strategy that has worked brilliantly thus far.
    I don't want ghastly toxic racist loonies back in the fold. I actually want all UKIPpers to just leave the country they utterly hate, like they are constantly threatening to do in the Telegraph comments.

    There is something profoundly unBritish about UKIP.
    You see no irony at all in your use of "unBritish" as an insult, nor your suggestion of forced expatriation as a cure for unBritishness?

    Do you think Aidan should leave at the same time?
    Who said anything about forced repatriation? The ghastly little oiks are dead keen on leaving. They are always banging on about how "their" country is being "stolen" by all these "immigrants clogging up the motorways".

    Right, so if they don't like it here they can just piss off somewhere that resembles Britain 60 years ago, where B & Bs still have signs saying "No Blacks or Irish", and everyone thinks Love Thy Neighbour is hilarious clean fun.

    The one place they absolutely do not belong is in an economically hawkish, socially liberal party of the centre right in 2015.
    Have you looked into anger management courses?
  • timmotimmo Posts: 1,469

    Despite yesterday's encouraging ICM poll for the Blue Team, Sporting's GE Seats spread for the Tories has actually declined very slightly to 280 - 284.
    It appears therefore that the betting fraternity views it as something of an outlier.

    I would suggest its more Time decay on the price..
  • timmotimmo Posts: 1,469

    murali_s said:

    FWIW, the SPIN spreads 'gap' has reduced to 8...

    Still way too high, certainly on today's report from Lord A.

    OGH's recommendation a few weeks back to sell seat supremacy at 12 is looking increasingly sound. It's now trading at 6-12, and again it's probably still a sell.
    Only if you are prepared to hold the position till expiration.
  • TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    Can anyone explain how right to buy proposal will protect number of houses available to rent.

    Person in the house will have a house

    Local HA will have a big wad of cash to build 1 or 2 new houses on brownfield sites.

    More houses.
    Person renting buys house at 70% discount so 1 fewer house in rental sector.

    Someone gets 30% proceeds to build a new house.

    What am i missing.

    Heard May say housing association paid by LA being forced to sell more council stock how does that fit in.

    She is either a poor explainer or the policy won't work (apart from as an election bribe) which i guess is most important TBF
    " so 1 fewer house in rental sector."

    Bingo - you've got it. Great isn't it ?
    At least your honest
    Um - if they're sold at a 50-70% discount, then for every 10 houses sold:
    10 houses removed from supply, 10 families removed from demand, 3-5 houses built from proceeds = improvement in situation of 3-5 houses per 10 sold. That is, where once we had 10 houses, we now have 13-15.

    We desperately need more houses built; this will achieve that.
    You're assuming that the price of the house is equivalent to the replacement cost though. This isn't so. A million quid house in much of London would probably only cost half that to build.

    So a HA that has four flats in a house each worth £350k, that sells them off for £250k, receives a million quid. That million quid probably builds two more houses comprising eight flats to replace the four sold.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736

    Took my Mum home yesterday.

    Saw more Tory posters than LAB ones on what would normally be a strong LAB estate.

    I think Lee Rowley has done more footwork than any previous candidate in NE Derbyshire.

    Engels hold though

    Yes, Lee Rowley has been working very hard, and I think will do very well in the circumstances. For that matter Huw Merriman did an amazing job last time as well, but Lee is a local lad and better suited to the constituency.

    However: yes, Natasha will hold easily enough. She'll have a good personal vote. I expect her to have an increased majority, but a respectable performance by Lee Rowley.
    Are you from NE Derbyshire Richard?

    I spent my first 29 years in Dronfield
  • PClippPClipp Posts: 2,138
    edited April 2015
    JohnO said:

    I'm really not sure about much of this housing policy despite reading all the press reports.
    For example, the funding for the HA tenants' right to buy will be secured from Councils being compelled to sell their most expensive properties as these become vacant. But many - indeed probably a majority - of Councils, including mine, sold their entire stock under the Voluntary Transfer Arrangements to newly created Housing Associations years ago. So we have no Council Housing to sell in the first place. How will we be affected if tenants in our RSLs do exercise this new right? I'll be making inquiries of our team today!
    I can imagine that those Borough/Districts, still largely Conservative, who remain as Housing Authorities will be perplexed (to put it mildly).

    George Osborne should have consulted you, John O, as a famous Conservative Council leader, before he came up with this particular jolly wheeze.

    Surely the answer is that the subsidy for this giveaway will have to be paid for from Council funds, which means, of course, your council tax payers.

    Is your council up for election this year? And have your voters cottoned on yet?

    Conservatives - Losing Here
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821
    edited April 2015
    It is very amusing to see the bizarre logic of those opposing Cameron's right to buy policy. According to Labour supporters:

    A lifetime subsidy of the rent is good. Even if the subsidy is to someone who no longer needs such a big property.

    A one-off discount on the sale, freeing up capital to be reinvested in more housing for those on the waiting list, is bad.

    You can see why we are such a mess when a large chunk of the population think like that!
  • BenMBenM Posts: 1,795

    TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    Can anyone explain how right to buy proposal will protect number of houses available to rent.

    Person in the house will have a house

    Local HA will have a big wad of cash to build 1 or 2 new houses on brownfield sites.

    More houses.
    Person renting buys house at 70% discount so 1 fewer house in rental sector.

    Someone gets 30% proceeds to build a new house.

    What am i missing.

    Heard May say housing association paid by LA being forced to sell more council stock how does that fit in.

    She is either a poor explainer or the policy won't work (apart from as an election bribe) which i guess is most important TBF
    " so 1 fewer house in rental sector."

    Bingo - you've got it. Great isn't it ?
    At least your honest
    Um - if they're sold at a 50-70% discount, then for every 10 houses sold:
    10 houses removed from supply, 10 families removed from demand, 3-5 houses built from proceeds = improvement in situation of 3-5 houses per 10 sold. That is, where once we had 10 houses, we now have 13-15.

    We desperately need more houses built; this will achieve that.
    It hasn't so far, and it won't in the future.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821

    Are you from NE Derbyshire Richard?

    I spent my first 29 years in Dronfield

    No, not at all, but I know Huw Merriman quite well and I've met Lee Rowley.
  • calumcalum Posts: 3,046
    Ruth Davidson spent yesterday in Edinburgh trying to galvanise LibDems into voting tactically for the Tories. Today we have Christine Jardine boasting about the emerging Unionist anti-SNP effort. Slight problem is the Tory candidate isn't playing ball;

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/lib-dem-battling-alex-salmond-says-shell-send-ex-fm-a-thank-you-note-for-.123050014

    Here's what he said;


    "Colin Clark, the Tory candidate in the seat, accused Ms Jardine of "desperation" and said her tactics were motivated by the collapse of her core vote."Nationally the Liberals are polling at four per cent," he said. "People who are voting tactically for them are under false pretences, their own core vote has disappeared. That's true in Gordon just like it is everywhere else.

    "Tactical voting is the saviour of a party with no policies. We're getting responses that show a higher number of people are voting Conservative than we might have thought. There are still a lot of floating voters - 25 per cent haven't made their minds up and 25 per cent are telling us they might vote Conservative in the areas we're canvassing."


    So Colin is directly undermining Ruth Davidson as well as Christine Jardine's increasingly desperate campaign.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,718
    edited April 2015
    BenM said:

    TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    Can anyone explain how right to buy proposal will protect number of houses available to rent.

    Person in the house will have a house

    Local HA will have a big wad of cash to build 1 or 2 new houses on brownfield sites.

    More houses.
    Person renting buys house at 70% discount so 1 fewer house in rental sector.

    Someone gets 30% proceeds to build a new house.

    What am i missing.

    Heard May say housing association paid by LA being forced to sell more council stock how does that fit in.

    She is either a poor explainer or the policy won't work (apart from as an election bribe) which i guess is most important TBF
    " so 1 fewer house in rental sector."

    Bingo - you've got it. Great isn't it ?
    At least your honest
    Um - if they're sold at a 50-70% discount, then for every 10 houses sold:
    10 houses removed from supply, 10 families removed from demand, 3-5 houses built from proceeds = improvement in situation of 3-5 houses per 10 sold. That is, where once we had 10 houses, we now have 13-15.

    We desperately need more houses built; this will achieve that.
    It hasn't so far, and it won't in the future.
    That’s assuming the HA’s are allowed to build with the proceeds. Anyway, looking at local HA housing, I doubt many tenants will be a position to buy. In many cases they are the people (or the children of the people) who didn’t/couldn’t buy last time round.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,393

    Ishmael_X said:

    Finchley looks like a classic example of UKIP voting against an EU referendum and for a Labour government.

    I hope these pr>cks are proud of themselves.

    Insult the people you need to come back to the fold, excellent strategy that has worked brilliantly thus far.
    I don't want ghastly toxic racist loonies back in the fold. I actually want all UKIPpers to just leave the country they utterly hate, like they are constantly threatening to do in the Telegraph comments.

    There is something profoundly unBritish about UKIP.
    You see no irony at all in your use of "unBritish" as an insult, nor your suggestion of forced expatriation as a cure for unBritishness?

    Do you think Aidan should leave at the same time?
    Who said anything about forced repatriation? The ghastly little oiks are dead keen on leaving. They are always banging on about how "their" country is being "stolen" by all these "immigrants clogging up the motorways".

    Right, so if they don't like it here they can just piss off somewhere that resembles Britain 60 years ago, where B & Bs still have signs saying "No Blacks or Irish", and everyone thinks Love Thy Neighbour is hilarious clean fun.

    The one place they absolutely do not belong is in an economically hawkish, socially liberal party of the centre right in 2015.
    I recently read a SF novel - title and author I have clean forgotten, sorry - about a world where people moved to alternative realities, and that was precisely one such AR, set on the SE coast near the White Cliffs. Very unsettling.

  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    calum said:

    Ruth Davidson spent yesterday in Edinburgh trying to galvanise LibDems into voting tactically for the Tories. Today we have Christine Jardine boasting about the emerging Unionist anti-SNP effort. Slight problem is the Tory candidate isn't playing ball;

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/lib-dem-battling-alex-salmond-says-shell-send-ex-fm-a-thank-you-note-for-.123050014

    Here's what he said;


    "Colin Clark, the Tory candidate in the seat, accused Ms Jardine of "desperation" and said her tactics were motivated by the collapse of her core vote."Nationally the Liberals are polling at four per cent," he said. "People who are voting tactically for them are under false pretences, their own core vote has disappeared. That's true in Gordon just like it is everywhere else.

    "Tactical voting is the saviour of a party with no policies. We're getting responses that show a higher number of people are voting Conservative than we might have thought. There are still a lot of floating voters - 25 per cent haven't made their minds up and 25 per cent are telling us they might vote Conservative in the areas we're canvassing."


    So Colin is directly undermining Ruth Davidson as well as Christine Jardine's increasingly desperate campaign.

    The Lib Dems need to commission an up-to-date constituency poll in Gordon and quickly. Of course, maybe they have already, and it didn't suit?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,415
    Someone needs to tell May2015 to move NE Somerset out the Labour column :Dhttp://may2015.com/category/seat-calculator/
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    Carnyx said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    Finchley looks like a classic example of UKIP voting against an EU referendum and for a Labour government.

    I hope these pr>cks are proud of themselves.

    Insult the people you need to come back to the fold, excellent strategy that has worked brilliantly thus far.
    I don't want ghastly toxic racist loonies back in the fold. I actually want all UKIPpers to just leave the country they utterly hate, like they are constantly threatening to do in the Telegraph comments.

    There is something profoundly unBritish about UKIP.
    You see no irony at all in your use of "unBritish" as an insult, nor your suggestion of forced expatriation as a cure for unBritishness?

    Do you think Aidan should leave at the same time?
    Who said anything about forced repatriation? The ghastly little oiks are dead keen on leaving. They are always banging on about how "their" country is being "stolen" by all these "immigrants clogging up the motorways".

    Right, so if they don't like it here they can just piss off somewhere that resembles Britain 60 years ago, where B & Bs still have signs saying "No Blacks or Irish", and everyone thinks Love Thy Neighbour is hilarious clean fun.

    The one place they absolutely do not belong is in an economically hawkish, socially liberal party of the centre right in 2015.
    I recently read a SF novel - title and author I have clean forgotten, sorry - about a world where people moved to alternative realities, and that was precisely one such AR, set on the SE coast near the White Cliffs. Very unsettling.

    Probably the UKIP manifesto.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736

    It is very amusing to see the bizarre logic of those opposing Cameron's right to buy policy. According to Labour supporters:

    A lifetime subsidy of the rent is good. Even if the subsidy is to someone who no longer needs such a big property.

    A one-off discount on the sale, freeing up capital to be reinvested in more housing for those on the waiting list, is bad.

    You can see why we are such a mess when a large chunk of the population think like that!

    How much subsidy is their in rents these days?

    Presumably the majority of the taxpayers subsidy goes to pay private landlords inflated rates?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    Can anyone explain how right to buy proposal will protect number of houses available to rent.

    Person in the house will have a house

    Local HA will have a big wad of cash to build 1 or 2 new houses on brownfield sites.

    More houses.
    Person renting buys house at 70% discount so 1 fewer house in rental sector.

    Someone gets 30% proceeds to build a new house.

    What am i missing.

    Heard May say housing association paid by LA being forced to sell more council stock how does that fit in.

    She is either a poor explainer or the policy won't work (apart from as an election bribe) which i guess is most important TBF
    " so 1 fewer house in rental sector."

    Bingo - you've got it. Great isn't it ?
    At least your honest
    Um - if they're sold at a 50-70% discount, then for every 10 houses sold:
    10 houses removed from supply, 10 families removed from demand, 3-5 houses built from proceeds = improvement in situation of 3-5 houses per 10 sold. That is, where once we had 10 houses, we now have 13-15.

    We desperately need more houses built; this will achieve that.
    Even accounting for the discount, sale price is above replacement cost.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,415
    edited April 2015
    @Tissue_Price The Lib Dems & Labour have crashed in the Scottish polls, the Tories are on the up. Only the Tories can stop the SNP in Gordon ;)

    Same picture in Stirling ;)

    And Dunbartonshire East ;)
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    edited April 2015

    How much subsidy is their in rents these days?

    Presumably the majority of the taxpayers subsidy goes to pay private landlords inflated rates?

    Private landlord average HB is £107
    Social rental HB is £92

    The private landlord rental however is taxable, and they assume all repair and upkeep costs.

    London centric media and politics distorts the real world position.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821
    edited April 2015


    Presumably the majority of the taxpayers subsidy goes to pay private landlords inflated rates?

    Yes, that is a big problem as well. Luckily the coalition has begun to address that, with modest but sensible reforms (which were opposed by Labour, of course). More needs to be done. The long-term aim should be to largely phase out housing benefit altogether. It's bonkers for the state to distort rents in favour of buy-to-let landlords (and by extension to inflate house prices).
  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    Ishmael_X said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    Finchley looks like a classic example of UKIP voting against an EU referendum and for a Labour government.

    I hope these pr>cks are proud of themselves.

    Insult the people you need to come back to the fold, excellent strategy that has worked brilliantly thus far.
    I don't want ghastly toxic racist loonies back in the fold. I actually want all UKIPpers to just leave the country they utterly hate, like they are constantly threatening to do in the Telegraph comments.

    There is something profoundly unBritish about UKIP.
    You see no irony at all in your use of "unBritish" as an insult, nor your suggestion of forced expatriation as a cure for unBritishness?

    Do you think Aidan should leave at the same time?
    Who said anything about forced repatriation? The ghastly little oiks are dead keen on leaving. They are always banging on about how "their" country is being "stolen" by all these "immigrants clogging up the motorways".

    Right, so if they don't like it here they can just piss off somewhere that resembles Britain 60 years ago, where B & Bs still have signs saying "No Blacks or Irish", and everyone thinks Love Thy Neighbour is hilarious clean fun.

    The one place they absolutely do not belong is in an economically hawkish, socially liberal party of the centre right in 2015.
    Have you looked into anger management courses?
    Strange that kippers do not like the taste of their own medicine.
    I think Mr Bond is being a bit too harsh on some of the kipper poll numbers. Farage has plumbed the depths of 'ugly nativism' to scare many voters into an unthinking knee jerk response. However I would certainly be happy to see many of the gross crass kipper activist and public apologists take a time warp back to 1950 where they belong.
    As Mr Bond effectively points out, UKIP lost its way as soon as Farage realised there was an easy comfy seat on the gravy train with his 'ugly' dog whistles.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118

    It is very amusing to see the bizarre logic of those opposing Cameron's right to buy policy. According to Labour supporters:

    A lifetime subsidy of the rent is good. Even if the subsidy is to someone who no longer needs such a big property.

    A one-off discount on the sale, freeing up capital to be reinvested in more housing for those on the waiting list, is bad.

    You can see why we are such a mess when a large chunk of the population think like that!

    Right to buy was the cause of our family feud. My nan had the right to buy her council house in collier row for a about a grand in about 1983/4 I think... My uncle was still living at home, moved his missus in and a year later my nan was living in sheltered accommodation and he had a house he paid £1k for

    Not many people speak to the aforementioned unc

    Doesn't letting people buy them on the cheap lincrease demand for council houses for those that need them? Defeats the object doesn't it?
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Carnyx said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    Finchley looks like a classic example of UKIP voting against an EU referendum and for a Labour government.

    I hope these pr>cks are proud of themselves.

    Insult the people you need to come back to the fold, excellent strategy that has worked brilliantly thus far.
    I don't want ghastly toxic racist loonies back in the fold. I actually want all UKIPpers to just leave the country they utterly hate, like they are constantly threatening to do in the Telegraph comments.

    There is something profoundly unBritish about UKIP.
    You see no irony at all in your use of "unBritish" as an insult, nor your suggestion of forced expatriation as a cure for unBritishness?

    Do you think Aidan should leave at the same time?
    Who said anything about forced repatriation? The ghastly little oiks are dead keen on leaving. They are always banging on about how "their" country is being "stolen" by all these "immigrants clogging up the motorways".

    Right, so if they don't like it here they can just piss off somewhere that resembles Britain 60 years ago, where B & Bs still have signs saying "No Blacks or Irish", and everyone thinks Love Thy Neighbour is hilarious clean fun.

    The one place they absolutely do not belong is in an economically hawkish, socially liberal party of the centre right in 2015.
    I recently read a SF novel - title and author I have clean forgotten, sorry - about a world where people moved to alternative realities, and that was precisely one such AR, set on the SE coast near the White Cliffs. Very unsettling.

    AR & SE .... a combined ARSE .... "Very unsettling" .... for some. :smile:

  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    Pulpstar said:

    @Tissue_Price The Lib Dems & Labour have crashed in the Scottish polls, the Tories are on the up. Only the Tories can stop the SNP in Gordon ;)

    Same picture in Stirling ;)

    And Dunbartonshire East ;)

    And Renfrewshire East ;)
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,672

    It is very amusing to see the bizarre logic of those opposing Cameron's right to buy policy. According to Labour supporters:

    A lifetime subsidy of the rent is good. Even if the subsidy is to someone who no longer needs such a big property.

    A one-off discount on the sale, freeing up capital to be reinvested in more housing for those on the waiting list, is bad.

    You can see why we are such a mess when a large chunk of the population think like that!

    And the logic for allowing people to buy social housing with extra rooms they do not at significantly reduced prices is what?

  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    Charles said:

    TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    Can anyone explain how right to buy proposal will protect number of houses available to rent.

    Person in the house will have a house

    Local HA will have a big wad of cash to build 1 or 2 new houses on brownfield sites.

    More houses.
    Person renting buys house at 70% discount so 1 fewer house in rental sector.

    Someone gets 30% proceeds to build a new house.

    What am i missing.

    Heard May say housing association paid by LA being forced to sell more council stock how does that fit in.

    She is either a poor explainer or the policy won't work (apart from as an election bribe) which i guess is most important TBF
    " so 1 fewer house in rental sector."

    Bingo - you've got it. Great isn't it ?
    At least your honest
    Um - if they're sold at a 50-70% discount, then for every 10 houses sold:
    10 houses removed from supply, 10 families removed from demand, 3-5 houses built from proceeds = improvement in situation of 3-5 houses per 10 sold. That is, where once we had 10 houses, we now have 13-15.

    We desperately need more houses built; this will achieve that.
    Even accounting for the discount, sale price is above replacement cost.
    Yes, that's the key. Building a house is a lot cheaper than buying it, it's the planning permission that's expensive.
  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012

    It is very amusing to see the bizarre logic of those opposing Cameron's right to buy policy. According to Labour supporters:

    A lifetime subsidy of the rent is good. Even if the subsidy is to someone who no longer needs such a big property.

    A one-off discount on the sale, freeing up capital to be reinvested in more housing for those on the waiting list, is bad.

    You can see why we are such a mess when a large chunk of the population think like that!

    And the logic for allowing people to buy social housing with extra rooms they do not at significantly reduced prices is what?

    Money. To build smaller houses.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,415

    Pulpstar said:

    @Tissue_Price The Lib Dems & Labour have crashed in the Scottish polls, the Tories are on the up. Only the Tories can stop the SNP in Gordon ;)

    Same picture in Stirling ;)

    And Dunbartonshire East ;)

    And Renfrewshire East ;)
    I want the Renfrewshire East bet to come in far too much to actually put money on it.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821
    isam said:

    Doesn't letting people buy them on the cheap lincrease demand for council houses for those that need them?

    No more than letting the tenants stay, in a secure tenancy, in the property (and especially if their circumstances have changed so that they no longer need such a big property). Either way that particular property is blocked to young families living in over-crowded accomodation, but the difference is that the right-to-buy frees up capital for building an additional home, as well as having additional advantages such as breaking up the ghettoisation of public-sector vs private-sector estates.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    OT I know many PBers love this stuff telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/singapore/11534378/When-is-Cheryls-birthday-The-tricky-math-problem-that-has-everyone-stumped.html
    A maths problem that first appeared in a test for Singapore's elite high school students has baffled internet users around the world after it went viral, prompting a rush of attempts to solve it.

    The question, involving a girl asking two boys to guess her birthday after giving them scant clues, first appeared in an April 8 test organised by the Singapore and Asian School Math Olympiads (SOSMA).

    It was meant for 15 and 16-year-old elite secondary school students, but swiftly went global after a local television news presenter posted it on his Facebook page on Saturday.

    In the question, Cheryl gives her new friends Albert and Bernard 10 possible dates when they enquired about her birthday, before separately giving each of them further clues.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,983
    edited April 2015
    There are literally millions of people on housing association waiting lists. They all might as well remove their names now. No one will move from a house or flat that they have a de facto 70% interest in. Housing association property is a first line for the homeless. To remove this is nothing short of criminal. The backlash to this policy from the likes of Shelter will be enormous.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    isam said:

    It is very amusing to see the bizarre logic of those opposing Cameron's right to buy policy. According to Labour supporters:

    A lifetime subsidy of the rent is good. Even if the subsidy is to someone who no longer needs such a big property.

    A one-off discount on the sale, freeing up capital to be reinvested in more housing for those on the waiting list, is bad.

    You can see why we are such a mess when a large chunk of the population think like that!

    Right to buy was the cause of our family feud. My nan had the right to buy her council house in collier row for a about a grand in about 1983/4 I think... My uncle was still living at home, moved his missus in and a year later my nan was living in sheltered accommodation and he had a house he paid £1k for

    Not many people speak to the aforementioned unc

    Doesn't letting people buy them on the cheap lincrease demand for council houses for those that need them? Defeats the object doesn't it?
    How does that increase demand? It might restrict supply (hence the desire to use the proceeds to build more).

    The other thing about this whole discussion is it refocuses attention on the social renting sector and the cost of housing benefit. I don't think that a large chunk of the middle classes really appreciate how much subsidy some people [not all, it's a very arbitrary and unfair system] get in their housing.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    The Lib Dems and UKIP are all over the place in these constituency polls. In some constituencies UKIP voters are almost all ex-Tories. In others they come from LibLabCon in equal measure. In some constituencies Labour have a crushing advantage in attracting 2010 Lib Dems, but they are themselves crushed in turn in other constituencies.

    Anything could happen.
  • BenMBenM Posts: 1,795
    Roger said:

    There are literally millions of people on housing association waiting lists. They all might as well remove their names now. No one will move from a house or flat that they have a de facto 70% interest in. Housing association property is a first line for the homeless. To remove this is nothing short of criminal. The backlash to this policy from the likes of Shelter will be enormous.

    Quite. May really struggled with it. More rightwing blackboard economics which fails the real world test.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821
    Roger said:

    There are literally millions of people on housing association waiting lists.

    Well, quite. For once you've put your finger on the problem.
  • timmo said:

    murali_s said:

    FWIW, the SPIN spreads 'gap' has reduced to 8...

    Still way too high, certainly on today's report from Lord A.

    OGH's recommendation a few weeks back to sell seat supremacy at 12 is looking increasingly sound. It's now trading at 6-12, and again it's probably still a sell.
    Only if you are prepared to hold the position till expiration.
    It's normally advisable to hold spread bets until expiration, otherwise you get hit twice with the spread margin, which are generally quite high.

    If you want to close out, or hedge, it's usually best to do so through related markets with traditional bookies. There would be plenty of options in this case.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @Kevin_Maguire: Tally ho! Here it is - Con manifesto pledge to bring back fox hunting via Parly free vote http://t.co/EkaWJdliQy

    @nicholaswatt: So that's clear then. Veto for English MPs @Conservatives http://t.co/dajlied6cS
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,415

    The Lib Dems and UKIP are all over the place in these constituency polls. In some constituencies UKIP voters are almost all ex-Tories. In others they come from LibLabCon in equal measure. In some constituencies Labour have a crushing advantage in attracting 2010 Lib Dems, but they are themselves crushed in turn in other constituencies.

    Anything could happen.

    Perhaps I'm not the only person who considers a dice rolling strategy at the ballot box.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    @Tissue_Price The Lib Dems & Labour have crashed in the Scottish polls, the Tories are on the up. Only the Tories can stop the SNP in Gordon ;)

    Same picture in Stirling ;)

    And Dunbartonshire East ;)

    And Renfrewshire East ;)
    I want the Renfrewshire East bet to come in far too much to actually put money on it.
    20/1 is actually not that bad. Tories on 30% last time, so a modest #torysurge will get them up to 33%. Then you need a near-perfect Lab-SNP split. I haven't backed it myself, mind.

    The confounding element will be tactical voting but of course Jim Murphy is having to push national messages not constituency ones.
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    isam said:

    It is very amusing to see the bizarre logic of those opposing Cameron's right to buy policy. According to Labour supporters:

    A lifetime subsidy of the rent is good. Even if the subsidy is to someone who no longer needs such a big property.

    A one-off discount on the sale, freeing up capital to be reinvested in more housing for those on the waiting list, is bad.

    You can see why we are such a mess when a large chunk of the population think like that!

    Right to buy was the cause of our family feud. My nan had the right to buy her council house in collier row for a about a grand in about 1983/4 I think... My uncle was still living at home, moved his missus in and a year later my nan was living in sheltered accommodation and he had a house he paid £1k for

    Not many people speak to the aforementioned unc

    Doesn't letting people buy them on the cheap lincrease demand for council houses for those that need them? Defeats the object doesn't it?
    The whole council house system in our country does not seem thought through on either right or left. It doesn't make sense that one group of people should be effectively given hundreds of thousands of pounds by the taxpayer because they once had a poor relative and happened to have not moved about in recent decades. Nor does it make sense that people earning triple the average income should have a life of rent subsidies. Meanwhile another group of people who are far more deserving need to live their lives out of B&Bs, perpetually being moved on.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,688

    Ishmael_X said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    Finchley looks like a classic example of UKIP voting against an EU referendum and for a Labour government.

    I hope these pr>cks are proud of themselves.

    Insult the people you need to come back to the fold, excellent strategy that has worked brilliantly thus far.
    I don't want ghastly toxic racist loonies back in the fold. I actually want all UKIPpers to just leave the country they utterly hate, like they are constantly threatening to do in the Telegraph comments.

    There is something profoundly unBritish about UKIP.
    You see no irony at all in your use of "unBritish" as an insult, nor your suggestion of forced expatriation as a cure for unBritishness?

    Do you think Aidan should leave at the same time?
    Who said anything about forced repatriation? The ghastly little oiks are dead keen on leaving. They are always banging on about how "their" country is being "stolen" by all these "immigrants clogging up the motorways".

    Right, so if they don't like it here they can just piss off somewhere that resembles Britain 60 years ago, where B & Bs still have signs saying "No Blacks or Irish", and everyone thinks Love Thy Neighbour is hilarious clean fun.

    The one place they absolutely do not belong is in an economically hawkish, socially liberal party of the centre right in 2015.
    Have you looked into anger management courses?
    Strange that kippers do not like the taste of their own medicine.
    I think Mr Bond is being a bit too harsh on some of the kipper poll numbers. Farage has plumbed the depths of 'ugly nativism' to scare many voters into an unthinking knee jerk response. However I would certainly be happy to see many of the gross crass kipper activist and public apologists take a time warp back to 1950 where they belong.
    As Mr Bond effectively points out, UKIP lost its way as soon as Farage realised there was an easy comfy seat on the gravy train with his 'ugly' dog whistles.
    Strange that people like you and Mr Bond rail against the fact that UKIP might cost your nasty little party the election and then proceed to pile all manner of insults on them when you don't get your way. As always you both prove yourselves to be petty minded, hypocritical and childish. Oh and as always utterly dishonest. It is a good long time since I have seen you make a post on here about another party that did not include some sort or misrepresentation or outright lie.

    You are both the very worst of party fanatics and your presence here significantly demeans this site.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @JGForsyth: Tory manifesto promises an English 'veto over English-only matters, including on income tax'
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,415

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    @Tissue_Price The Lib Dems & Labour have crashed in the Scottish polls, the Tories are on the up. Only the Tories can stop the SNP in Gordon ;)

    Same picture in Stirling ;)

    And Dunbartonshire East ;)

    And Renfrewshire East ;)
    I want the Renfrewshire East bet to come in far too much to actually put money on it.
    20/1 is actually not that bad. Tories on 30% last time, so a modest #torysurge will get them up to 33%. Then you need a near-perfect Lab-SNP split. I haven't backed it myself, mind.

    The confounding element will be tactical voting but of course Jim Murphy is having to push national messages not constituency ones.
    I can imagine the Conservatives fighting hard in Renfrewshire East, I think the Constituency is easier to win in 2025 or so if the SNP get in now.
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656

    It is very amusing to see the bizarre logic of those opposing Cameron's right to buy policy. According to Labour supporters:

    A lifetime subsidy of the rent is good. Even if the subsidy is to someone who no longer needs such a big property.

    A one-off discount on the sale, freeing up capital to be reinvested in more housing for those on the waiting list, is bad.

    You can see why we are such a mess when a large chunk of the population think like that!

    Is the one-off discount on the sale greater or smaller than the lifetime subsidy in NPV terms? That's the relevant question.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    JEO said:

    isam said:

    It is very amusing to see the bizarre logic of those opposing Cameron's right to buy policy. According to Labour supporters:

    A lifetime subsidy of the rent is good. Even if the subsidy is to someone who no longer needs such a big property.

    A one-off discount on the sale, freeing up capital to be reinvested in more housing for those on the waiting list, is bad.

    You can see why we are such a mess when a large chunk of the population think like that!

    Right to buy was the cause of our family feud. My nan had the right to buy her council house in collier row for a about a grand in about 1983/4 I think... My uncle was still living at home, moved his missus in and a year later my nan was living in sheltered accommodation and he had a house he paid £1k for

    Not many people speak to the aforementioned unc

    Doesn't letting people buy them on the cheap lincrease demand for council houses for those that need them? Defeats the object doesn't it?
    The whole council house system in our country does not seem thought through on either right or left. It doesn't make sense that one group of people should be effectively given hundreds of thousands of pounds by the taxpayer because they once had a poor relative and happened to have not moved about in recent decades. Nor does it make sense that people earning triple the average income should have a life of rent subsidies. Meanwhile another group of people who are far more deserving need to live their lives out of B&Bs, perpetually being moved on.
    Absolutely, it's a mental system based on entitlement not need.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    JEO said:

    isam said:

    It is very amusing to see the bizarre logic of those opposing Cameron's right to buy policy. According to Labour supporters:

    A lifetime subsidy of the rent is good. Even if the subsidy is to someone who no longer needs such a big property.

    A one-off discount on the sale, freeing up capital to be reinvested in more housing for those on the waiting list, is bad.

    You can see why we are such a mess when a large chunk of the population think like that!

    Right to buy was the cause of our family feud. My nan had the right to buy her council house in collier row for a about a grand in about 1983/4 I think... My uncle was still living at home, moved his missus in and a year later my nan was living in sheltered accommodation and he had a house he paid £1k for

    Not many people speak to the aforementioned unc

    Doesn't letting people buy them on the cheap lincrease demand for council houses for those that need them? Defeats the object doesn't it?
    The whole council house system in our country does not seem thought through on either right or left. It doesn't make sense that one group of people should be effectively given hundreds of thousands of pounds by the taxpayer because they once had a poor relative and happened to have not moved about in recent decades. Nor does it make sense that people earning triple the average income should have a life of rent subsidies. Meanwhile another group of people who are far more deserving need to live their lives out of B&Bs, perpetually being moved on.
    It's also crazy that we subsidise people to live in the very centre of London, a city with a fantastic transport network.
This discussion has been closed.