@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.
Wrong thinking from the Tories - they should be voting for Murphy. Imagine how effective a wrecker he would be as SoS for Scotland in an SNP/Lab coalition...it would be like watching one of the Godfather movies.
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.
Too right.
Post of the year.
Anyone produced a tactical voting wheel for Argyll and Bute yet ?
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;
"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?
The Libs may well be in a place where polling companies are refusing their business after the kerfuffle over the leaking of their Comfort Polling with non-standard question sequences. Reputational Damage to the polling companies can easily outweigh the revenue from a few single seat polls.
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.
The council house system has it's roots in 1940s society.
Society has moved on. The housing system needs to as well.
The only way council housing can be efficiently allocated is if it awarded to people whose circumstances are highly unlikely to change in any significant way.
That would limit it to the severely disabled and to the elderly.
The rest of society's circumstances change so much as families grow and then leave that a rigid housing system will always be an inefficient allocator of housing resources.
I have loved the left wing apoplectic at the right to buy policy, which has surprised me to say the least. As the guild flawless website noted today this could easily have been a Labour policy and the party and its supporters are in the main doing their usual Labour policy good Tory policy evil reaction.
The thing that has surprised me is that this has not already happened. The big cost in building houses is land, and the money tied up in land purchase costs whilst planning is granted. Labour clearly do not understand this as they rail against the industry land banking when it is as much the raw material of house construction as bricks and mortar.
The build cost of a house when I was studying was in early 2000s was 60k and I think this up to around about 90k with construction materials inflation running at quite a high rate over the last few years. Even allowing for 20% profit for a contractor that would be around 110k built.
As councils could use their own disused land, and acquire land from New developments through section 106 agreements they are in a good position to do this although they would need capital to invest. If central government could bridge the funding the council's could circulate the housing selling on and then providing low cost housing to those in need. This would also allow them to address one of the weaknesses of the bedroom subsidy in that suitable other housing is not available, and they could reshape housing stock to suit local demographic.
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.
Increases demand because each house sold in the cheap to a tenant means there is one less house that may become available to someone on the list doesn't it? Yes as you say restricts supply
Maybe one day someone will find a link between supply and demand. I think they're related
Social housing should be a bridge between homelessness and private purchase IMO
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.
The hereditary aspect of right to a council house is as mad as the hereditary aspect of non-dom status.
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.
@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.
On the day the election was announced I guilted lay thought a Cameron victory wouldn't be too bad. They have presided over my wealth increasing between 35-40% in the last five years. Property stock market etc. I wasn't very enthusiastic about Ed anyway not knowing what they planned but knowing for certain they would make people like me worse off. I'd decided to spend Election Day in France......
Well this is the last straw. This policy is beyond right wing it's positively back to the days of Thatcher. I'm sure like a lot of people who got involved with Shelter I will now do everything in my power to get rid of this despicable government made up of sons and daughters of millionaires who have not the slightest idea how the other half live.
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.
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.
The average price of a plot of building land in London in 2012 was £430,000. Let's call that £500,000 now. Throw in building costs and you are probably looking at north of £650,000 at a minimum for a replacement property following a sell-off. With discounts offered to tenants, to begin to think about building one the open market price of the sold property will probably need to be around £800,000 to £900,000. The average price of a property in London is significantly lower than that. This may explain why council house sales have by far outstripped replacement builds over the last few years.
On the day the election was announced I guilted lay thought a Cameron victory wouldn't be too bad. They have presided over my wealth increasing between 35-40% in the last five years. Property stock market etc. I wasn't very enthusiastic about Ed not knowing what they planned but knowing for certain they would make people like me worse off. I'd decided to spend Election Day in France......
Well this is the last straw. This policy is beyond right wing it's positively back to the days of Thatcher. I'm sure like a lot of people who got involved with Shelter I will now do everything in my power to get rid of this despicable government of sons and daughters of millionaires who have not the slightest idea how the other half live.
A policy to build new social housing to help deal with the waiting lists is the "last straw"? Each to their own, Roger.
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.
You own at least 2 homes, and you're bothered about homelessness? Why not give one to a charity and help someone less well off.
On the day the election was announced I guilted lay thought a Cameron victory wouldn't be too bad. They have presided over my wealth increasing between 35-40% in the last five years. Property stock market etc. I wasn't very enthusiastic about Ed not knowing what they planned but knowing for certain they would make people like me worse off. I'd decided to spend Election Day in France......
Well this is the last straw. This policy is beyond right wing it's positively back to the days of Thatcher. I'm sure like a lot of people who got involved with Shelter I will now do everything in my power to get rid of this despicable government of sons and daughters of millionaires who have not the slightest idea how the other half live.
A fair comment. The only small problem is that the Labour party's leadership is even wealthier and even more out of touch with ordinary people (cf the lack of understanding of why IHT is a swing issue: see here).
Ruth Davison, from the National Housing Federation - which represents housing associations - said it was "the wrong solution" to the UK's housing shortage as it would benefit "some of the most securely housed people in the country on the lowest rents".
I will now do everything in my power to get rid of this despicable government of sons and daughters of millionaires who have not the slightest idea how the other half live.
Will you go as far as writing a letter to the Guardian?
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.
Increases demand because each house sold in the cheap to a tenant means there is one less house that may become available to someone on the list doesn't it? Yes as you say restricts supply
Maybe one day someone will find a link between supply and demand. I think they're related
If people moved out of social housing then that would be true, since social housing is for life (and hereditary) then it doesn't. Social housing contracts should be on an annual basis like rental contracts, that would solve the problem.
@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 have a small 50/1 bet on the Conservatives taking Ayr Carrick & Cumnock on similar logic. I'm not expecting to collect.
@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 have a small 50/1 bet on the Conservatives taking Ayr Carrick & Cumnock on similar logic. I'm not expecting to collect.
Stirling was my pick of the 50-1 Tory outsiders. I did back the SNP at the same time mind.
@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.
The Ashcroft poll made it pretty clear there are only three horses in the race so any tactical vote would be between Tory, Labour and SNP as there's no-one else. A Tory surge can only happen if there is a sudden lack in confidence in Jim winning but we know that any voter breaking from Labour is as likely to go SNP to stop the Tories as otherwise.
Jim might benefit from tactical voting from Tory to Labour. Let's hope not.
BTW, the seat is called East Renfrewshire as it is an area called "East Renfrewshire" not the eastern portion of an area called "Renfrewshire" (which would be called Renfrewshire East).
The hereditary aspect of right to a council house is as mad as the hereditary aspect of non-dom status.
There really isn't a hereditary aspect to non-dom status. This is a misunderstanding. The domicile of the father is just the starting position at birth, which is reasonable enough (although it might make more sense to take the domicile of the mother as the starting point). So, for example, a new-born baby whose father is French and who has no long-term association with any other country is deemed (aged 0) to be domiciled in France. If the baby grows up to be an adult living in England, aiming to remain in England for the rest of his or her life and with no intention of retiring to France then the domicile will switch to England (it's a bit more complicated than that, but that is the outline).
@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 have a small 50/1 bet on the Conservatives taking Ayr Carrick & Cumnock on similar logic. I'm not expecting to collect.
Stirling was my pick of the 50-1 Tory outsiders. I did back the SNP at the same time mind.
28/1 in Argyll and Bute may be another good value loser. The Tories should not have any truck with tactical voting anywhere that the SNP look nailed on for (except maybe Gordon) and thus put themselves in prime position for 2020, rather than risk the LD's coming second in places like Argyll, Inverness and Aberdeenshire W.
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.
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.
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.
It's very tiresome to read arguments along the lines that people who won't vote for party A must only do so because their stupid, malevolent, and unBritish. All parties produce these trolls on the internet and twitter.
Cameron appears to be making a conference speech, focusing on the achievements of his government, rather than explaining what his manifesto contains.
I suppose if he likes big set piece conference speeches, then this may be his last opportunity as I doubt he'll be there in October, unless its a valedictory before the new leader is elected, but he really should be setting out his policies for a second term should he not?
I have loved the left wing apoplectic at the right to buy policy, which has surprised me to say the least. As the guild flawless website noted today this could easily have been a Labour policy and the party and its supporters are in the main doing their usual Labour policy good Tory policy evil reaction.
It's a hard-left socialist policy which even the actual socialists won't touch because of all the negative, destructive long term problems it causes.
When an actual socialist is out-thinking the Tories on what will and won't work, you can be pretty sure the Tories are wrong.
Fortunately it's being abolished in Scotland, so future generations here might have the chance at social housing where needed.
On the day the election was announced I guilted lay thought a Cameron victory wouldn't be too bad. They have presided over my wealth increasing between 35-40% in the last five years. Property stock market etc. I wasn't very enthusiastic about Ed not knowing what they planned but knowing for certain they would make people like me worse off. I'd decided to spend Election Day in France......
Well this is the last straw. This policy is beyond right wing it's positively back to the days of Thatcher. I'm sure like a lot of people who got involved with Shelter I will now do everything in my power to get rid of this despicable government of sons and daughters of millionaires who have not the slightest idea how the other half live.
A policy to build new social housing to help deal with the waiting lists is the "last straw"? Each to their own, Roger.
Councils are supposed to replace every council house they sell. They don't. many more are sold than are built. Is there any reason to believe that they same thing will not happen with housing association sales? Especially in London, where the price of land is so high.
On the day the election was announced I guilted lay thought a Cameron victory wouldn't be too bad. They have presided over my wealth increasing between 35-40% in the last five years. Property stock market etc. I wasn't very enthusiastic about Ed not knowing what they planned but knowing for certain they would make people like me worse off. I'd decided to spend Election Day in France......
Well this is the last straw. This policy is beyond right wing it's positively back to the days of Thatcher. I'm sure like a lot of people who got involved with Shelter I will now do everything in my power to get rid of this despicable government of sons and daughters of millionaires who have not the slightest idea how the other half live.
A policy to build new social housing to help deal with the waiting lists is the "last straw"? Each to their own, Roger.
Councils are supposed to replace every council house they sell. They don't. many more are sold than are built. Is there any reason to believe that they same thing will not happen with housing association sales? Especially in London, where the price of land is so high.
Well I wouldn't advocate building social housing in the centre of London. No doubt that makes me a cleanser or some such.
I have loved the left wing apoplectic at the right to buy policy, which has surprised me to say the least. As the guild flawless website noted today this could easily have been a Labour policy and the party and its supporters are in the main doing their usual Labour policy good Tory policy evil reaction.
It's a hard-left socialist policy which even the actual socialists won't touch because of all the negative, destructive long term problems it causes.
When an actual socialist is out-thinking the Tories on what will and won't work, you can be pretty sure the Tories are wrong.
Fortunately it's being abolished in Scotland, so future generations here might have the chance at social housing where needed.
If someone has a secure or assured tenancy with a HA then its for life, are you aware of that?
There was some talk upthread about the ground war - just got this
I am writing to invite you to join us on the Conservative Party's Battlebus. For years Labour and the Unions have run activist campaign buses to marginal seats. Now for the first time in decades we have our own versions which will target scores of marginal seats in the final few weeks.
Leading MPs, Peers and the leadership of the voluntary Party are personally leading each Battlebus. When we arrive in marginal seats we will be met by leading Cabinet Ministers. Our Battlebuses are fully liveried with our Union Flag, Conservative Party branding, with wifi enabled comfortable interiors.
We fund all hotel and food costs, but we are asking for a small contribution of £50 per week from each of you. (£25 for students).
Most evenings see a special meal with a significant Party figure who will share their thoughts on the issues of the day.
These Battlebuses are at the heart of the final election push. We will not be leafleting or canvassing. Rather we will be doing door to door persuasion with swing voters in marginal seats. As such we will also be providing full training on messaging and advanced doorstep communication skills.
We are offering you the opportunity to join us for:
The whole 10 days The first five days (Sunday 26th April – Friday 1st May) The last five days (Friday 1st May – Wednesday 7th May)
You can choose to be based from Tamworth - able to hit the whole Midlands and much of the North. Or you can be based out of the Taunton area - able to hit the whole South West and much of Wales and the South East. We will transport people there from London or you can meet us there.
This is an unprecedented opportunity to be at the heart of the campaign. Over 100 people have already signed up, but there are a few places left. Will you be on the bus? Mark Clarke Founder & Director, Roadtrip2015 & Battlebus2015
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.
The average price of a plot of building land in London in 2012 was £430,000. Let's call that £500,000 now. Throw in building costs and you are probably looking at north of £650,000 at a minimum for a replacement property following a sell-off. With discounts offered to tenants, to begin to think about building one the open market price of the sold property will probably need to be around £800,000 to £900,000. The average price of a property in London is significantly lower than that. This may explain why council house sales have by far outstripped replacement builds over the last few years.
What's the median price for land?
I just don't believe your statistics. The average price of a house in London, is around £400K (IIRC) so a land cost above that just doesn't make sense. I suspect they are distorted by the stupid land prices you see in the super-prime areas (e.g. £230K for an 11x6 garage near me)
I have loved the left wing apoplectic at the right to buy policy, which has surprised me to say the least. As the guild flawless website noted today this could easily have been a Labour policy and the party and its supporters are in the main doing their usual Labour policy good Tory policy evil reaction.
It's a hard-left socialist policy which even the actual socialists won't touch because of all the negative, destructive long term problems it causes.
When an actual socialist is out-thinking the Tories on what will and won't work, you can be pretty sure the Tories are wrong.
Fortunately it's being abolished in Scotland, so future generations here might have the chance at social housing where needed.
How many well off people with secure jobs and retirements are turfed out of their council houses to make room for the less well off in Scotland ?
The big announcement of this manifesto is a promise of 30 hours a week of free childcare for three- and four-year-olds. The Conservatives are doubling the existing provision, saving parents £5,000 a year.
Labour have promised 25 hours a week.
The Dutch auction continues....(yes, I know technically it's not a Dutch auction, but the sight of parties competing to bribe us with our own money is unedifying..)
On the day the election was announced I guilted lay thought a Cameron victory wouldn't be too bad. They have presided over my wealth increasing between 35-40% in the last five years. Property stock market etc. I wasn't very enthusiastic about Ed not knowing what they planned but knowing for certain they would make people like me worse off. I'd decided to spend Election Day in France......
Well this is the last straw. This policy is beyond right wing it's positively back to the days of Thatcher. I'm sure like a lot of people who got involved with Shelter I will now do everything in my power to get rid of this despicable government of sons and daughters of millionaires who have not the slightest idea how the other half live.
A policy to build new social housing to help deal with the waiting lists is the "last straw"? Each to their own, Roger.
Councils are supposed to replace every council house they sell. They don't. many more are sold than are built. Is there any reason to believe that they same thing will not happen with housing association sales? Especially in London, where the price of land is so high.
How many new houses are built to replace the houses let out for life rather than sold without RTB? Given there's no time limit to staying in social housing if even one new house gets built (and its more than that) due to RTB sales then that's more availability not less.
Given you're so adamant you want social housing availability are you opposed to the "for life" nature of current social housing? Or is that good, but actual sales and new builds bad?
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.
The average price of a plot of building land in London in 2012 was £430,000. Let's call that £500,000 now. Throw in building costs and you are probably looking at north of £650,000 at a minimum for a replacement property following a sell-off. With discounts offered to tenants, to begin to think about building one the open market price of the sold property will probably need to be around £800,000 to £900,000. The average price of a property in London is significantly lower than that. This may explain why council house sales have by far outstripped replacement builds over the last few years.
What's the median price for land?
I just don't believe your statistics. The average price of a house in London, is around £400K (IIRC) so a land cost above that just doesn't make sense. I suspect they are distorted by the stupid land prices you see in the super-prime areas (e.g. £230K for an 11x6 garage near me)
Land costs could be higher than a house price. The reason flats are built is that you pay for the land once but go upwards which is less cost effective after approx 3 storeys. Hence most domestic property does not go above this but in areas of high land value people build upwards to maximise value.
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.
The council house system has it's roots in 1940s society.
Society has moved on. The housing system needs to as well.
The only way council housing can be efficiently allocated is if it awarded to people whose circumstances are highly unlikely to change in any significant way.
That would limit it to the severely disabled and to the elderly.
The rest of society's circumstances change so much as families grow and then leave that a rigid housing system will always be an inefficient allocator of housing resources.
People being given housing benefit to live in private rented accommodation do not have an expectation that it is "their home", and so people living in council houses should not get such a mentality either. It needs to be made clear these are people renting from the state. They should get their house for a five year rental, charged a market price rent, and then get benefits to cover part or all of that rent. That benefit should be part of the benefit cap to stop subsidizing people to live in Kensington & Chelsea. If their income goes up, they should get reduced benefits in line with the universal credit formula. If the state needs to re-allocate to more needy people, then that gets assessed at the end of five years.
Cameron appears to be making a conference speech, focusing on the achievements of his government, rather than explaining what his manifesto contains.
I suppose if he likes big set piece conference speeches, then this may be his last opportunity as I doubt he'll be there in October, unless its a valedictory before the new leader is elected, but he really should be setting out his policies for a second term should he not?
That's surely a good thing. "Governments lose elections, oppositions don't win them" - a government should spend most of its effort trying to convince the electorate its don't a good job so far (its achievements) rather than just commitments for next time. By ignoring its own achievements any government would lower itself to the same platform as the Opposition.
I'd rather judge a government on its track record so far than just what it claims it will do next time. Don't you?
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.
The average price of a plot of building land in London in 2012 was £430,000. Let's call that £500,000 now. Throw in building costs and you are probably looking at north of £650,000 at a minimum for a replacement property following a sell-off. With discounts offered to tenants, to begin to think about building one the open market price of the sold property will probably need to be around £800,000 to £900,000. The average price of a property in London is significantly lower than that. This may explain why council house sales have by far outstripped replacement builds over the last few years.
Can we have some citations for these figures please. £500k for a plot of land in London doesn't sound realistic at all. Maybe in some parts of Kensington it will go as high as that but there is no way that in places like Wood Green or Tottenham a plot would cost even half that figure.
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.
Increases demand because each house sold in the cheap to a tenant means there is one less house that may become available to someone on the list doesn't it? Yes as you say restricts supply
Maybe one day someone will find a link between supply and demand. I think they're related
If people moved out of social housing then that would be true, since social housing is for life (and hereditary) then it doesn't. Social housing contracts should be on an annual basis like rental contracts, that would solve the problem.
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.
The average price of a plot of building land in London in 2012 was £430,000. Let's call that £500,000 now. Throw in building costs and you are probably looking at north of £650,000 at a minimum for a replacement property following a sell-off. With discounts offered to tenants, to begin to think about building one the open market price of the sold property will probably need to be around £800,000 to £900,000. The average price of a property in London is significantly lower than that. This may explain why council house sales have by far outstripped replacement builds over the last few years.
What's the median price for land?
I just don't believe your statistics. The average price of a house in London, is around £400K (IIRC) so a land cost above that just doesn't make sense. I suspect they are distorted by the stupid land prices you see in the super-prime areas (e.g. £230K for an 11x6 garage near me)
The price of bricks and mortar is the same everywhere, it is the location that affects the price. Land prices follow house prices and in London they have risen hugely over recent years. Of course, there will be price variations - but that will also affect how much properties can be sold for.
The simple fact is that although it is already government policy for council house sales to be matched by new builds, the proportion of sales to builds is something like 5 to 1.
Cameron appears to be making a conference speech, focusing on the achievements of his government, rather than explaining what his manifesto contains.
I suppose if he likes big set piece conference speeches, then this may be his last opportunity as I doubt he'll be there in October, unless its a valedictory before the new leader is elected, but he really should be setting out his policies for a second term should he not?
As I recall, Blair made a virtue of fighting the 2001 election on his record in government.
Of course, he hadn't actually done anything, but at least it meant so far as anyone could judge he hadn't suffered any catastrophic disasters, which I suppose was a form of progress after Major.
Taking the last four rounds of Ashcroft marginal polling together, we get a swing of 3% from Con to Lab., and 4.8% from Lib Dem to Con.
If the swing were uniform, one would see 38 Conservative losses to Labour, and 17 Conservative gains from the Lib Dems. Assuming 4 Conservative losses to Others, that would result in 281 seats for the party.
In all likelihood, the Conservatives would be the largest party, on these numbers, but short of the numbers they need to remain in office.
"Dr" Eoin Clarke caught out again...time for clarification / correction number 1,894,974. Why the left take any notice of him I have no idea, he has been caught out lying and fiddling time and time and time again.
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)
I am quite green on stuff like planting trees, not building on gardens, not destroying natural habitats etc but there is no way on earth I would ever vote for a party which wants to ban horse-racing.
'Free' childcare is funded by taxpayers' money. So it's a combination of people with children paying for their childcare, and people without children paying for other people's childcare. If people are going to pay for their own childcare, better to do it without the bureaucratic machinery involved (the process of taking, administering and giving out money will consume some of the funds).
Incidentally, the English 'veto' is far more important than the childcare policy, or the right to buy stuff.
At the moment it literally looks like a bit of luck for the Tories. They are just combining five years of inflationary rises in the minimum wage with their £12.5k threshold. No surprise that they have defined full time as 30h per week rather than the more standard 35h as that would not allow them to make such a pledge without implying a drop off in minimum wage rises.
Absolutely and about time too. It should be locked in law too.
As someone who runs a small business I find it shocking for the government to be saying we should be constantly increasing our costs due to it being the minimum people need - but then taking that money off our employees. If its the minimum needed, it should be kept by them.
Taxing minimum wage employees is no better than paying less than minimum wage. It should never be tolerated and this should be locked into the minimum wage legislation so that a future Labour government would have to change the legislation to raise the minimum wage but not the tax free threshold.
Next step should be raising the NI threshold to the same rate.
norman smith @BBCNormanS 40s40 seconds ago I didn't come into politics to be a high powered accountant balancing the books - David Cameron
Happen as well - he isn't high powered, and he isn't balancing the books!
I reckon he knows the game is up, but he's had a fun 5 years being PM and travelling the world, and frankly the harder job would be the next 5 years, so let Ed sort that mess out...
Keeping it till after the speech. Sensible enough if there's more to come. Don't want your speech overshadowed by other things (e.g. foxhunting free vote already leaked).
@Plato No Tax, no services, unless we all volunteer to sweep the streets, police ourselves, and help those in need. Very libertarian, in a cretinous way.
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.
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.
It's really a logic problem, not a maths problem per se,
If you're someone who has done a lot of logic puzzles in the past it's a fairly easy one (I generally measure complexity of logic puzzles in units of "backs of envelopes", and that definitely fits on one). If you're not used to logic puzzles then the style might be quite impenetrable: I suspect it's the "A knows that B doesn't know ..." issue that causes the most confusion.
Four men were seated around a table. They were blindfolded and a colored hat was placed on each of their heads. They were told a true statement "The hats on your heads were chosen from 2 white hats, 2 black hats and 1 red hat" Then the fifth hat was taken away and the blindfolds were removed.
Each logician was asked to name the color of their hat. If they could logically do so, they did, otherwise said "I don't know". The question was repeated to each of them in circular fashion (more than once, if need be) until only one of them failed to name the color of his own hat. The red hat was not given, but the logicians didn't know this.
Which logician failed to name the color of his hat even when the other three had? (Was it the man who was asked the first question, the man who was asked the second question, the man who was asked the third question, or the man who was asked the fourth question?)
When I first saw that one, I was able to work it out in my head, but it was genuinely mentally exhausting. A couple of backs of envelopes would have helped.
Absolutely and about time too. It should be locked in law too.
As someone who runs a small business I find it shocking for the government to be saying we should be constantly increasing our costs due to it being the minimum people need - but then taking that money off our employees. If its the minimum needed, it should be kept by them.
Taxing minimum wage employees is no better than paying less than minimum wage. It should never be tolerated and this should be locked into the minimum wage legislation so that a future Labour government would have to change the legislation to raise the minimum wage but not the tax free threshold.
Next step should be raising the NI threshold to the same rate.
Absolutely and about time too. It should be locked in law too.
As someone who runs a small business I find it shocking for the government to be saying we should be constantly increasing our costs due to it being the minimum people need - but then taking that money off our employees. If its the minimum needed, it should be kept by them.
Taxing minimum wage employees is no better than paying less than minimum wage. It should never be tolerated and this should be locked into the minimum wage legislation so that a future Labour government would have to change the legislation to raise the minimum wage but not the tax free threshold.
Next step should be raising the NI threshold to the same rate.
Sorry to quote myself but I missed the fact that this was a legislation change. Great move.
Interesting that Labour's manifesto was rather thin and cautious, with little or nothing that was new, whereas the Conservatives are being bolder.
Well for Labour, a blank piece of paper is quite difficult to fill a whole tone with. It does make you wonder what the hell all those committees Ed set up to think up ideas did for all those years. The ban non-dom and ZHC were clearly thought up in 2 minutes after reading the Guardian.
Where all policies those committees thought up ignored or did they just do absolutely nothing.
Absolutely and about time too. It should be locked in law too.
As someone who runs a small business I find it shocking for the government to be saying we should be constantly increasing our costs due to it being the minimum people need - but then taking that money off our employees. If its the minimum needed, it should be kept by them.
Taxing minimum wage employees is no better than paying less than minimum wage. It should never be tolerated and this should be locked into the minimum wage legislation so that a future Labour government would have to change the legislation to raise the minimum wage but not the tax free threshold.
Next step should be raising the NI threshold to the same rate.
That's there commitment.
"The basic tax-free allowance will be automatically uprated so that no-one earning the minimum wage will pay income tax."
Next step should be raising the NI threshold to the same rate.
While I can see the logic in your remarks, NI is of course a determinant for benefits and above all pensions. So to take those people who, as the poorest in society, would be most likely to need benefits if they lost their jobs, out of NI would require another radical overhaul of the benefits system and of the state pension system. That strikes me as a bad idea given the upheaval they have just gone through.
'Free' childcare is funded by taxpayers' money. So it's a combination of people with children paying for their childcare, and people without children paying for other people's childcare. If people are going to pay for their own childcare, better to do it without the bureaucratic machinery involved (the process of taking, administering and giving out money will consume some of the funds).
Incidentally, the English 'veto' is far more important than the childcare policy, or the right to buy stuff.
Mr. Grandiose, "It's deceitful. It's unfunded. I support it."
Doubling 'free' childcare will be popular, but seems crackers to me.
It's an excellent policy which will likely cost very little due to the income tax receipts that result from more parents being able to work.
Tax free minimum wage sounds very expensive though - if the MW rises to £8 an hour by the end of the parliament then that implies a personal allowance of £14,100 by 2020 (8 * 37.5 * 47). And presumably NI thresholds will not rise too.
Comments
Post of the year.
Anyone produced a tactical voting wheel for Argyll and Bute yet
If the Anti-SNP bods want a Lib candidate to vote for, clearly the best choice is East Renfrewshire. Only the Libs can stop the SNP in East Ren.
Society has moved on. The housing system needs to as well.
The only way council housing can be efficiently allocated is if it awarded to people whose circumstances are highly unlikely to change in any significant way.
That would limit it to the severely disabled and to the elderly.
The rest of society's circumstances change so much as families grow and then leave that a rigid housing system will always be an inefficient allocator of housing resources.
The thing that has surprised me is that this has not already happened. The big cost in building houses is land, and the money tied up in land purchase costs whilst planning is granted. Labour clearly do not understand this as they rail against the industry land banking when it is as much the raw material of house construction as bricks and mortar.
The build cost of a house when I was studying was in early 2000s was 60k and I think this up to around about 90k with construction materials inflation running at quite a high rate over the last few years. Even allowing for 20% profit for a contractor that would be around 110k built.
As councils could use their own disused land, and acquire land from New developments through section 106 agreements they are in a good position to do this although they would need capital to invest. If central government could bridge the funding the council's could circulate the housing selling on and then providing low cost housing to those in need. This would also allow them to address one of the weaknesses of the bedroom subsidy in that suitable other housing is not available, and they could reshape housing stock to suit local demographic.
Maybe one day someone will find a link between supply and demand. I think they're related
Social housing should be a bridge between homelessness and private purchase IMO
http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-wheels-keep-turning/
Well this is the last straw. This policy is beyond right wing it's positively back to the days of Thatcher. I'm sure like a lot of people who got involved with Shelter I will now do everything in my power to get rid of this despicable government made up of sons and daughters of millionaires who have not the slightest idea how the other half live.
http://order-order.com/2015/04/14/red-in-the-fed-housing-critic-is-paid-up-labour-member/#_@/bIF0hpV1O7rTwA
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32295970
No mention that...
http://order-order.com/2015/04/14/red-in-the-fed-housing-critic-is-paid-up-labour-member
Labour's response to that will be interesting. They're in danger of being too English in Scotland, and too Scottish in England.
Like being in the Lords !
Jim might benefit from tactical voting from Tory to Labour. Let's hope not.
BTW, the seat is called East Renfrewshire as it is an area called "East Renfrewshire" not the eastern portion of an area called "Renfrewshire" (which would be called Renfrewshire East).
Um...
Doubling 'free' childcare will be popular, but seems crackers to me.
I suppose if he likes big set piece conference speeches, then this may be his last opportunity as I doubt he'll be there in October, unless its a valedictory before the new leader is elected, but he really should be setting out his policies for a second term should he not?
When an actual socialist is out-thinking the Tories on what will and won't work, you can be pretty sure the Tories are wrong.
Fortunately it's being abolished in Scotland, so future generations here might have the chance at social housing where needed.
I just don't believe your statistics. The average price of a house in London, is around £400K (IIRC) so a land cost above that just doesn't make sense. I suspect they are distorted by the stupid land prices you see in the super-prime areas (e.g. £230K for an 11x6 garage near me)
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/14/future-of-coppelia-cuba-socialist-ice-cream-cathedral
But during an election campaign, one would think that knowing this about the commentators would help you weight their opinions.
Labour have promised 25 hours a week.
The Dutch auction continues....(yes, I know technically it's not a Dutch auction, but the sight of parties competing to bribe us with our own money is unedifying..)
I didn't come into politics to be a high powered accountant balancing the books - David Cameron
Given you're so adamant you want social housing availability are you opposed to the "for life" nature of current social housing? Or is that good, but actual sales and new builds bad?
That would be a sensible system.
I'd rather judge a government on its track record so far than just what it claims it will do next time. Don't you?
Agree with what you are saying. It seems another example of the welfare state going from safety net to lifestyle choice
The simple fact is that although it is already government policy for council house sales to be matched by new builds, the proportion of sales to builds is something like 5 to 1.
Of course, he hadn't actually done anything, but at least it meant so far as anyone could judge he hadn't suffered any catastrophic disasters, which I suppose was a form of progress after Major.
If the swing were uniform, one would see 38 Conservative losses to Labour, and 17 Conservative gains from the Lib Dems. Assuming 4 Conservative losses to Others, that would result in 281 seats for the party.
In all likelihood, the Conservatives would be the largest party, on these numbers, but short of the numbers they need to remain in office.
http://order-order.com/2015/04/14/no-the-times-did-not-call-out-the-tories-on-the-recession/
But that's irrelevant.
'Free' childcare is funded by taxpayers' money. So it's a combination of people with children paying for their childcare, and people without children paying for other people's childcare. If people are going to pay for their own childcare, better to do it without the bureaucratic machinery involved (the process of taking, administering and giving out money will consume some of the funds).
Incidentally, the English 'veto' is far more important than the childcare policy, or the right to buy stuff.
As someone who runs a small business I find it shocking for the government to be saying we should be constantly increasing our costs due to it being the minimum people need - but then taking that money off our employees. If its the minimum needed, it should be kept by them.
Taxing minimum wage employees is no better than paying less than minimum wage. It should never be tolerated and this should be locked into the minimum wage legislation so that a future Labour government would have to change the legislation to raise the minimum wage but not the tax free threshold.
Next step should be raising the NI threshold to the same rate.
I reckon he knows the game is up, but he's had a fun 5 years being PM and travelling the world, and frankly the harder job would be the next 5 years, so let Ed sort that mess out...
Nada on the Tory website. Not a jot. Hopeless.
CON 34 (+4)
LAB 32 (-1)
LIB 9 (+1)
UKIP 14 (-5)
GRN 5 (+1)
Fieldwork 9th-13th
N=1,192
Tabs http://t.co/lJOsXCYtY5
#GE2015 #bbcdp
No Tax, no services, unless we all volunteer to sweep the streets, police ourselves, and help those in need.
Very libertarian, in a cretinous way.
If you're someone who has done a lot of logic puzzles in the past it's a fairly easy one (I generally measure complexity of logic puzzles in units of "backs of envelopes", and that definitely fits on one). If you're not used to logic puzzles then the style might be quite impenetrable: I suspect it's the "A knows that B doesn't know ..." issue that causes the most confusion.
A well-known class of logic puzzle which takes this even further is "logicians and hats", where the logicians can see other people's hats but not their own. One of my favourite examples is this one, "Five hats and four logicians in a circle": When I first saw that one, I was able to work it out in my head, but it was genuinely mentally exhausting. A couple of backs of envelopes would have helped.
Can't find it anywhere on the Tory website (which is an absolute nightmare and uses too many capitals).
Where all policies those committees thought up ignored or did they just do absolutely nothing.
"The basic tax-free allowance will be automatically uprated so that no-one earning the minimum wage will pay income tax."
Will give you a good idea.
LAB 32% (-1), CON 34% (+4), LIB DEM 9% (+1), UKIP 14% (-5), GREEN 5% (+1), OTHER 5% (-2)
http://www.tns-bmrb.co.uk/news/election-race-close-but-public-think-tories-will-be-largest-party
Tax free minimum wage sounds very expensive though - if the MW rises to £8 an hour by the end of the parliament then that implies a personal allowance of £14,100 by 2020 (8 * 37.5 * 47). And presumably NI thresholds will not rise too.